Was the Super Bowl Super?

The game sure was, but what about the Super Spots?

Every year, advertisers ante up to entertain America with their best spots in the Super Bowl. This year was certainly no exception, but was the $2.7 million investment worth it for advertisers?

Of course, you can take a look at any number of polls and critiques of the spots. The morning after the game, opinions are flying all over the place. You can hear from the trade critics, agency bigwigs and of course, football fans.

But at Blue Horse, we wondered about the opinions of marketing executives – the people who might not have an ad in the game, but whose job it is to oversee their own budgets and advertising efforts. What do they think? What spots would work in the marketplace? Which spots were a waste of money?

We sent out a number of invitations to marketing pros to communicate their thoughts to us either online or by phone. Here are the top six things they told us:

1. No one was impressed with the overall quality. While some marketing pros felt the body of work was better than last year, more said things like Larry Weissman of Cousins who remarked that the showing was “poor – run of the mill.” David Andrews of Assurant went so far as to describe the assembly as “terrible.”

2. As testimony to the lack of innovation, nothing really stood out as a favorite. The Doritos “Mouse,” Bridgestone, Budweiser’s “Rocky,” Planters and the Bud Light wine & cheese party all got good reviews. There were others right behind: NFL “Chester Pitt,” selected Bud Light spots, Coke’s “Dueling Balloons” and others were among them.

3. What did stand out as a big loser was the Salesgenie effort. It was almost universally panned by our marketing pros.

4. Not surprisingly, some spots were polarizing: Life Water’s “Lizards,” Planters, Vitamin Water and Audi. Our pros either liked ‘em or hated ‘em. Especially polarizing was the E-Trade baby series. “The gross out award,” said Larry Weissman. “I hated it,” said Hank Hakewill. But for some others, it was a favorite.

5. It was noted by many that a number of spots were, as Bruce Hutchison of Sears noted, “only half the story” because they sought to drive people online. It would only be fair, he said, to check out all the online stories and see if they paid off.

6. Several marketers cited the Hyundai Genesis effort as being laudable in that it elegantly portrayed the car as a Mercedes that is not a Mercedes. Roger Klement felt that this could be the most effective spot for business reasons. David Andrews said he would “withhold judgment until this summer.” He wondered, because of this commercial, “Will people hold off buying a Mercedes? It set expectations high. This is a risky move. The car must be quality and everything must be ready for the launch.”

The question has to be asked: has the escalating cost of production and time made everyone risk adverse? That would include the NFL who, in an effort to stay clear of the FCC, hired a rock musician who was big when some of us were in high school.

Consider the amount of “looking back.” Old music, even old comedic routines like Pepsi’s “Bobbleheads.” Bud Lite working to its “formula” of beer jokes. Then there’s Under Armor trying to break through and succeeding only in being a pale imitation of Apple’s “1984.”

One final note. Given the fact that a large portion of the audience says they watch the game only for the advertising (and with two East Coast teams, that might be particularly true this year), isn’t it rather ironic to note that this contributes so mightily to driving up the cost of the advertising?

Maybe if we just eliminated the game. Ah, but then Larry Weissman, the self-described “only Giants fan in Wisconsin,” wouldn’t have had nearly as much fun.