Superbowl XLV - The Ads

[Wezil]

Ming - Don't make me post my Bill Hicks "marketing and advertising" clip again.

[Kidlicious]

No... not special value, just the hopes that they are seeing the best commercials of the year.

That's kind of like people who look at their turds to see how big they are.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm NOT critiquing advertising at all nor am I claiming that ads are not 'artistic'. I'm just pointing out that it's silly for people to place SB ads a level above any normal ad you ever see on television. There's no difference. In fact, most of these commercials will be shown regularly on television for the next few months. The only reason why these ads are being given special attention is because they are shown during the Super Bowl and we are somehow convinced to think that these ads have added value because of when they debut. Like I said, there are even ads for ads.

[Kidlicious]

If tv commercials are art then there should be no condemnation of artists doing them.

[Ming]

That's kind of like people who look at their turds to see how big they are.

What... Christians look at their turds? Do they confuse them with god?

[Ming]

I'm NOT critiquing advertising at all nor am I claiming that ads are not 'artistic'. I'm just pointing out that it's silly for people to place SB ads a level above any normal ad you ever see on television. There's no difference. In fact, most of these commercials will be shown regularly on television for the next few months. The only reason why these ads are being given special attention is because they are shown during the Super Bowl and we are somehow convinced to think that these ads have added value because of when they debut. Like I said, there are even ads for ads.

The difference is that at no other time or place are so many new commercials shown at the same time. It's like going to the auto show to see all the new cars at one time... you keep claiming that people think they have "added value"... NO, there are simply more new commercials to view and talk about.

[-Jrabbit]

There is, in fact, a significant value-add component, because the ads are talked about, rated, played (for free) on numerous talk shows, and draw hundreds of thousands of plays on FB and YouTube, plus whatever viral action they can muster. So you've got 100 million-plus viewers, and a significant portion of them voluntarily consuming the ads and their messages many times beyond the :30 or :60 that's paid for. Then you've got the status upgrade conferred by being on the biggest stage. For a premium brand or market leader, it's the cost of admission. For wannabes like E-trade, Careerbuilder and godaddy, it sends a clear message that you're a player.

The very definition of added value.

The fact that the ads were pretty boring overall this year doesn't change the fact that people are talking about them. The fact that the advertisers are promoting the ads -- successfully -- is actually proof that there's added value to be had.

[Al B. Sure!]

There is, in fact, a significant value-add component, because the ads are talked about, rated, played (for free) on numerous talk shows, and draw hundreds of thousands of plays on FB and YouTube, plus whatever viral action they can muster. So you've got 100 million-plus viewers, and a significant portion of them voluntarily consuming the ads and their messages many times beyond the :30 or :60 that's paid for. Then you've got the status upgrade conferred by being on the biggest stage. For a premium brand or market leader, it's the cost of admission. For wannabes like E-trade, Careerbuilder and godaddy, it sends a clear message that you're a player.

The very definition of added value.

The fact that the ads were pretty boring overall this year doesn't change the fact that people are talking about them. The fact that the advertisers are promoting the ads -- successfully -- is actually proof that there's added value to be had.

And all that is because....? The commercials themselves are not unique. It's the institution.

[Al B. Sure!]

If tv commercials are art then there should be no condemnation of artists doing them.

Who said there should be?

Let them get paid. In fact, I've noticed that companies tend to go after the musical artists who are more middling in popularity probably because it's cheaper to get them than the truly big superstar names. These artists who are lucky to have gold-certified albums should lose no respect for trying to make some more money.

Rapper Talib Kweli was recently criticized by some for doing Pepsi commercials and he responded:

“There’s a segment of my fan base that wants to believe that I’m in some basement somewhere with a notebook, with a backpack on, writing rhymes to Eminem instrumentals or something,” Kweli recently told Billboard. “So the idea that at this point [is that] I’m 35 years old and there’s no music business, and I have grown man responsibilities, so of course I’m going to get paid for my craft. And I’m going to work with companies that are willing to support the lifestyle.”

I note how, as far as I know, Eminem wasn't doing ads when he was going 9x platinum with his earlier albums. It's now at the nadir of his pop career and at 38 years old that he's doing commercials.

*Eminem being 38 by the way is scary

[Dinner]

The VW ad has been playing for several days before the super bowl.

[Kidlicious]

Who said there should be?

Anyone who cares about art. Any artist who sells out is no artist at all. Either you do it for money or you do it for artistic value. TV commercials always fall into the first category.

It's a shame when people call commercials art an no one laughs at them.

[Kidlicious]

What... Christians look at their turds? Do they confuse them with god?

Haha. I'm not the one who confuses a stupid beer commercial with Shakespeare.

[Al B. Sure!]

Kidicious, where do you draw the line? All these things you call art are also entertainment. A commercial can be entertaining as well and have as much thought put into it as a short film. In fact, marketing today is approaching art and entertainment in ways that it never did before. I don't stay abreast on this enough to cite some great examples (but I'm sure others can), but I think of things like how the video game Assassin's Creed II was promoted through the internet with a 30 minute short film which was at least as good in quality as any made-for-tv or B movie you would ever see. Yet its purpose was to promote a video game.

If you didn't know that, however, would it somehow be more valuable? How does knowing it was created as an advertising tool diminish its value?

Now, I'm not saying the Assassin's Creed movie was high art or anything; that is subjective.

[Al B. Sure!]

Artists who 'sellout' are not artists? Here's a thought experiment that has actually happened all the time... an artist makes a song. It's for his album and is his 'artistic expression'. Art, right? He signs a deal with a company to use his song in a commercial... did the song suddenly lose artistic value because of this? How and why?


O such a great crime! These artists who seek monetary compensation for their art and craft!

[rah]

The fact that the ads were pretty boring overall this year doesn't change the fact that people are talking about them. The fact that the advertisers are promoting the ads -- successfully -- is actually proof that there's added value to be had.

Accept for the fact that there wasn't one big WOW commercial, I think this year was the most entertaining one in a long time. I remembered more of this years crop than in the past, and at my age, I'd expect the ratio to be going in the other direction.