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

A lot of my friends have been talking about my recent post on the iPhone app, Ocarina.  Over the course of our conversations, I realized that I’d given the Apple brand all the credit for delivering such creativity and joy.

And I’d begun to feel guilty about bestowing such positive praise on Apple for a piece software it didn’t create.  After all, the company that developed and distributes the program, Smule, deserves the credit, right?   Shouldn’t the Ocarina build Smule’s brand equity?  As a brand person, shouldn’t I be more careful about where brand attribution is placed?

But then a friend of mine set me straight.  He explained by saying something like, “There’s an important difference between Google’s Android and Windows-based phones which are becoming more open source.  Being open-source means you get a lot of different people developing programs for these phones and that means the quality of the applications can vary — you never know what you’re going to get.  However with the iPhone, Apple has set it up so that all programs must adhere to their standards and so you know that all the iPhone apps are going to be good.”

So what he is saying is the Apple brand is really serving as editor and quality control here — by endorsing another company’s product, it is building its own brand as an arbitor of what is good.  I found this insight profound — it speaks to the role of a brand as a seal of approval, not just for its own products, but also for all related products.

And this uncovers an important opportunity in today’s marketplace, where we’re seeing more and more companies partner with others to provide add-ons, services, experiences, etc. to supplement their core products.  How can you position your brand so that you get your fair share — if not more — of the credit for the new offerings that arise out of these partnerships?

To take a page out of Apple’s book, it’s about maintaining the same high standards for everything you do, never compromising, never making exceptions — that might make it harder to work with you, but in the end, your brand will benefit.

Much of the blame for John McCain’s loss in Tuesday’s election is being laid on the 2 people he was most closely associated with –  George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.  The impact of these associations — one he did not want but was nonetheless stuck with; the other he masterminded and milked in an attempt to improve his image — got me thinking about the importance of associations for brands.

Partnerships, sponsorships, affiliates, co-branding, co-marketing, co-ops…there are many ways two or more brands form an association.  In some cases the associations are unintended or undesirable, perhaps the consequence of an “hostile” M&A; in others, brands actively seek out other brands to associate themselves with in order to achieve a certain goal.

In all cases, it’s important to identify all the possible benefits that a brand association may yield, and pursue the ones that make the most sense for your particular situation — here are 10 possible benefits (organized into 5 categories):

VALUE PROPOSITION

1.  Strengthen your value proposition –- integrate with partners which provide complementary customer experiences to deliver a stronger value proposition

CONSUMER ACCESS

2.  Obtain “permission” from consumers to enter/play in new arenas or with new segments/audiences, particularly arenas well outside your core competence

3.  Access valuable prospects through partners’ databases/customer profile data

BRAND IMAGE

4.  Strengthen your core brand attributes by association with complementary brands

5.  Support a re-positioning through association with brands that have the desired attributes

6. Access an avenue through which to increase your cultural capital — e.g., partner with a brand representing the latest “in.”

MEDIA EFFICIENCY

7.  Extend your media dollars with co-op advertising money or bartering agreements.

CORPORATE

8.  Develop new products/services/technologies by leveraging partners’ technical expertise and resources.

9.  Obtain business strategy and process expertise.

10.  Optimize corporate relationships – reinforce alliances with business partners and stakeholders (suppliers, customers, agencies, etc.)

By being clear about the benefit(s) you seek by associating your brand with another, you can better evaluate potential partners, shape the programs, and measure their effectiveness.  And while McCain might not have been able find the silver lining in the Bush cloud, if your brand is ever suffering from an unwanted association, perhaps you can make the best of it by exploring the full range of possible benefits.

Michael Phelps is going to appear on Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes cereal boxes. Apparently Phelps passed on posing on Wheaties boxes where he has appeared before, so says US Magazine (not the most reliable source of business news, I know, but it’s the only one I found that had an explanation for this interesting development.)

General Mills, on the other hand, just announced they’ve snagged Nastia Luikin and Brian Clay, Olympic winners in gymnastics and the decathlon respectively, to appear on the front of their Wheaties boxes.  As a reminder Wheaties, the “breakfast of champions,” practically invented the practice of athlete endorsements when it debuted a box featuring Lou Gehrig back in 1934.

I’ll let others argue whether Phelps is a better catch than Luikin and Clay — what I find fascinating is the contrast between the two brands’ strategies.

According to Marta Cyhan, Vice President, Global Promotions, Kellogg Company, Michael was chosen because he “embodies the values behind our Frosted Flakes Earn Your Stripes™ program. He knows that winning is not just about the glory that comes with gold medals, but about good sportsmanship, working hard and being your best.”  Apparently the Earn Your Stripes program is designed to encourage kids to eat right, be more active and work hard to achieve all of their goals.

So it seems Kellogg’s is employing a 2-pronged approach — using Phelps’ picture to get kids’ attention on the shelf (and in the pantry) and tying his good-ol-American-boy image to the company’s social responsibility platform in order to earn props with parents.

General Mills‘ celebrity tie in is part of a new brand platform for Wheaties called “Jumpstart Your Metabolism™”which invites people to “discover how eating Wheaties can give you the best chance at winning.”  Their site has a serious look and feel and includes a link to research on muscle recovery.

General Mills, I have to conclude therefore, has elected to target adults who are serious about athletic performance — and to utilize Luikin and Clay to bolster the brand’s credentials as a product for serious athletes.

Two different strategies — for two different brands.  I see Corn Flakes’ approach as tried-and-true, but somewhat tired, while Wheaties is breaking new ground in the cereal category.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in grocery store sales data — and brand perceptions — over time.

have you heard about this cool site, Brand Tags? 

It creates tag clouds based on associations people have of brands — click on “whatever they say a brand is” to see all of the clouds currently available — the clouds provide a pretty revealing assessment of brands — some of the more interesting ones I’ve found are You Tube, Jenny Craig, and Starbucks.

the site is run by Noah Brier, a Mexican food-loving, world-observing planner and occasional DJ.  I’ve never met the guy but I’ve found his stuff quite intriguing so he’s now on my blogroll — enjoy!

p.s. there’s even a Brand Tags blog — how meta is that?!