Super Bowl Ad Winners and Losers

First, a review.  In evaluating these ads, I used a framework developed by some folks at Northwestern Kellogg.  The framework is called ADPLAN, and here are the six criteria:

A ttention – Did the ad attract your attention (good or bad)?

D istinction – Did the ad stand out (again in a good way)? 

P ositioning – Did the ad state benefits and differentiate the brand from competitors?

L inkage –Did you remember whose ad it was, whether or not you liked it?

A mplification – How did you react to the ad? 

N et equity – Was the ad consistent with your perception of the brand?

I boil the framework down into:

1.     Did I like the ad as an ad?

2.     Would I have known whose ad it was as a casual observer?

3.     Did it either reinforce brand positioning or at least create favorable awareness?

With that in mind, here are my thoughts.

Best ad:  Oreo cookie or crème. A very clever take on the classic Miller Lite “Tastes Great, Less Filling” spots.  The ad was distinctive, funny and attention-getting, and clearly reinforced the brand. 

Second place: Budweiser Clydesdale.  These spots are just classics.  The Clydesdales have been associated with Budweiser forever, so the linkage is almost intuitive.  And every year they come up with memorable, heartwarming little tales. 

Third place: Mercedes Benz CLA “Sympathy for the Devil.”  You will never go wrong with me playing a Rolling Stones song – especially that one.  I am going to assume that 30-somethings and 40-somethings can relate to the Stones, so I liked the fact that MB was going younger, and even put the $29,900 price at the end of the commercial.  Not what I would necessarily expect from the, but good.  I did not really like the Kate Upton ad (other than it had Kate Upton in it) because it was just a me too ”hot girl with a car” ad.

Fourth place: Dodge Ram farmer.  I never was a Paul Harvey fan, although I did respect his writing ability.  But that distinctive voice grabs your attention.  Masterful, exquisite words.  It creates a “toughness” positioning consistent with the brand.  This is one of those ads that, because they did not show the brand until the end, there is a danger people will remember the ad, but not the product.  But this one may have been compelling enough that people would watch the whole thing.

Fifth place: Jeep “Whole Again.  This ad was inspirational and uplifting, compared to last year’s morose “Halftime in America” ad by Chrysler.  Great emotional impact on this one.  And enough product placement to help with brand recall.  

Honorable mention:  Doritos (always funny), Bud Lite “Very Superstitious” ads (great extension of their “It’s Only Weird if it Doesn’t Work” campaign), Skechers "Cheetah" (talk about reinforcing a product benefit), and Pepsi Next.  And an extra honorable mention to CBS.  My two favorite comedies are Two Broke Girls and The Big Bang Theory.  Spots for both those shows were clever.

Worst ad (ever?): GoDaddy.  I know “sex” ads are part of their brand, and most of the time they are OK.  But this one (we will call it the face sucking ad), was disgusting.  Their “Big Idea” ad was stupid, so I would call GoDaddy the big loser.

Dishonorable mention:  VW (stupid, stupid), Hyundai (eminently forgettable), Axe Apollo (lifeguard rescuing babe in a bikini – how cliché), Samsung “Next Big Thing” (the ad certainly isn’t).

Finally, if you want to see how the Kellogg folks evaluated the ads, you can visit http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu- Get /news/superbowl/