Super Consumption

After having a day to reflect on all the Super Bowl advertisements, it seems that what's more interesting is not the content of the coveted 30-second spots, it's the role online video streaming has played in the hype and appeal of these advertisements.


Many websites, including Adbowl.com and Spotbowl.com, have created polls in which users can rank the advertisements from best to worst. YouTube has brought together the entire experience--allowing users to watch and rank--and then rewarding the winning video with prime advertising space on its homepage. Now that is social marketing at it's core. It all comes back to the permission marketing principle, letting people see the advertisements that they want to see. If they don't want to see it, then you didn't do your job.

However, social networks and word of mouth marketing are what make airing an ad on the superbowl worth the $2.6 million price tag. These advertisements create buzz before the game; they generate loads of PR after the game; and now, thanks to online video, these advertisements generate enough traffic to compile more impressions than they ever could during any 30-second spot on television alone.

On the flip side, the internet also allows for immediate criticism and rebuke from online communities in response to the advertisements. This year was no exception when it came to stirring debate over Super Bowl commercial content. Advertisers GM and Snickers have felt the heat for their commercials that blur the line on what is acceptable social commentary.

Still, how often have we heard that all publicity is good publicity? I think it's safe to say that the era of television advertising as a primary medium is definitely gone. Multimedia advertising is becoming more relevant and necessary in the success of advertising messages and their reach towards consumers.