Is advertising on the Superbowl nuts?

This recent Boston Herald article offers interesting interesting perspective into the age-old question of whether or not you should advertise on the Super Bowl.

The article quotes Tim Canon, director of marketing for nut maker Diamond Foods: “If you’re building a brand the best way to build it is to get as many eyeballs on your advertising as possible." Maybe Diamond know something we don't - their humorous Super Bowl spot last year became the most revisited ad by TiVo users (meaning, folks actually wanted to watch it), and Emerald brand nuts (made by Diamond) saw a 56 percent hike in sales in the months following the game.

You can view their "big game spot" - which features cameos from Santa, the Easter Bunny and a unicorn [curiously, without a rainbow] on their site.

Kinda makes you think there's something to it.

Fran Kelly, president of Boston-based ad agency Arnold Worldwide and author of “The Breakaway Brand" is also quoted in the article: “If you have a big new product idea and you want to get it out there fast, and with a lot of credibility, the Super Bowl can’t be beat."

Perhaps this is true for categories (like nuts) that people already understand and shop frequently for - recalling the spot when you're in the store might get you to grab the can of Emeralds instead of the good ole Planters.

But --

what about "new product ideas" that are really new? Do you think people would've run out to buy a Roomba after simply seeing a single TV spot about it? Or a $600 Dyson vacuum cleaner? Or a groovy new Pontiac Solstice roadster? Probably not. Why? Because people can't "get it" enough from a TV spot (particularly one viewed through beer goggles) to really appreciate what the product is all about.

Interestingly, even general agencies - long the shrillest advocate for blowing their client's budget (while enhancing their own reels) during the year's biggest game - are admitting that the Super Bowl ain't what it used to be. Fran Kelly admits in the article that "ads for (the) Super Bowl are selling a little more slowly this year because so many clients are trying to find other ways to sell their brand."

A curious admission. But a critical one. Clients are increasingly realizing that it's not about eyeballs - it's about engagement. Which means consumers must tangibly (or virtually) experience what the brand is all about in order to appreciate its magic and potential relevance in their lives.

"New product ideas" like these require more than push marketing to gain relevance - they need an actual brand experience - which the Super Bowl can't provide (unless the TV spot drives you a web experience or another way to sample the product).

Thoughts?

Thanks to Ad-Land for the idea and article link

Comments

[alexander]

everything is relative, of course in case of new product sales may not peak with the same rate as in case of known ones but in the sence of awarness superbowl ad can do great job and then you can create engagement and involvement on the basis of created awarness,if your superbowl ad has some follow up brand/product promotion campaign on the target market. If we use AIDA model we can suggest that Attention and partly interest of lots of eyeballs we get with superbowl ad but to maintain it and built something valuable on it we need immediate follow up.

[Simon Pearce]

It seems that there as many people telling us the best ways to build brands as there are brands themselves. Some people say TV should be "the last step" in building a brand and only done once you have built an early-adopter following by other means. Would be interesting to see if this was the case for Emerald Nuts.

My take-away is that the old common-sense rule applies. If its actually interesting and / or funny then people will talk about it, watch it, engage with it, regardless of the medium. That sounds kind of obvious, but does not mean it is any less true than more complex theories.