brand as business bit:  What makes an ad something people want to share with others?  Is there a secret formula for making ads that are most likely to be shared?

The March issue of the Harvard Business Review included a report by Harvard prof Thales Teixeira who tracked viewers’ eye movements and facial expressions while watching ads.  He outlined five ways to get and keep people engaged with ads, including:

“Build an emotional roller coaster. Viewers are most likely to continue watching a video ad if they experience emotional ups and downs.”

The HBR recently published reactions to the report including mine:

These findings overlook two important factors in ad effectiveness:  branded recall and conversion.  If an ad is liked and passed along but the brand is forgotten or no further action is taken by the viewer, the ad may generate buzz but will do little to build the brand or the business.

brand as business bit:  There’s been a lot of activity in the fast food world these days:  Burger King just launched a new menu and ad campaign, Wendy’s introduced a new tagline and campaign, and Taco Bell is experimenting with a new menu and tagline.

My colleagues over at E-Poll and I thought it would be helpful to get a handle on just how each of these brands is currently performing.  Here are some of their research findings*:

brand awareness:

• Burger King – 86%
• Wendy’s – 80%
• Taco Bell – 79%

appeal:

• Burger King – 53%
• Wendy’s – 63%
• Taco Bell – 54%

high quality:

• Burger King – 13%
• Wendy’s – 26%
• Taco Bell – 9%

So, Wendy’s seems to be leading the pack right now.

Also, I thought the following results to the question “What is the slogan for the brand?” were particularly revealing:

Burger King

• Have It Your Way:   70% (reinstated in 2002 and used sporadically after having been retired in the 1970’s)
• Home of the Whopper:  9% (never really used as a tagline)

Wendy’s

• Where’s the beef?:   23% (used as a headline beginning last fall after having been retired in the 1980’s)
• You know when it’s real:   7% (began in Fall of 2009 and ran for 2 1/2 years)

Taco Bell

• Think outside the bun:  48% (began in 2002 and was just replaced this month)
• Make a run for the border:  21% (ran in the late 80’s/early 90’s for a few years)
• Yo quiero Taco Bell:   7% (began in the late 90’s and ran for a few years)

*results from E-Poll Market Research’s E-Score Brand service which surveyed a representative sample of 1,500 respondents aged 13+ years old in early March.

brand as business bit:  Tucked away in last week’s New York Times automotive section was a great piece about advertising.  The subject was Ed McCabe (of Scali, McCabe, Sloves fame) whose  iconoclastic approach to advertising etched into our brains safety as Volvo’s brand identity.  Three points  about Mr. McCabe’s strategy really resonated with me:

“Volvo’s reputation for crash safety…was solidified with a compelling statistic that Volvo used in its advertising for nearly two decades under Mr. McCabe’s direction: ‘Nine out of every 10 Volvos registered in the U.S. in the last 11 years are still on the road.’ Nowhere in that simple statement is safety mentioned, yet, according to Volvo, modern buyers overwhelmingly identify safety features as their No. 1 purchase reason.”

That speaks to the power of a simple statistic – sometimes you don’t need to explain it.

“’The client comes to me and says the dealers want to do an ad about colors to compete with Chevy’s many color combinations that existed at the time,’ McCabe said. Mr. McCabe pointed out that Volvo had few choices compared with Chevy‘s selection of more than 50, but the client was undeterred. The day was saved with a headline that shifted the focus to a different Volvo trait: ‘Volvos come in blue, green, white, yellow & red. No rust.’”

What a brilliant way to turn a competitive disadvantage on its head!

“’Weak advertising tells people what you want them to know,’” McCabe added. “’Strong advertising gets people to conclude what you want them to know.’”    [emphasis mine]

‘Nuff said.

brand as business bit:  In Fast Company’s recent write-up on Red Bull, Red Bull Media House managing director Werner Brell is quoted as saying:

“[Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz] knew that success would be in how you market the product as much as the product itself.”

It reminds me of a favorite quote of mine from Geoffrey Frost who held the CMO position at Motorola and Nike. His approach to marketing:

 “Your ads are the most pervasive products you make.”

The FC piece outlines how Red Bull has embraced this notion and transformed content from a marketing tactic into a business unit and from a loss leader into a profit-center.

On the eve of a special Apple event, it seems the allure of the Apple brand is as strong as ever.  “We have something you really have to see. And touch,” declares the invitation to the March 7^th media event.  Quite a buzz has been building up!

I don’t know if tomorrow’s announcement will impress or disappoint – nor do I know how long Apple will continue to rock our world.  But I remain fascinated by what I can only describe as the magical appeal of the Apple brand.  To try to understand the magic, I looked for clues in Walter Isaacson’s biography, Steve Jobs, and put together this slide show of what the book teaches about brand-building:

I may be dating myself with this headline, but I’m hoping at least a few of my readers remember those Silkience hair care commercials from the 70’s because it helps make an important point about targeting.

You see, back then Silkience was marketed as a “self-adjusting” hair care brand and its popular commercials featured three women with different hair care needs. (I haven’t been able to find the actual spot that includes the “Chisa” line, but this is a good representation the campaign.)

Silkience worked, one ad claimed, by scientifically pinpointing where each woman needed conditioner – the blond needed the product at her roots, the brunette needed it all over, and Chisa, the Asian woman, needed it only on the ends of her hair.

If the trio seems to typecast women and be as stereotypical as Charlies’ Angels, I’m sure the spot got its inspiration from the show – and that’s the point. The ad, which was perfectly acceptable back then, would be too politically incorrect by today’s standards.

In the current hyper-inclusive, don’t-want-to-offend-anyone culture, a spot that dares to point out people’s special needs based on their ethnicity seems insensitive at best, racist at worst. And it’s not just ethnically-targeted efforts that marketers shy away from. Many companies avoid explicitly targeting men out of fear of offending women, older consumers out of fear of turning off younger ones, low-income families out of fear of alienating the more well-to-do.

Marketers don’t want to seem exclusionary, so they dilute their messages and stay away from media, locations, sponsorships, and any other signals that seem overtly discriminating. The problem is, by not clearly appealing to a single target, a brand loses its distinctiveness and draw.

On the other hand, a clearly targeted message and offering resonates with the intended customers and attracts them like a lighthouse to the brand. Bloomberg BusinessWeek has reported in recent months on three companies that are effectively using an exclusive target to differentiate their brands:

1.  Destination XL, a higher-end apparel retailer for the big-and-tall male set. Owned by Casual Male Retail Group, the largest U.S. big-and-tall retailing chain, Destination XL is finding success where traditional stores have fallen short (pardon the pun.)

The stores have wider aisles and larger dressing rooms to meet the needs of a, er, growing customer segment. High ceilings, track lighting, and hardwood floors, combined with a broad selection and higher quality brands attract large men who’ve been turned off by the cheap products found in mass merchandisers and the stigma of shopping at the end of the rack at department stores.

A BusinessWeek article reported that the NPD Group says, “A generation ago few male shoppers defined themselves by body type; now more than half of U.S. men self-identify as big, tall, or short, and they’re more willing to be marketed to as such.”

In a full embrace of this shift, Destination XL plans to open 50 stores this year. And they leave no doubt about it – the chain’s tagline: “A World of XL has arrived.”

2.  The Tropicana hotel and casino in Las Vegas. The casino’s owners, Alex Yemenidijian and Gerald Schwartz, who rescued the failing property from bankruptcy and bedbugs, have re-designed it to be “the best damn pretty good hotel on the Strip,” according to BusinessWeek.

Instead of rebuilding the property with luxury boutiques, celebrity chefs, and headlining entertainers, they went “full middlebrow.” The casino features a Las Vegas Mob Experience interactive museum, $5 blackjack tables, and shows from performers like Gladys Knight. The Tropicana unapologetically targets the market that Yemenidijian says is “between the low end and the snob…the vast majority of the country.”

Occupancy rates and customer reviews are up, since this approach to attracting a distinct crowd stands out in the sea of Vegas sameness and fills a real market need.

3.  Megabus, a “Chinatown bus”-style provider of transportation for young travelers on a budget. With its street-side pickup, express travel between midsized cities, cut-rate fares, and on-board Wi-Fi, MegaBus has cracked the code in appealing to a particular segment of the traveling population.

The company’s operating model is ideal for the 18-34 set, many of whom rely on the service during breaks from college for transportation home or to explore the country. Three-quarters of MegaBus riders fit that demographic.

BusinessWeek reported that analysts concede MegaBus is too down-market to draw business travelers or to go fully mainstream, but with ridership expanding 48% in 2010, the company’s focus doesn’t seem to be limiting. And, if social media chatter is any indication, it’s become quite the popular choice among its target.

BusinessWeek claims Megabus and its parent company Coach USA “have fundamentally change the way Americans – especially the young – travel, so much that they may help kill plans for new railroads.”

Obese men, middle America, and college students on a budget may not seem like attractive target segments — but as these companies show, it not only makes sense to go after them, it pays to be absolutely clear about your intentions.

related posts:

• what the hottest brands have in common
• the business of managing tensions

The fundamental tensions which companies must manage well was the primary topic of a panel I spoke on last week.  We discussed H2OAudio, a company which makes waterproof cases, waterproof headphones/headsets, and waterproof armbands for iPods and MP3 players.

The panel was part of the MIT Enterprise Forum, a regular gathering of business leaders in which a case study method is used to uncover valuable business insights.  Each month a presentation is made by a CEO of an innovative technology company and then panelists discuss the key challenges the company is facing.  An audience of nearly 250+ people attended this month’s forum which focused on “re-starting the start-up” H2OAudio.

The discussion ended up focusing a lot on the tensions which most growth companies have to figure out how to manage well. Tensions like:

-    core customers vs. new markets – H2OAudio’s CEO, Tom Kampfer, gave an overview of the company’s current customers and his vision of its future customer base.  While it currently targets the “niche” swimming market, he wants to appeal to the much larger fitness and active lifestyle market.

On the one hand, it makes sense – according to the SGMA, there are only 7.3MM active swimmers while there are over 220MM fitness/gym/running/cycling participants.  So the larger market offers more growth potential.

But targeting the larger market isn’t a slam dunk:

• There are a lot more players competing for that market’s business
• H2OAudio’s sales force, distribution, and marketing budget are all fractions of those competitors’ so it will be difficult to breakthrough in the broader market
• Those consumers probably place less value on H2OAudio’s advanced performance and are more price-sensitive

Plus, going after the larger, less hard core market is probably not going to be well-received by the company’s current customers.  Like many growth-minded sporting goods companies before it, H2OAudio may be charged with “selling out” and watering down their products.  A start-up can’t afford to alienate its current customers – it needs every sale it gets.

So H2OAudio may need to manage this tension between securing core customers and expanding into new markets by adjusting its target strategy and pursuing only adjacent markets which are closer to its core, like amateur competitors and serious fitness enthusiasts.

-    distribution vs. marketing – Companies trying to grow small market shares tend to struggle with expanding distribution vs. advertising and PR.

They have a limited amount of working capital and so they can channel it EITHER toward growing the sales force, pursuing new distribution, and paying steep slotting fees, OR it can be used to fund advertising and PR to generate broader awareness and stronger preference among consumers – but not both, or rather, not both very well.

It’s the classic conundrum – you need to make sure people want to buy your product but you also need to ensure your product is readily available in channel so that people who want to buy it can.  Also retailers are more likely to pick up your product if you are giving it strong promotional support.

It’s hard to find the right balance between the two and there isn’t one right answer.  But in H2OAudio’s case, it seems distribution is probably the better investment. That’s because they can promote their products quite cost-effectively through social media (provided they stick to a narrowly-defined target, per the point I made above) – and because they can use targeted channels to help develop awareness and preference on shelf (again, a more focused target which shops at fewer distribution points makes a difference.)

-    function vs. form – Tension in product development arises between increasing functionality and improving form.

H2OAudio is planning some significant product changes to move from a heavy duty action sports look and feel to a slim, multi-sport use focus.  The changes are important in order to broaden the brand’s appeal beyond big male athletes with physiques and style sensibilities like Michael Phelps and Laird Hamilton (two of the company’s celebrity endorsers.)

But Tom also talked about expanding into colors and designs to make the products more fashionable — and that’s where the product development tension arises.

Should product development be focused more on improving the technical functionality of the products (for H2OAudio this might mean wireless headphones which seem to be a real need for swimmers and other athletes dealing with equipment and gear like paddles and surfboards)?  OR should energies be channeled to making the products more stylish and fun to wear (H2OAudio is probably looking to follow in the footsteps of iPod and mobile phone skins and cases)?

I’m guessing that making the products more fashionable is a less expensive undertaking than making them more technologically advanced – and changes in form may be more immediately noticeable to the shopper.  But H20Audio has built its brand and its business on making purpose-built waterproof products for athletic performance.  New products and new features which reinforce performance seem a more effective way to strengthen the company’s differentiation and competitive advantage.

It’s not an either/or decision but a start-up company’s resources are limited and so product development direction needs to be prioritized.

As I reflected on these and other tensions which H2OAudio is working through, it reminded me of something I had seen in the feature Fast Company magazine ran on Nike’s CEO Mark Parker last month.  It was an image of a page from Mark’s journal with the word “Balance“ at the top – it listed all the different dimensions of his business which he works on keeping in balance.

The image served as a telling reminder that all business is about managing tensions – these struggles are not the sole purview of start-ups like H2OAudio.  And while they might seem like major challenges to H2OAudio’s Tom Kampfer, I’m guessing Mark Parker would forewarn him that it only gets harder as the company grows.

related posts:

• nine lessons from the mit enterprise forum

I usually try to keep my critiques to categories I’ve worked in, primarily because I think it’s irresponsible for me to comment on what works and what doesn’t when I have little basis for my assessment other than being a consumer.  So I initially demurred when some folks have asked for my POV on AT&T’s new campaign, Rethink Possible.

But then I started wondering whether my expertise in other categories might actually shed some light on the issue — that’s when I realized that there are some instructive parallels between AT&T and fast food chains.  And while AT&T has adopted some of what drives fast feeders’ success, there are a couple of important lessons it might want to learn.

Before I get into those takeaways, though, I do feel the need to address two of the more inane criticisms I’ve heard about AT&T’s new effort:

To those protesting the incorrect grammar of the tagline, Rethink Possible, I say, “get over it.”  It’s important to note that I consider myself somewhat of a verbifore, or at least a lover of language (R.I.P. William Safire), so I don’t take grammatical errors lightly.  But I do understand and value the use of creative license, and I see this tagline as just that – a creatively-worded phrase that is meant to evoke and provoke by the use of seemingly grammatical incorrectness.

The folks who take issue with such license are probably the same ones who would criticize the highly successful lines of Apple’s “Think Different” and the California Milk Processor Board’s “Got Milk?” campaigns, so I’m not giving them a lot of credence.

Also people have been critical of reports that AT&T is pursuing this tact in the hopes of becoming a “lifestyle brand.” To some, it seems ludicrous for a telecom company to have such lofty aspirations.  Others reject the idea of any brand promoting a lifestyle.

But the reality is, becoming a lifestyle brand is a common brand development goal – brand managers in automotive, nutritional supplements, apparel, consumer electronics, and fast food — practically every brand I’ve ever worked on – have wanted to be known less for the products they sell than for the lifestyle their products facilitate.  I’m not saying this is right but let’s not be too hard on the folks at AT&T.

telecom and fast food – who knew?!

The telecom and fast food categories are actually quite similar in some respects.  The major brands are targeted to the mass market.  Commoditization is prevalent, as are price wars.  Competitive advertising is the norm.  And purchase/usage is driven as much – if not more — by availability (that is, coverage and hardware in telecom land, penetration and prime locations in fast food land) as it is by any sense of brand loyalty.

With these parallels as a backdrop, it’s clear that brands in both categories need to rise above the fray.  McDonald’s sponsorship of the Olympics earlier this year gave it an important reprieve from the tit-for-tat price wars which have been littering the fast food promotional landscape.  Many QSRs are trying to go head to head with Subway’s $5 foot-long offering; others are pushing unbelievably low prices.  But McDonald’s was able to increase its brand appeal with its inspiring and emotionally resonant campaign for the winter competition.

AT&T is making a similar move, abandoning its back-and-forth map and app wars with Verizon and communicating the bigger ideas behind the brand.  They’re getting away from that petty competition and trying to remind people of other factors in the value equation.

AT&T is also smart to consolidate its efforts and promote one brand/one message to all stakeholders.  In telecom and fast food both — where billions of ad dollars are spent each year and priorities among different groups often conflict — the norm is to operate in silos and this leads to message fragmentation.

But AT&T’s Senior VP-Brand Marketing and Advertising Esther Lee is quoted as explaining, “It’s not going to be the old model that there’s brand work, and then there’s consumer work or enterprise work; it’s all ‘Rethink Possible.’”  The singular message route worked well for McDonald’s ever since it launched “I’m lovin’ it.”  The theme and what it stands for has unified diverse product efforts and served as a rallying cry for all of the company’s stakeholders.

lessons yet to be learned

Despite these smart approaches, there are a couple of things AT&T could learn from fast food companies. The first is:  you’ve got to deliver on the basics before you can you credibly promote innovation or image.

New products have become the life blood for many fast food chains, but slow speed of service, unclean facilities, and rude servers quickly take the wind out of the sails of these innovations.  McDonald’s understands this and that’s why they continue to emphasize solid execution amidst their McCafe concept, McWrap Snacks, and other new product introductions.  Mastering the basics is not only the cost of entry into the category – it’s also the cost of compelling innovation.

A lot of the criticism directed at AT&T’s effort is really about the company’s failings in providing basic service. Whether it’s fewer dropped calls, broader coverage, or the ability to tether the iPhone, people want their basic needs met.  People argue that the money the company is spending on the new campaign would be better spent on addressing infrastructure and service issues (an argument I’ve previously made about Microsoft’s lavish ad campaigns.)

I’m not an AT&T customer so I’m not in the best position to judge whether or not such claims are warranted but perhaps perception is more important here anyway.  AT&T must have a base of credibility today in order to present a credible vision for the future.

The second lesson from fast food is related to the first – that is, the battle is fought in the trenches. Fast feeders know that they must win at the store level.  Regardless of the brand image the chain might enjoy, the offer at the restaurant has to compete head to head with the one across the street.

In the same way, AT&T needs to focus on their points of purchase.  Whether it’s retail stores or the company website or VARs, their new brand promise must be delivered at all of these channels.  I haven’t read anything about the company’s efforts in this area and a cursory attempt at shopping on their website didn’t reveal anything different from the norm.  Rethink Possible shouldn’t just be a brand campaign idea – it needs to drive sales at retail as well.  AT&T needs to establish competitive advantage where it really matters – that first moment of truth.

I realize there’s a limit to the relevance of fast food lessons to AT&T – the breadth of usage/applications, the purchase cycle, and the price points are just a few of the significant differences between telecom and fast food.  But I do believe AT&T would do well to embrace the commodity-like nature of their offering and glean appropriate lessons from those who have mastered such competition.

related posts:

• perception is at&t’s reality
• seinfeld isn’t going to rescue vista

If you’ve been in the business long enough, you come to understand there are some basic rules to follow when running an ad on the Super Bowl.  Humor works best.  Use animals or big-breasted women – or both.  Wow people with extraordinary settings and production values.

Many of the advertisers on last night’s big game followed the Super Bowl advertising playbook to a tee (view all of the spots here).  And, yet, they violated some fundamental rules of advertising in general.

know thy customer

Last night there were at least three spots (I lost count after awhile) that tried to tap a certain manly spirit but failed.

Dockers called on all men to “Wear the Pants” and rebel against the growing movement of proud, but pants-less men.  In Dove’s spot for its Men+Care line, men were bolstered with the upbeat charge: “You can take on anything, of course you can — becaaaauuuse you’re a man!” The ad implied to men that although you previously felt inadequate or overwhelmed by others’ expectations, you can now “be comfortable in your own skin.” Chrysler’s manthem threw subtlety out the window with its defiant declarations of “I will drive the car I want to drive” and “man’s last stand.”

In each case, the message came through loud and clear:  Men have been oppressed and suppressed for too long.  Men, it’s time to stand up, take a stand, stand up for your rights, stand tall…in other words, be a Man!

Problem is, there is no problem.  Or at least, there’s not a problem men are willing to admit.

Such calls to arms fell flat with men because the consumer insight upon which they’re founded is inaccurate.

The movement in American culture of recent years toward Alpha Females, more matriarchal families, and Girl Power gave rise to the “I am woman, hear me roar” advertising anthems.  Ads which have resonated with women demonstrated that marketers understood their female targets and had something relevant to offer them.  Spots like Nike’s “I Feel Pretty” featuring Maria Sharapova proving that’s she’s more than a pretty face, and ESPN’s “Running Away” in which a woman goes running and leaves the burdens of her life in the dust, were inspired by years of women actually being oppressed and suppressed.

Men are in a different place.  They haven’t spent years trying to shed stereotypes and live up to impossible expectations.  They don’t feel misunderstood and misrepresented by advertisers.  There’s no widespread pent-up disappointment or resentment.  Perhaps there should be – and maybe there is, but it’s hidden.  And so rallying-cry ads don’t resonate with them.

Men don’t need to be inspired to embrace who they are.  In fact, I suspect men found such suggestions embarrassing, if not offensive.  They don’t need ads to tell them what to do – they’re men, after all.

These ads demonstrate that their creators don’t really understand their target. Instead of finding a message that resonates with men in a socially acceptable way, they simply took a formula that had previously worked on women and applied it to their male target.  Ironic, don’t you think?

know thyself

Second to knowing your customer, knowing yourself is the most critical rule for advertisers. A few of Hyundai’s spots make this point.

In one ad, beauty shots of a car getting a paint job and a voiceover talking about classical music sonatas are followed by the title card, “Better paint quality than Mercedes CLS550.”  Another spot suggests that Hyundai is the new definition of luxury.

With both of these ads, Hyundai is trying to position itself as a luxury brand — but it’s just not credible.  Comparisons to Mercedes and caviar are too far-fetched.  Given that the Sonata’s highest list price is still under $30K, it isn’t a luxury car.  Hyundai may be a very fine automotive brand, but it’s not a luxury one. It shouldn’t try to be something it’s not.

Instead it should embrace what it is – and right now, that is a superior choice to Toyota.  With all of Toyota’s recall troubles, this is Hyundai’s moment to shine.  And shine it did in its Body Pass spot.

In this ad, a Sonata is shown moving through “one of the most technologically advanced factories in the world” — but instead of machines and conveyor belts, Hyundai employees are shown passing the car above their heads like a rock star at a concert.   The spot closes with the title, “Assembled by 3,300 quality experts.”  This spot used a strong, visually-interesting way to make a credible and compelling point about the brand – it’s high quality.

I’m sure the spot was conceived and shot before Toyota’s troubles arose, but it is a brilliant execution – and, most importantly, one that is true to the Hyundai brand.

unsavory associations

The third fundamental rule broken by some of last nights’ spots relates to subliminal messaging.  Effective marketers use the power of suggestion in advertising to create associations to exist in people’s subconscious.  One might argue whether or not sexually-shaped ice-cubes and flashing images are used (and effective), but every advertising person knows to employ subtle tactics to create associations — like choosing to shoot an ad in an upscale setting in order to evoke a more premium image.

While these approaches are usually intended to create positive associations for the brand, occasionally unintended negative ones are made.  For this reason last year I criticized Cheetos for using pigeons in its Super Bowl ad – this year I have the same beef with Denny’s use of chickens.

Denny’s two spots featured lots of screaming chickens, panicked over the amount eggs they’d have to produce for the chain’s Free Grand Slam breakfast offer.  However, no one wants to think about live chickens when they think about eating eggs.  That’s why you don’t see cows in burger chain campaigns or pigs in bacon ads.

Denny’s not only made the association between their offer and the chickens their diners’ eggs will come from – they made it the core idea of their spots.  Most people might not have been turned off by the association when the ad ran, but the message was so powerful, some will likely experience a subconscious negative feeling if they recall the ad when they sit down at the restaurant.

Fortunately for Denny’s, their offer is so compelling, most people will ignore the cognitive dissonance.  But that begs the question – the offer is so compelling, why let a drove of chickens spoil it?!

Doritos is also an offender.  I don’t know which is worse — the thought of Doritos as dog food (as depicted in the dog collar spot) or the image of the gross gym guy spitting out a Dorito in the Dorito ninja ad.  Both have created negative associations in my mind that I’m not likely to forget soon.

Marketers should know better – and be more careful.

Just as winning in football requires mastering the fundamentals, winning in Super Bowl ads begins with adherence to simple, generally-accepted rules for effective advertising.

P.S. Most Super Bowl ad critiques are a matter of personal taste.  I’m hoping the above comments reflect a little less subjectivity and a little more critical thinking about advertising in general.  Having said that, I do want to give a shout-out to two spots which stood out to me simply because I liked them:

• NFL – the drama created by the super slo-mo of the tremendous play by Reggie Bush followed by the emotion captured in the multiple shots of fans made this spot captivating.  It stirred my passion for football even though I’m not a really big follower of the sport.
• Google – the Googly simplicity of this ad drew me in and held my attention.  Beyond that, it was such a great product demo:  it didn’t “tell;” it “showed” – the product wasn’t integrated into the story; it was the story.

I’m eager to hear your take on the spots.  Comment away!

related posts:

• my superbowl was filled with guacamole
• if a brand has something to say, say it