So who won?


Last night I was on the phone with a dear friend, a fellow marketing guru who occasionally feels the need to knock me out of my gucci heels. (And just for the record, I only own two pairs of Gucci’s.) Being thrown a punch has always been part of the ebb and flow of our friendship. A small price I pay to be able to dump on her about all that’s fabulous in my world and well, she can only tolerate so much of a girl’s fabulousness, and occasionally will chop me at the knees. I call it brand alignment. I know that an outside perspective never hurts – even if you get smacked in the gut. [But I will add that she said, she doesn’t opt-in often to my blog because: a) she feels at times it lacks content relevant to her, and, b) tends to lean more towards style than substance.

And if I can quote her further, and if memory serves me correctly (although she will correct me because she apparently remembers more about me than I do), I think she also said:
c) “… who cares if you have green eyes?”
d) “… I don’t give a _ _ _ _ that you misspend your money at expensive boutiques. (The Fred Segal entry apparently was way too much for her.)
e) “… will you kindly get back to being Kwas? More brand and less girl.”
And finally,
f) Yes, i understand you’re in LA… infotainment, … but Paris Hilton is enough.”

Love right back at you sister. But what better segue into talk about the Super bowl ads (where style often trumps substance), and to see first hand how often (or not), my dear friend actually wanders through my blog?

The substance:
Given we are well-immersed in the era of social media, we are hardly lacking for commentary on anything, including the 2007 Superbowl Ads. The ads continue to grow in popularity that almost rivals the actual game. And now that I know that the ads are posted almost immediately at the end of every quarter, why watch the game? (Unless of course, its your team or NYC.) To think air time cost as much as five million for a minute. Is that right? Certainly the internet and all the free content providers like a YouTube, will continue to effect this evolving world of media and its costs.

Now as far as ad commentary, there is so much out there, but I was intrigued to see that the New York Times Stuart Elliott mused about the ads being rough and tough (aren’t they always), and potentially this being influenced by the undertones of the Iraq war. And as always, themes of peace nicely played out in Coke’s efforts – very on-brand for the Blue-Chip Giant.

I browsed through many of the commercials and hello, Fed Ex deserves kudos for the best use of a dancing Burt Reynolds and a bear. I also liked the Doritos spot. It worked, as did the whole “Crash the Superbowl” promotion. It was a good use of amateur talent.

And speaking of amateurs, what was Revlon thinking? The Revlon “attempt” with Sheryl Crowe smacked of a poorly executed creative brief. Or were their just too many stylists at the sink? It was really streaky – like that of a $10 dye job. Surely that wasn’t the look that they were going for? I don’t want to be going back to basics, but was the Superbowl the right target audience? Was that really Sheryl Crowe’s colorist – or was Revlon channeling Queer Eye? But the bigger questions that the Revlon spots raised that are begging to be answered are: “Do you really have to renew your Revlon color every week; and what if you are a brunette? Every day? But lucky for Revlon, we already love Sheryl.

And of course there’s now the whole hoopla by the National Restaurant Association over Kevin Federline and his role of a fast food clerk in the Nationwide spot. People, people, all of this continues to feed into the (not deserving) popularity of Kevin Federline (who I initially at first glance thought was just another American Idol loser mopping up his winnings.) Why the fuss?

And since I’m on a roll and Queer Eye was mentioned, somewhere through my browsing I stumbled upon show previews for Bud.TV, Anheuser-Busch’s new entertainment Web site. I saw something for “What Girls Want.” Three gals get to dress up a frumpy guy. (Novel idea.) Does a girl really want to have to dress her guy? Especially if he’s over 18, which you must be to view the site. If a girl wants to dress a boy, shouldn’t she just adopt one? And there’s a reason Queer Eye is no longer on the air – joke is over.

The only fresh perspective (I think) I can offer is that I did notice that the theme of family was glaringly missing from the gathering of ads. Like the one that McDonald’s did a few years back with the kid in a swinging chair. I sure it’s on YouTube somewhere. That was so sweet and o so McDonald’s. Hmmm… by the way. Where was McDonalds? Now why weren’t they in the game? And what are they doing with the millions that they saved by not airing on Sunday? Now there’s an angle to be explored and a budget to be chased, but maybe tomorrow. Now I think I will go take a walk… in my Gucci’s of course.  xx!

Filed: branding

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.