We know one big Super Bowl winner already – hip-hop legend Missy Elliott has seen an 1000% boost to her iTunes sales after she joined Katy Perry for the half-time show. For the brands who paid to advertise, the picture is inevitably less clear. After all, the short-term benefits won’t be known for weeks – and the long-term benefit of famous advertising is best measured over years.
That isn’t stopping commentators weighing in, of course. Consensus has it that 2015 saw a dreary crop of ads, and we wouldn’t necessarily argue. What’s more concerning is where the finger is being pointed. In a Forbes piece yesterday, Derek Rucker of the Kellogg School made a curious comparison. “There were lots of ads trying to pull at heartstrings with different levels of success. There was less of your funny, humorous, in-your-face advertising [in this game], and clearly a lot more emotional advertising.”
This, according to Rucker and Jennifer Rooney, the piece’s writer, was a problem. Tilt the balance of ads too far to the sombre and it stops being congruent with the Super Bowl’s party atmosphere. It’s a good point. The trouble is, Rucker’s apparent distinction between “emotional advertising” and “funny, humorous, in-your-fact advertising” is just not right. Continue reading