I like to poke fun at the Kellogg people (Northwestern’s B-school,
not the cereal), given that I’m a University of Chicago Booth guy. In reality, the rivalry is friendly, and so
it wasn’t surprising that Kellogg prof Tim Calkins came to Booth to talk about
evaluating Super Bowl ads. I thought his
framework was worth sharing, and you might have some fun viewing the ads
through it.
The framework is called ADPLAN, and here are the six criteria:
Attention
Distinction
Positioning
Linkage
Amplification
N et
equity
Here’s what they mean.
Attention
– Did the ad do something to attract your attention? Apple’s “1984” ad is the classic example. The old Bud Bowl ads also did a good job
attracting attention. One of my favorite
ads from last year’s game was the very funny M&M’S “dancing candy” ad.
Distinction – Did
the ad stand out? Was it different? The M&M’S ad stood out; so too did a
car ad with Matthew Broderick reprising his Ferris Bueller character. But distinction alone does not make an ad
effective (see Linkage below).
Positioning – Did
the ad clearly state what the product/service does, who it is for, what
benefits it provides, and how it is different from or better than the
competition. Tthe E-Trade “baby” ads clearly target younger adults with an emphasis
on ease and now expertise. The old
Miller Lite “great taste, less filling” ads also were strong in terms of
positioning (as well as meeting several other criteria – great ads.).
Linkage –
Very critical. You have to
be able to associate the brand with the ad.
Back to the Ferris Bueller ad which, as you see, I refer to as “the
Ferris Bueller ad.” Why? Because I did not remember which auto brand
did the ad (it was Honda; I googled it).
No linkage. On the other hand, I
knew from the first millisecond that the M&M’S ad was for M&M’S. (And, see, I called it “the M&M’S ad.”).
Amplification
– How did you react to the ad?
Was it something you would remember?
If so, favorably or unfavorably?
I certainly remember Chrysler’s halftime ad last year with Clint
Eastwood. Frankly, I found the ad
depressing. The economy was in pretty
bad shape back then, and all that ad did was remind people of that fact. The Super Bowl should provide a little
escape; that ad reeled everybody back in.
And it was justifiably criticized.
Net
equity – Brand equity is a phrase us marketers like to bandy about. Makes us sound smart. But seriously, no matter how extravagant the
ad, it needs to remain consistent with the brand. Another reason I like what E-Trade does is
even when it introduces new ads, it is within the confines of the brand. The other ads which I think really enhance equity
are the Budweiser Clydesdale ads. The
ads tell great stories, and just really add to the brand.
So if this is too much for you to get, there is an easier
way. Call it the BBB method, which
combines the six attributes into three.
Breakthrough
(awareness and distinction) Did the ad wow you?
Benefit
(positioning and amplification) Did it resonate positively?
Branding (linkage and net equity) Was it consistent with what you
would expect from the brand?
Or you could just basically not overthink it and decide whether or
not you liked the ads.
So, enjoy the ads (and the game).
And feel free to let us know which ads you liked most.
And if you want to see how the Kellogg people graded the ads, visit http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/superbowl/
