The Super Bowl may be the culmination of the American professional football season, but for us—particularly since our beloved Patriots were not in the National Football League's annual grand finale—it's the advertising we tune in to see.

Now believe it or not, each year we gear up for big game advertising with a completely open mind with no preconceived notions about what we expect to see (or not see) from the mix of the country's biggest advertisers, up-and-coming firms looking to make a big impression in one fell swoop, and midsize companies looking to increase name recognition on the most watched TV program of the year. We purposely forget about all the meaningless pap and gratuitous, very often questionably funny creative from years prior, and hope to be stunned, amazed, moved, and inspired by ads that both entertain and sell us on why we should care about and, better yet, buy a brand. But as the last ad aired in the closing moment of the broadcast, we hung our heads and once again thought, "better luck next year."

You know it's bad when the best an ad critic can muster is, "at least this year I didn't feel like throwing anything at my TV," as the creative editor at Adweek Eleftheria Parpis wrote in a column summing up the low- and even lower-lights of advertising's night of nights. In our summation, the 60 national ads that ran during Super Bowl XLI made at least three things abundantly clear:

1. We are a violent people. "Violence," was the one word Advertising Age's ad critic Bob Garfield used to some up the Super Bowl ads. New York Times advertising and media columnist Stuart Elliot commented, "more than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoonlike vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous," and talked about the commercials' "martial tone" in his post-game coverage. And how did we allegedly war-weary Americans react? Apparently, we ate it up.
   
   The spot for Bud Light featuring a guy beaning another man on the head with a rock at close range was the top rated ad in several published polls and critical assessments, as was the Blockbuster ad in which an animated rabbit and guinea pig repeatedly stepped on a mouse that squealed in obvious discomfort. Another hit in the polls, a Dorito's ad, produced by consumers not blood-and-guts agency creatives, had a guy getting in a car accident and a women getting hit by a car to illustrate the sound adjectives that characterize the chip. If rock-beaning wasn't enough, Bud Light had people slapping each other in the face and Fedex had a guy get knocked into free-falling space orbit only to be crushed by a fiery passing comet seconds later. Again, these spots were also some of the most liked ads in the day-after polls.
   
   
2. We have a dim view of our institutions and fellow man. The workplace—thanks to Careerbuilder.com—is characterized by dreary, scary "Gladiator" style hand-to-hand combat and a jungle where extreme torture and poison darts are commonplace. Celebrations of marriage are annoying and to be gotten through as quickly as possible (so we can drink Bud Light). Banks are robbing us and our brokers are screwing us. Hospital workers callously ignore us as we lay on our deathbed and, more importantly, steal our soda. Marketing is all about wet t-shirt contests. Robots are throwing themselves off bridges. Even cute animals are no-good schemers—a stray dog sneaks his way into the arms of a beauty queen under false pretenses, gorillas plot to steal Bud Light, and lions joke about the (literal) taste of humans.
   
   For goodness sakes, the only warm and fuzzy characters were computer-generated! Coke's video game do-gooder gave "a little love" to everyone he encountered and the cute cartoon characters inside the Coke vending machine seemed happy and pleasant enough. But generally the ads painted a pretty bleak picture of humankind.
   
   
3. It's OK to talk about food and drink, hair and sex in the same sentence. Nothing says chocolatey Snickers goodness like a fist full of chest hair. Implied sexual activity in a grocery store makes us want to rip open a bag of Doritos. Boy, that beard comb-over and way-too-short cut-offs on a practically translucent actor makes us thirsty for a Sierra Mist Free.

We're not sure who missed out more by not advertising during the Super Bowl—Prozac or Pepto-Bismol. We sure could have popped a couple of both after watching this generally depressing and thoroughly unappetizing lot.

With some exceptions, the main objective of most of the 60 national ads seemed to be brand awareness—just get our name out there. Never mind if the brand name is bandied about with the plot line of the commercial and not a selling message, as long as people are talking about us. Businessweek marketing editor Burt Helm's recent quip, "...Will our children someday ask us about the days when traditional ads weren't just designed to get people talking, but to actually try to sell you something?" never seemed more appropriate.

Of course, for some of the smaller brands that advertised during the Super Bowl, straight brand awareness may be enough to justify the $2.6 million media spend and whatever hundreds of thousands, or conceivably millions, were spent on producing a spot and pre-promoting it. For big advertisers such as Budweiser and GM, however, brand awareness is not the reason growing sales and profits have been such challenges for these companies. Ask most people to name a beer company and a big car company and we'd put money on "Budweiser" and "GM" coming out of their mouths first. The message these brands and many others need to deliver is not, "hey, we're here!" but, "hey, you've got to buy us because (insert reason here)."

It was really a stretch to find even a handful of commercials that delivered a clear, unique reason to buy message and delivered it in a creative way that wasn't so distracting it overshadowed the message. None of the Budweiser spots seemed to offer much in the clear RTB department, for instance. And GM's "obsessed with quality" isn't exactly unique. In the case of GM, having a robot get laid-off when the firm has cut the jobs of thousands of workers made us so uncomfortable we missed the quality message with info about the warranty delivered in a brief voice over at the end anyway.

According to a Harris Interactive survey, more than half of U.S. adults who watch the Super Bowl do so as much or more for the commercials as for the game itself. But given that companies are already spending significantly to pre-promote their Super Bowl ads—essentially advertising their advertising—just to get people to pay attention to them, it's becoming increasingly debatable if this attention to commercials during the game isn't a completely contrived situation. Given the fare companies seem content to go with year after year, we wonder, as Slate magazine reporter Seth Stevenson did, if soon "we may have to drop all this Super Bowl advertising hoopla. The ads have been roundly mediocre for a few years running now. Some huge advertisers—include P&G and Unilever—decided to ditch this Super Bowl entirely...are we seeing the end of an era? And will we even miss it?"

And the Winners Are.....

In our informal, unscientific poll around the water cooler at Copernicus, a few spots really stood out.

The ad that wasn't: Honda CR-V
Researchers at the University of California Los Angeles used functional magnetic resonance machines to scan the brains of five men and five women as they viewed the Super Bowl ads. According to the scans the brains of the test subjects showed more reaction to a blank black screen than the spot purportedly advertising the Honda CR-V.

The ad that should never have been: GoDaddy.com
Weeks after winning the GoDaddy account, Shine Advertising resigned the account and, as reported in Advertising Age, "renounced responsibility for the GoDaddy work that will appear during the Super Bowl." We were personally offended by the portrayal of the marketing department in this spot where employees are shown spritzing a well-endowed woman in a white t-shirt with what looks like champagne. What do you say, fellow marketers, is a boycott in order?

Biggest head-scratchers: Izod, Bud Select and Schick
It was a three-way tie between Izod, Bud Select, and Schick for airing the most perplexing advertising. Izod, a venerable fashion brand best known for their green alligator label, selected a spot that consisted of a quick montage of images of an athletic-looking male and female model in winter and summer clothes with edgy music. What was that about? Bud Select went with Jay-Z and Don Shula—huh?—playing some sort of digital football game under the tagline "expect everything." Say again? And Schick had two guys in lab coats running some sort of experiment in a gym. A guy walks over to a treadmill, the woman next to him falls off hers. Flash to one of the lab coat guys who says something unintelligible. We replayed this commercial a dozen times and still cannot make out what he is saying. It remains a complete mystery.

Strangest Bedfellows: HP and OC Choppers
We had no idea what this ad was about when we saw it on TV. When we saw the title the firm had given to the ad the next day in the USAToday poll, "OC Choppers," it made a bit more sense. The voiceover in the ad we then recognized was the voice of one of the hosts of the TLC cable show, "American Chopper." We've not watched the show, but we learned via the web that Orange County Choppers is the company featured in the show. The connection between the motorcycle guys and HP, however, still has us guessing.

Biggest Lump in Our Throat: Coke
The nod of the head to the two Black coaches leading the Super Bowl teams made us feel warmly about the brand.

Clearest Reason to Buy Message: Snapple Green Tea
EGCG, read about it on the back of the bottle.

The Whole Package—Clever and Compelling: Sprint
"Connectile Dysfunction"—now that's funny. Largest and fastest network—now that sounds like a selling message.

Was it the Valentine's Day holiday a few weeks ago that's behind the recent spate of pleas for brands to build an emotional love bond with buyers far beyond a product or service's price, features, and quality? Perhaps Cupid's arrows struck our old friend Marshal Cohen, Chief Industry Analyst at research firm NPD, who tackled a popular subject—building an emotional connection between brands and buyers—in a recent editorial piece in Brandweek. Writes Cohen, "With more and more consumers committed to spending their money even before they set foot inside a store, the challenge is this: How can you get them to commit to spending what's left of their money on your product or service? The answer, in a word, is connection. You've got to make an emotional (our emphasis) connection with your consumers."

Ad Age also felt the love the same week, with a piece from Kevin Roberts, author of The Lovemarks Effect: Winning in the Consumer Economy and CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi Worldwide, "Living in the Age of Attraction—Heart of the Matter: Marketers Must Connect Emotionally With Consumers," in which he predicts, "this year will see the emergence of the Attraction Economy. Driven by the fundamental shift in control from manufacturers and retailers to consumers, the future belongs to those who make emotional connections with them. "

Cohen and Roberts join the steady chorus of marketers singing the praises of emotional connection, a "must have" for consumers and companies alike, albeit a nebulously defined one. Taking a break from critical company memos, chairman of coffee house cult brand Starbucks Howard Shultz explained, "the fracturing of our humanity, the fracturing of trust in public institutions and corporations, has created significant cynicism. However, people want to be a part of something that they can believe in. They want to be associated with a product or service that they can rely on. Companies that are serving these emotional and human needs of the customers will really stand out amidst this cynical backdrop." Continues Marc Gobé, author of Emotional Branding, "by empowering consumers, brands are ultimately empowered themselves," and cautions there's "a huge difference between the concept of brand awareness and emotional connection. Being known doesn't mean that you are loved." And at the end of the day, you want to be loved. According to these folks and many others, buyers want to be engaged on some deeper level by the brands they purchase and firms need to relate to buyers in this way to stand out from the competition and ensure repeat business.

The idea of emotional connection of course isn't a new phenomenon. For years now, brand consultants have talked about the virtues of inspiring and channeling the passions of consumers for the good of the brand. Particularly as firms paid more attention to not just getting customers, but KEEPING them, engaging buyers on an emotional level that goes beyond rhyme or reason is perceived as the ultimate form of brand loyalty. "Emotional connections are universally important, and managing those emotional bonds pays off handsomely," maintains William J. McEwen of the Gallup Organization. Harley-Davidson and other cult brands point to the passions they inspire among buyers and credit this abiding love for much of their financial success. The pursuit of greater meaning cuts across categories and industries, and B2C and B2B markets. Everyone from GM's VP of marketing and advertising, to the CMO of industrial manufacturing and engineering company Emerson, to the CEO of JCPenney are talking about what their firms are doing to cultivate an emotional bond. Yet according to a new Copernicus and Greenfield Online study, this might be easier said than done.

Copernicus and Greenfield recently talked to a nationally representative sample of over 1000 American men and women, age 18 and above, about emotional connections in 50 product categories. Study participants were asked the following question: "Some people say that they have an 'emotional connection' with their favorite products and brands. They have a personal/emotional bond which goes beyond the product's obvious price, features, and quality. Other people say that they either like a brand or they dislike it. The notion of an emotional connection doesn't make any sense. Now thinking about your preferred brand in the categories listed below, please let us know whether you feel that you have a personal/emotional connection with that brand."

For all the talk—dare we say hype?—about fostering emotion bonds, just 20%-25% of consumers on average reported even a moderate emotional connection to a brand. The four categories with the largest percentage of consumers reporting a moderate or strong connection were:

• Cola soft drinks (39% reporting strong or moderate emotional connection)
• Beer (37%)
• Personal computers (33%)
• Ground coffee (31%)
  

The categories where consumers had the strongest emotional connection (the top box on our scale) were all beverages:

• Cola soft drinks (18% reporting a strong emotional connection)
• Beer (17%)
• Ground coffee (15%)
  

As an aside, Starbucks, the poster child of emo-marketing, might like to know that only 24% of Americans report a strong or moderate emotional connection to brands in the coffee shop category—just 8% have a strong connection and half have NO connection to their preferred brand in the category. Perhaps Mr. Shultz will want to circulate an addendum to his memo with this new information.

Interestingly—and this should make proponents of emotional connection happy—in most categories Americans ages 18-29 expressed the highest level of emotional connection to their favorite brands. In 43 of 50 product categories, younger people have a stronger connection than those who've hit the mid-century mark. For example, 50% of 18-29-year-olds have a moderate or strong emotional connection to their top soft drink brand compared to 35% of 50+ year-olds; 44% versus 33% for beer; and 42% versus 29% for PCs. The biggest difference between the two age groups is in the baby diaper category where 35% of young people report a moderate or strong bond compared to only 14% of the over 50 set, but this difference is likely explained by young people using the products and greater level of involvement in the category than older folks.

Amazingly, less than 10% of the population on average reports a strong emotional connection to brands. In 18 categories, the vast majority of consumers report absolutely no emotional connection to their preferred brands. The Aflac duck may be beloved, but disability insurance tops the list—75% of consumers report absolutely no emotional connection to their preferred brand. [Aflac's new CMO was obviously on to something with his recent move to dump the duck.]

Other categories include:

• On-line stock trading sites (72%)
• Big office supply retail stores (71%)
• Rx erectile dysfunction medications (70%)
  

Now this surprising absence of wide spread emotional connection could be because companies simply aren't doing a good job inspiring and channeling consumers' affections. Or it could be that the notion of "an emotional connection" just isn't as universally valid as it's believed—not every buyer may need to feel an emotional bond to the brands they regularly buy to be a profitable, loyal customer. Perhaps the need for emotional connection is a function of age or a tendency of a generation. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that "emotional connections" operate at an unconscious, even mysterious level and can't be simply measured by a survey. Or it could be a combination of these factors and/or many others.

At the very least, marketers should consider the results of the Copernicus/Greenfield study as a clear indication that in marketing as in life, when it comes to relationships, talk is cheap. Whether consumers need to have an emotional bond with brands or not, the fact remains most do not report having one.

Back to top.

For more insightful marketing discoveries, visit http://www.copernicusmarketing.com/discover/index.htm

Have a hot discovery for our next release? Contact us at ami.bowen@copernicusmarketing.com

Back to top.

Your Gut Is Still Not Smarter Than Your Head
By Kevin Clancy and Peter Krieg (Wiley, April 2007)

Fast Company magazine, the self-proclaimed chronicle of cutting-edge business practices, not too long ago proclaimed that "Acting on Intuition" was the #1 trend that "will affect the way we work and live." The magazine's report on intuition read as if following it in a business situation was somehow new—as if the problem with business is really that people have been relying too heavily on research and logical decision-making processes and not paying enough attention to what that little voice inside their head was telling them to do. We shook our heads then, but a few weeks later, after hearing yet another CEO tell us how she was completely inspired by the ideas espoused in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, which continues to occupy a top spot on the best-seller list with millions of copies now in print, we decided enough is enough. We have to write a response.

The result is Your Gut Is Still Not Smarter Than Your Head: How Disciplined, Fact-Based Marketing Will Lead to Extraordinary Growth and Profits.

The field of marketing is a late bloomer when it comes to conforming to the analytic, fact-based approach to decision-making that is de rigueur in virtually every other critical strategic business function—from finance to IT to operations. But the excuses that worked even just a few years ago—we can't really measure the impact of advertising on sales, we don't have anyway to know which kind of marketing program will impact our customer lifetime value more, the sleeper and subliminal effects of this campaign can't be quantified—just don't fly with CEOs and CFOs anymore. Marketing is held to the same standards of accountability today that all other functional areas are, so, marketers, you've got to get yourself into shape and fast!

Your Gut Is Still Not Smarter Than Your Head paves the way for anyone in business—Fortune 500 CMO, mid-cap company CEO, or small business owner alike—to make better, more profitable marketing decisions. Intuition and creativity certainly have their place in marketing—as they do in any other business decision area. But programs that return 20% or more on investment come from a careful balance of intuition and fact.

Look for more on Your Gut Is Still Not Smarter Than Your Head, due into on-line retailers in mid-March and in-stores nationwide April 6, in future editions of the Copernicus MZine. Visit Amazon.com or 800CEORead.com for pre-order information.

Back to top.

Sixth Annual Six Sigma for Sales & Marketing
March 20-21, 2007, Bally's Las Vegas

You’ve heard the results and seen the gains made from Six Sigma and want to know how you can do the same? Unsure how Six Sigma can be applied to Sales and Marketing operations? Need to extend your productivity and stretch your sales revenue?

Then look no further—with no less than 16 case studies that have already seen the results, discover how to:

• Get a slice of the pie—extending Six Sigma ROI results into your sales & marketing department with first class operations and process efficiency
• Build the right toolkit that matches your departmental culture and KPIs by selecting which methodology will work best for you
• Overcome staff cynicism by demonstrating direct monetary impact and rewarding top teams
• Get more information from your data collection and analysis with clear process pathways and tailored data management systems
• Increase your market potential and ensure product success by delivering customer satisfaction at all levels and installing a VOC feedback culture

Copernicus at the Six Sigma for Sales & Marketing conference:

March 19, Pre-Conference Tutorial
Henry Gamse, Senior Vice President of Statistical and Modeling Services
"Profit-Focused Targeting and Media Planning"

March 20, 9:40 AM
Kevin Clancy, Chairman and CEO
"From Competition to Coalition: Uniting Sales and Marketing Behind Transformational Marketing"

For more information visit http://www.sixsigmaiq.co.uk/cgi-bin/templates/singlecell.html?topic=241&event=11959

The Conference Board 2007 Senior Marketing Executive Roundtable
April 18-19, Millennium UN Plaza, New York City
May 17-18, The Drake, Chicago

In today's difficult competitive environment, the pressure is on marketers not only to maintain levels of financial performance but also to develop profitable growth. This seminar focuses on how to accomplish those twin goals. Speakers from companies, consultancies, and universities explain approaches they use and illustrate their ideas with case histories that maximize learning.

Copernicus at the Senior Marketing Executive Roundtable conference:

April 18 and May 17, Kevin Clancy, Chairman and CEO
"Using Profit-Focused Targeting to Move Moribund Markets and Grow Sales and Profits"

For more information visit http://www.conference-board.org/conferences/conference.cfm?id=1376 for New York and fhttp://www.conference-board.org/conferences/conference.cfm?id=1377 for Chicago.

Back to top.