Super Bowl ads were a bunch of fumbles

By Marc E. Babej and Tim Pollak

updated 1:15 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2007

Something is amiss on Madison Avenue. The much-hyped "stars" of the third most-watched program in television history — the ads of Super Bowl LXI — were, all in all, a bust.

The players had to contend with torrential rain, yet they managed to make the game suspenseful well into the fourth quarter. Prince braved the elements to give a virtuoso halftime performance, while probably wondering if he was going to be electrocuted. But advertising's best and brightest didn't get it right — despite having months to plan for the biggest night of the year, perhaps the biggest night of their careers.

What's the problem here? Perhaps, with about $86,000 per second on the line, too many cooks want to stir the broth, or the pressure to perform has become too great. Or maybe the problem is that no one is quite sure what a Super Bowl spot should be: an integral part of a consumer marketing plan or an entry in the world's biggest advertising popularity contest.

Writing about last year's game, we put forth the quaint notion that the purpose of advertising is to sell something, and anything else is a waste of marketing — and shareholder — dollars. It's obvious that few people were listening — to us, or to such industry icons as Bill Bernbach and David Ogilvy, who defined creativity as a selling message ensconced in a relevant entertaining idea.

MORE FROM FORBES Winning Super Bowl ads $2.6 million worth of Super Bowl ad alternatives X-rated advertising Global sports go green NBA team valuations

As has become an annual custom, just about every industry columnist, and legions of bloggers, have weighed in with their list of favorites. In years past, there was a great deal of overlap. But this year there was a wide range of favorites — or, to call a spade a spade, nothing really stood out.

We're not going to join the bandwagon, in part because we don't have enough favorites to make a list, but mainly because we don't want to help perpetuate the lunacy that the most expensive air time in the world should be spent on commercials whose raison d'etre is to make somebody's list. Call us sticks in the mud, but the purpose of a Super Bowl ad, the mother of all marketing investments, should be the mother of all returns. That's all there is to it.

In approaching the Super Bowl, advertisers would be well advised to consider the following: Greatness is certainly elusive, but this year no one seemed even to be trying. The agency should be required to watch a reel of classics, such as Apple's "1984," Budweiser's "Frogs" (1995), Xerox's "Monks" (1977) and Master Lock's "Marksman" (1974-'93). If the agency won't commit to reach for the stars, clients should save their money.

Everyone needs to be on the same page regarding the objective of the effort: Do you want a spot people will talk about ... or a spot that will make people talk about your product? You can have both, but Super Bowl entertainment-for-its-own-sake conventions suggest you need to be pretty insistent.

MORE FROM FORBES

Forbes Section Front

Christmas prices come early to Wal-Mart Some billionaires losing big in economic crisis Seven better uses for the bailout’s $700 billion Gates once again tops list of America’s richest Where home prices may actually ... rise? The world’s most powerful women Billionaires for the next generation The best U.S. cities for earning a living The biggest losers in the Beijing Games The least-expensive cars to drive Forbes Section Front