Super Bowl Ads

This Sunday's Super Bowl will be an extravaganza filled with wings, beer and the perennial spate of new ads. Jim Hanas, editor of AdCritic.com, discussed the winner and losers among this year's Super Bowl ads.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_____________

Jim Hanas: Thank you, Super Bowl!

Well, the only thing unusual about yesterday's halftime show was Paul McCartney's repeated thanking of the Super Bowl, as if it were a person.

The ads? No classics, but a little better than last year, I thought. Some were memorable, in my opinion, including FedEx, CareerBuilder and Ameriquest.

Now, on to questions.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: Was Fox correct in stating its ad space cost $2.4 million and that they were losing that much to advertise the show "24", or was that just being cute because the name of the show is 24?

Jim Hanas: The promo for "24" was somewhat correct and somewhat cute, the premise being that Fox could have sold the time rather than using it for a promo. True, in a sense, except that one of the boons of broadcasting the Super Bowl is, obviously, promoting your own shows. Plus, halftime slots probably weren't going for 2.4 million.

_______________________

Etlan, Va.: Best ad was Lincoln french fry. Worst was caddie blasting out of tunnel-promotes irresponsibly fast driving. Question: I would suspect that there is a higher percentage of people who watch these new ads (rather than click to another station) compared to ads on a top rated drama or sit-com. Do you think that is factored into the extremely high cost of super bowl ads?

Jim Hanas: Yes. That's really the whole point of advertising on the Super Bowl, particularly now that so many people use TiVo and other PVRs. Live sporting events -- and the Super Bowl is the premiere live event -- are among the few kinds of broadcasts that people watch in real-time, commercials and all, even if they don't have to. But Super Bowl ads are extra-pricey because the audience is so huge and actually watching the ads -- rather than surfing, skipping or whatever -- has become a cultural part of the event.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: I saw the unedited GoDaddy.com commerical on their website. I am floored by the FCC, seriously. I know they didn't censor this commercial, rather the NFL and FOX. Still, it isn't that bad at all. Even the phrase "waldrobe malfunction" was edited out! America: We love endless war and hate double entendre.

Jim Hanas: It's hard to underestimate just how last year's, um, fallout has affected broadcasters, leading to the overly cautious attitude we saw this year. You're right, the GoDaddy ads are pretty tame, but it was the network that took the heat last year, so Fox was being very careful.

Of course, from a marketing perspective, the success of the ad -- which was sucessful even before it aired, because of the publicity it generated for a below-the-radar company -- wouldn't have been possible without this new sensitivity.

_______________________

Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Why does Budweiser continue to make commercials with the basic premise that only fools drink Bud and why, for heaven's sake, does that sell beer?

Jim Hanas: Advertisers appear in the Super Bowl for different reasons. Some, like CareerBuilder or GoDaddy.com, are there to make a name for themselves. Others, like Pepsi and Anheuser-Busch, are there because they're entwined with the event and they want to stay that way. (And because they wouldn't want to see that relationship go to a competitor, as it inevitably would.) That said, Budweiser's goal every year is to win the various popularity polls, which it consistently does. To do that you've got to appeal to the broadest possbile audience, and the best way to do that is with slapstick and sight gags -- what industry wags call "gags with tags." And it works. Bud has won the AdMeter seven years in a row. Do they expect sales to go up tomorrow because of these ads? Of course not. Their continued presence in the Super Bowl is part of broader campaign to be a part of American sports culture.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I read this morning that the GoDaddy.com ad was supposed to air a second time during the second half, but that the NFL complained to FOX, resulting in the ad being pulled. Which begs the question--why did it air at all then? Does the NFL have any say in the adverts the networks accept? (Obviously the contract was written long before last year's flap--pun intended--but with the recent extension of the FOX deal, I suppose the NFL could have amended the contract.)

Jim Hanas: Yes. The NFL does have some say in what ads can air during the game. Las Vegas Tourism, for example, has tried to buy time during the game before, but the league does not want to be associated with gambling. (You might have noticed that a Las Vegas ad did appear in the post-game.) This is not unprecedented. The Academy Awards, for example, have a long list of restrictions on ads that run during the Oscars telecast. Ads can't feature nominees, for instance.

As for the GoDaddy.com, the fact that Fox didn't air the ad a second time is a developing story. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Do these ads, however entertaining they might be, prove to be cost-effective for the companies?

Jim Hanas: Some will and some won't, but there's nothing on the face of it that suggests 2.4 million dollars is too much to pay for a Super Bowl ad. The game has a huge, attentive audience and the pre- and post- game coverage is publicity you can't buy. I mean, GoDaddy.com? Who had heard of them a week ago? Now they're all over the media.

_______________________