Did any of the Super Bowl commercials tempt you to buy or try their product?
Posted at 5:00 AM on February 8, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(26 Comments)
Filed under: Culture
The commercials that aired during yesterday's Super Bowl cost a minimum of $2.5 million for a 30-second spot. That means advertisers paid more than $83,000 per second to get your attention. Today's Question: Did any of the Super Bowl commercials tempt you to buy or try their product?
Comments (26)
To begin with let me make a point. I hate commercials... period!! Which is one of the many reasons I despise television, (along with the garbage that is broadcast on TV). But I do tolerate commercials, mute button in active use, to watch football however. I do make an exception for the Super Bowl. That said, I find none of this years "Commercial Bowl" compelling to patronize any of the advertisers, if I haven't already. Take for instance Doritos. Does anybody NOT know what Doritos are and where one can buy them? Seriously. Why are we paying Frito-Lay, (in our purchase prices), to advertise a product as ubiquitous as Kleenex? Here's another one, godaddy.com. First of all does anyone know what godaddy is? After that series on commercials one would suspect it's a porno site. So to answer the News Q, no. There was no advertisement that would encourage me to buy any product that I don't already buy. As it is said in the advertising business, 50% of the ad is wasted, just don't know who that 50% is. Well that 50% is me. Now that football season is over with, my television set will remain dark until September.
No, I will not buy anything promoted on the Super Bowl last night. In fact this is the first I have watched any amount of TV in three years. I was very disappointed in the taste displayed in the commericals, I sure hope that youngsters were not made to watch such goings on!
The best one was the Clysdale horse!
The way the question is framed ..."$83,000 per second"...invites readers to think "insanely overpriced". But a more balanced expression might have been "$30 per 1400 viewers reached with a 30-second ad" - not an unreasonable sum. (This, of course, assumes that all viewers sit attentively for the whole game.)
Moreover - most advertising isn't intended as a one-time appeal. As we all (groaningly) know, it's all based on endless repetition. But also keep in mind that the advertiser is not the only entity trolling for something here. The agencies that create these things are also looking for some attention.
Bill in WI
Comments from Facebook "MPR Public Insight":
I liked the Google ad, and lo-and-behold, I used Google today! It worked. Alas, I did not fall in love with a woman in Paris. -Bill Wesen
Well, I wasn't even tempted to watch even a minute of the Super Bowl, so the advertisers missed me! -Lois Anderson Garbisch
Far too many commercials were simply selling sexism. Demeaning women to harping at men constantly and using that to tell men that only buying their products will restore their lost manhood. As a woman watching I felt insulted and definitely didn't feel compelled to purchase these products. As a man my husband was just as insulted.
I thought the "Late Show with David Letterman" ad was great. It had just what an ad on the Super Bowl needs--a surprise factor and helping you remember the product. Both Dave and Jay benefited from the ad, so I can see why Jay agreed to do it. It makes me actually feel better about both men after the unseemly pot shots and name calling they and their followers have engaged in lately.
I set aside a bunch of Who CDs for ripping into portable-music player format.
55 calorie beer with actual alcohol in it? sign me up!!!
Based on it's simplicity and seemingly authentic feel, I'm gonna pick up a case of High Life this afternoon!
The Audi "green police" commercial was great! It was clever and amusing. It changed their image for me and will stick with me - according to their ad they won green car of the year.
Comments texted to MPR:
Who doesn't already know about Doritos? Couldn't that money have gone to Haiti? -Kevin, Arden Hills
Focus on the family! Wait, no. Never in a million years. -Chris D., Minneapolis
I thought some of the Super Bowl commercials were funny, but they didn't have any affect on me buying their product. -Chris Beaver, Hayfield
Yes. Nothing says snack better than a Dorito slicing into someone's neck, ninja star-style. -Joe, Plymouth
Free Dockers pants! -Karl Kemberling, Eden Prairie
Worst Super Bowl commercials ever. -Matt Gruber, Crystal
The only one that made me want to purchase their goods was the sketchers one... That is only because I had looked at them before and knew about them... All the others were just entertaining :)
The Super Bowl ad that was run by Focus on the Family was simply disgusting and had no place in the broadcast of a sporting event. The debate over abortion is a religion debate and arguing about religion is never productive. It was a mistake for the network to stoke the flames of such a toxic subject.
The Google ad was good. It seems that progressively more and more ads trying to be funny are just stupid. I would think companies spending that kind of money would want to put out great ads for the superbowl.
Since it is noon and I haven't eaten anything except dried apricots today, I am sort of craving some super salty, nacho flavored triangles that would just sit on my tongue for a few second before I crunch away..... There seems to be allot of grumpy people this morning. Comeon everyone, let's make snow angels, snow dolls and admit it.... we love to complain about the commercials, and then sneak our Budweiser and Doritos!
Amy
Absolutely not. I paid attention to them rather than running to the kitchen for more snacks, purely because I was hoping for something more entertaining than the usual commercials. I was for the most part disappointed and nothing really stood out but the cultural montage that made up the Google Ad - and I already use many of the Google products....
Did you see the 2.5 Million dollar ad for the US Census? Talk about throwing our money down a rathole!
I can't wait to get my census. I will fill out # of people and ages and write "NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" on the rest.
No. Since they improved TV by going all-digital, the new-improved digital signal was not strong enough to get to my converter-box-equipped house so I couldn't watch. The not-as-good analog signal always worked just fine. Thank you, greedy corporations, politicians and technical whiz-kids.
BTW, the book I'm reading is great.
No. The TV ads just drive up the cost of products. Many of the ads target young males and make them look very immature. Apparently peer pressure continues for males through their 30's. Most people are being informed via the internet, but it looks like enough people view the Super Bowl for ad agencies to believe it is worth the cost. I watched the game but do not purchase any of the products that were advertised and do not intend to.
I thought Google's ad was fantastic. So simple and yet still so well done. Since Google is already the only search site I use (am I the only one that finds Bing annoying?) it doesn't change anything, but I suppose it gives Google an even better position within my subconcious.
I'm not sure exactly what Danika Patrick and GoDaddy.com where selling last night...
I will AVOID the products with commercials that implied that Men are weak, whipped creatures unless they buy their product/ implied being in a relationship with women was emasculating.
Which was 99% of the commercials last night.
If a company runs an ad on the superbowl it doesn't really mean I will buy more of that product.
I will though, look into Focus on the Family more. Seeing all the fuss before hand and then actually watching the commercial, I really wonder why it was such a big deal. They look like a great organization.
Nope: I can't afford Dorritos for $83,000 per second... But they must taste good for that price.
I didn't watch the Super Bowl, and thus did not see any of the commercials. I'd rather spend my time doing many other things.
Most are plain stupid! The rest are demeaning, morally questionable and way to sugestive. I have trouble believing in a product that takes this much effort to convience people thay they should buy and use. How much more would the product be worth if this money were used to cut the price and raise the quality for the consumer. I think most of it is the perks that corprate officals receive from spending the big bucks. It's not about us!
| February 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | ||||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- How have your views on nuclear power changed over the years?
- Where do you stand on requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote?
- Now that the caucuses are over, what are your three most important issues?
- What living writer might still be read 200 years from now?
- What do you think of Minnesota's system of party caucuses?
- How do you think the United States and other countries should respond to the situation in Syria?
- What do you think of constitutional amendments as a way to make policy?
- What changes would you like to see in campaign finance laws?
- What role should evaluations play in teacher job security?
- If you were energy czar, how would you change U.S. energy policy?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
