So by now, you’re over the game (pretty exciting by super bowl standards) and you’re tired of hearing the ad and marketing pundits give their views on the bad, the worst and the ugliest.
Got time for one more opinion — one that relates to the booze business?
In the past, the Budweiser ads were often more interesting than the game. Not this year.
Is it just me or has the quality, and therefore the effectiveness, of Budweiser advertising declined ever since InBev took over? I used to think that the international owners just didn’t understand the US market and that cost reductions were more important than brand building. I think I was wrong. The Budweiser ads were expensive to produce and cost a fortune to run. So it has to be something other than the owners.
Ad Age reviewed the Super Bowl ads and gave 3½ stars to a Motorola ad and none to A-B. Yet, both came from the same agency, Anomaly. So either Motorola got the better creative team or the marketing folks there are sharper.
There’s a company called Ace Metrix, which uses online panels of TV watchers to score the ads based on metrics such as persuasiveness and likeability, among others. They reported that the Dorito ad was #1 with 662 points (out of a possible 950) and Bud Light was #23 with 567.
So here’s my takeaway/insight – in the beer category, as in many others, consumers select brands on price, promotion and “group brand loyalty.” Inclusion in the group is based on many things, including image as a byproduct of communication or advertising.
Seems to me that the opportunity to reach the single largest audience at one time would compel a beer marketer to present ads that capture the audience’s attention and generate positive word of mouth.
But, then again, what do I know. I’m a spirits and wine guy. We can’t afford to advertise on the Super Bowl.