VW’s endearing “Darth Vader” spot speaks to affluent parents who are the primary market for the Passat. When those viewers visit VW.com, however, the most easily found content for the new Passat a snarky but flat-footed video, “VW Academy with Bill Hader.” The video’s sarcasm seems off-key compared to “Darth Vader” and more akin to a Bud Light commercial. Plus, the video is slow to communicate a handful of the model’s key features. It risks diffusing the goodwill earned by “Darth Vader.”

Worse, there is little information on the new Passat anywhere on VW.com. If you click on Passat, under the Models menu on the home page, you get information on the current model. The lack of details on the new Passat is a huge missed opportunity for VW to keep potential customers engaged and feed their curiosity about the new model.

Motorola does a better job following up on its “Empower the People” spot for the Xoom tablet. After viewers find their way to the Motorola Mobility consumer site, the Xoom is featured on the home page. The Xoom product page leads with a replay of the TV ad, but it’s easy to skip the ad and get to an overview of the Xoom.

After the daring TV ad however, the product page is a let down. The Xoom ad, like it’s 1984 inspiration, promises change, but visitors get a typical, staid list of specs and features. The Xoom page could have related tech specs and features to human needs and situations.
At least some of the features that sound interesting, like Android Honeycomb or the “Floating” multi-finger interface, could be illustrated in more exciting ways. There’s little opportunity for further engagement beyond opting in for updates.

Eminem wants you to believe in Detroit

Chrysler likewise follows the inspiring “Imported from Detroit” spot with a lackluster web experience. When a viewer visited Chrysler.com the day of or day after the Super Bowl, model information for the new 200 was adequate and easy to find. Yet Chrysler had potentially built the most powerful platform, an unfolding story about Detroit’s revival and steadfast city pride. How could Chrysler have moved that story forward? How could they have prompted people to act, to show their support for Detroit? They could have gone further with a program such as Levi’s like-minded project in Braddock, PA. Or at least more passionately called on people to see the 200 in person and give Detroit a chance. This week Chrysler added an Imported from Detroit microsite, which still lacks exciting ways for viewers to get involved. You can buy a t-shirt, put names to some of the faces of ordinary people in the spot, or read a “What’s Up in Detroit” feed that doesn’t link to anything of the events or places it promotes. There is still no way for visitors to be a part of this story. Avenues for deeper involvement should have been part of this campaign from the beginning.

Other brands did better at integrating their online experience with their Super Bowl ads. Best Buy, for example, is prominently promoting its Buy Back program on its home page and offering the program for free for a limited time. The site also features a “Buybaculator” that makes the benefit of the program less confusing and more concrete.

Are there other brands that made strong online plays to compliment their Super Bowl ads? What could Chrysler have done to extend their “Imported from Detroit” anthem? Let us know what you think.

Andy LaFond is Senior Planner in our Chicago office.

They’re advertising ads now?
A clear sign that advertisers are losing faith in the Super Bowl is the pre-released ad. To generate buzz this year, Volkswagen, Careerbuilder, GM and others released their commercials weeks before the game. Then they tried to drum up further interest with ‘making of’ videos and other media appearances. When advertisers are trying this hard to sell you on their commercial, you wonder why they don’t just sell you their product, story or brand another time.

It’s a tough crowd.
Despite murmurings that social media would radically alter this year’s Super Bowl commercials, very little changed. Most ads tried to get a laugh from the lowest common denominator, employing animals or children or plenty of CGI work. It’s understandable, because it’s hard to get a big crowd to listen but it’s easy to accidentally turn one against you. So the best hope with so large an audience is to entertain without offending. As a result most ads aren’t memorable to anyone.

Super Bowl viewers don’t want to interact.
Although brands did try to get users involved, it was little use. Many tried to get viewers to find them on facebook, watch alternate endings or tweet about them, yet most refused. And those brands were the lucky ones.

Groupon fared worse, catching a backlash because few bothered to go to the site and discover the message’s altruistic payoff. Which isn’t to say those in the Super Bowl demographic don’t want to be engaged digitally, they just can’t be bothered to do so during the game. As a traditional event with a largely passive audience, shoe-horning Super Bowl ads into the interactive age won’t be so easy.

Are we talking to ourselves again?
15,000 out of a total 100 million viewers did participate in Mullen and Radian6’s #BrandBowl twitter conversation. But nearly all the hashtag tweeters seemed to be Advertising or PR pros. Among the top ten picked by USA Today’s popularity system, only four matched the votes of the Brand Bowl crowd. The twitter favorite, Chrysler’s tribute to Detroit, didn’t even crack USA Today’s top 40. This should give anyone pause when considering the accuracy of online sentiment measurements or accuracy in measuring the Super Bowl altogether.

The excessively high price tag
Where once it was good enough for a spot to just entertain, a $3 million price tag seems unjustifiable given today’s plethora of media options and economic situation. Last year, Pepsi backed out of the Super Bowl for the first time in over a decade and used the money to support individuals with worthwhile causes. A much better investment than all of this year’s chuckle-worthy spots combined.

Small is the future.
When it comes to Super Bowl ads, many viewers might remember a funny baby or dancing animal, but few recall the brand that made it. Agencies are now shifting their success models from breadth to depth of reach. With specialty and niche channels everywhere, there’s no need to try and talk to everybody at once. Talk to your target(s) separately, and you’ll be able to design around insights that are common only to their demographic. You also get more chances to get your message right. More importantly, you’ll have time on your side and a $3 million budget to spare.

Richard is a Copywriter in the CM Toronto office.

“How can this be?” you might ask. Well, allow me to enlighten you.

Why did you take notes in school? There’s a good chance that somewhere along the way a teacher or a parent told you that writing things down helps you to remember them–especially the important things. Well, New York-based Solve Media and their clients are betting that their messages are important enough for you to remember. The plan is to combine captchas with ad revenue. Now, instead of typing out a string of nonsense you’ll write down a branded catch phrase from your favorite brands.

In the example below, random characters are replaced with the Microsoft altruism “Browse Safer.” Another example, an ad for the movie “The Town” might use something like “Turns out Ben Affleck can act, go figure.” McDonald’s, “Better than eating Cardboard.” And so on.

Internet Explorer branded Captcha

Sounds like a solid plan. Remembering = good. Brand exposure = good. Fighting spam and internet bad guys = good. But here is where I play devil’s advocate:

Does adding brand advertising to an already annoying surfing interruption put advertisers in a light they want to be in? Or is the promise of more advertising revenue and quicker access going to your favorite site enough to sway public opinion? We are already inundated with messages when we get to a site, but with the difference being that we can choose to ignore them (just like we can choose to get up and grab a drink during the spots on Hulu or regular TV). These new captchas will be different; this is forced interaction with brands. So, while it might be good for retention it might be bad for perception.

On a personal level I have a love/hate relationship with advertising, but it is for that reason that ads work on me. I am allowed to identify and appreciate one while choosing not to connect with another. I use Old Spice now because I enjoy riding horses backwards on the beach with my airbrushed sixpack. I do not however want to take Cymbalta because a random smiling person was kind enough to ramble off its frighteningly long list of side effects. And therein lies the beauty of advertising: the freedom to love, hate or simply ignore it. Take that away from me and I might just get frustrated. To take another stab at my earlier equation, Annoyance + forced brand exposure + a forced condition to continue browsing = Bad User Experience.

Or am I reading too much into this? You tell me.

Additionally, some of a captcha’s effectiveness is in its ability to be almost infinitely random so I imagine this will require an infinite amount of current brand copy that can be put out in a random enough pattern to foil those increasingly bright hackers? (UPDATE: I have been informed by Solve Media that–and I quote– “Every image is slightly different against hundreds of variables.” So, it would seem they have this covered one way or another)

Aside from my doubts, I find the approach interesting and the proof of its effectiveness will have to be in the pudding, as they say. Quicker access to content I want to see, better brand retention and consumer engagement for my clients could lead to an overall happier browsing experience. Captchas are gonna getcha one way or another; this seems like a considerably more useful way to employ them… at least from an advertising point of view.

Chris is an Art Director working on our Calgary office clients, but out of his home in Manitoba.

For those who are not familiar, Contagious is a leading global news and intelligence resource for the marketing industry that helps advertising professionals navigate their way through the new media landscape. Contagious was launched in London in 2004, covering topics like branded content, mobile-social-and viral marketing, and a bunch more. Essentially they’re most interested in all the ways ideas are transmitted outside of paid media. Nick helps steward Contagious NA from New York, where he’s worked in many forms of media since arriving in 2001. (Sports Writer for the New York Post, Silicon Alley startup Flavorpill’s Editor, Associate Editor of Advertising Age’s Creativity magazine, and most recently, Events Content Manager for Ad Age events like CaT: Creativity and Technology and the IDEA Conferences.)

We got together with Nick last week to discuss the week that was Cannes Lions 2010…

CM: Cannes is known for being the ultimate celebration of creativity. What was the most creative thing you came across?

Nick: Most creative thing? Single thing? Maybe people’s expense report strategies?

Seriously, it’s tough to nail down, and ultimately, even if you were to see all the work, that’s a really personal question. I enjoyed a lot of the Design work this year; that’s a group I haven’t paid much attention to since it was launched. But the category has only been around for a few years, so it’s pretty media-agnostic, and you get groundbreaking stuff that’s fundamentally aesthetically sound, like the Toyota IQ Font, which won Grand Prix.

Fundamental aesthetics will always be essential.

CM: What was a common theme running through the Cannes Advertising fest?

Nick: I think a common theme was re-building and re-thinking.

Everyone realized we had a bad run last year, and that undoubtedly affected things like resources and budgets, but the best projects, like Grand Prix winners Gatorade Replay and Best Buy’s Twelpforce, were ideas that became platforms that could stand on their own and grow.

In the instance of Gatorade, that’s changed the way PepsiCo structures that business, from a marketing sense, and Replay and Replay-esque things have become a serious part of their considerations. And it’s blossomed from episodic online content into events that are shot by Fox Sports Net just like they’d shoot any professional sport, in addition to a grassroots league and other side parts.

Another interesting theme is that we continue to see is the best work winning in multiple places. This happened last year with the Queensland Tourism Board’s “Best Job In The World” campaign, and again this year with Replay and Nike’s Chalkbot. All of a sudden we’re asking what each of these categories has to do with each other, and what applies best where.

Further, and this pains me a bit to say it, but the Cyber category feels like it’s really looking for direction. Digital is everywhere now—nearly every Grand Prix winner has a digital component, and most of them were really integral to their success. Even the ‘Film Craft’ winner, Philips’ “The Gift” from DDB London, was a webfilm. Cyber’s become a category for great websites, but now that everything moves digitally and lives everywhere it’s going to have to go through a bit of a renewal.

CM: So then do you think the trend of best work winning in multiple categories reflects a growing emphasis to create integrated marketing campaigns that can live across several different channels?

Nick: In a word, yes. Marketers realize it’s no longer acceptable just to shout something in people’s faces. There has to be something that can be transmitted because they’ve got merit, not only because you’ve bought the media.

CM: Alright, we’d be remiss if we didn’t ask this question. What was the titillating industry gossip at Cannes this year?

Nick: Nothing. Everyone was on their best behavior.

Well, not really, but marketers started coming to Cannes about four or five years ago and by now everyone’s got their clients in town, trying to introduce them to these big ideas, and share the ones they’ve had, and I think that curbs a lot of the totally wild stuff.

I did wrangle the budget for a large sports apparel company’s soccer tournament magnum opus commercial from someone. That was interesting.

CM: Fair enough, kudos to a well-thought-out and diplomatic answer. With all of the great minds that gathered to discuss these big ideas, what was the single-most inspiring part of your trip to Cannes?

Nick: I think I can speak for all of us at Contagious when I say our biggest inspiration is meeting the people from the ad industry thinking the really big thoughts and having discussions with them. We get one week to see everyone from around the world that has been doing the stuff we loved over the last year. Cannes is really just a big gathering of people who want to do the same thing, make great creative work. They get to talk about that work, and about what’s making them stoked, and about where it’s all going for a week straight. It just so happens to be in the south of France.

CM: It sounds like Cannes was a great experience this year. Overall then, do you think it lives up to the hype?

Nick: Yes and no. It’s not a constant wild crazy Advertising Ibiza, if that’s the hype you mean. Most people have to work too, which means late nights and packed days.

It does live up to the hype of being a great festival, still, and a great way to be exposed to new ideas and get a huge jolt of inspiration.

CM: Thanks a lot for all of your valuable insights into what went on at Cannes this year. Sounds like the key themes are characteristic of the rising trends within the digital space today. We’ll be keeping a close eye on what Contagious is up to moving forward in 2010, and we look forward to hearing from you again in the near future!

Sign up for the Contagious newsletter and visit them on the web at contagiousmagazine.com.

This morning I went to the site as I always do and went to look for the headlines.  Of late I have been disappointed that this section had been shrinking and I was only getting a small amount of them.  Here is what it looks like today:

So when the page loads I get absolutely zero headlines.  Nothing.  Zilch.  Nada.  In other words, I get the same amount of news headlines as the Calgary Flames get second round home games (there, I built the one jab in that I said I would in the CBC radio interview.)  I have to scroll down the page to get the information I want.

As loyal ESPN.com user, I’m pissed.  They have continually bastardized their site in an effort to make more room for ads and thus drive more ad sales.  I keep coming back because even because the content they have is second to none.  This last move, however, is a tough pill to swallow.

Now, to their defense, if you do scroll down you get 15 top headlines.  That is three times the amount you got before.  Also, it is possible that the Mac ad running their now is only temporary and they will go back to the old format.

For today’s consumer, nothing is more important than the experience.  Regardless of where it happens, they have to really enjoy how they get their information and entertainment because if they don’t there are hundreds, literally, of other places they can get it.   My buddy Fred is a junkie, as I am.  He is also a good example of what happens when you forget the customer and think only of ad revenue.

When he complained the other day that there were not enough headlines on the site, I agreed.  So this morning I told him there were more but he had to deal with more ads.  His response?  “ESPN sucks now.  I don’t go there nearly as often as I used too.”

Right said, Fred.  I know that isn’t good grammar but it gave me a chance to link out to “I’m Too Sexy”, and you know you are going to click through.

The point here is that I know ESPN wants to drive ad revenue and I understand and appreciate that.  But if they continue to make decisions based on ad revenue and not the customer, eventually it won’t matter.  People like Fred will stop going to the site all together and get their information from another site or an iPhone application.  If this happens, traffic goes down, CPM’s go down and they will need more ad units to drive the same amount of revenue.  More ad units means less content.  It’s a viscous circle.