To celeb or not to celeb in advertising
The Superbowl loves a big name but not everybody gets it right
Maybe it was me, but this year’s Superbowl adverts felt underwhelming. Although I’m probably not their target market.
Onwards
Sell a Superbowl spot, hire a celebrity
Superbowl adverts are a strange category. Done right - like Tourism Australia - they can be hugely effective. They almost guarantee incrementally. As the UK press will devote column inches to Christmas adverts, so the US media will give exposure to most adverts above and beyond the millions of eyeballs already tuned in.
The incrementally is one reason why Superbowl advertising can be seen as a safe - if expensive - bet. In the short term, it guarantees reach at an unsurpassed level, with an additional bonus if you're a global brand. And reaching as many buyers in your potential market is one way to grow a brand.
It's one reason why big brands stay big for longer. They can outspend competitors for eyeballs, whether it's TV, TikTok, or train station billboards. Or, as likely, a combination of all three.
Siri: define success
If reach was the only determining factor in success, then marketers and CFOs would probably have a much more simple relationship. There's frequency - yes, more budget required - but also creativity (again, see Tourism Australia as an example here). And then there's the more complex elements.
Is the objective long and involves building memory structures by targeting all potential in and out of market buyers to keep the future funnel topped up? Or is it short and designed to elicit a more immediate response or goal that will lead to a financially beneficial outcome within a defined 12 month period? Does it make use of category entry points and help the brand come to mind in buying situations? Does it build upon existing brand equity using distinctive brand assets?
So, the Superbowl isn't necessarily a case of sticking spot on TV and waiting for the dollars to come in. If that was the case pets.com would still be in business and last year's cryptocurrency advertisers would have weathered the subsequent crypto winter. The creative has to sit on top of all the above questions and do the job well.
All of which brings us, in a roundabout way, to celebrities. This year we had Cher from Clueless and Walter and Jesse from Breaking Bad return. Serena Williams advertised two different alcohol brands. Steve Martin and Ben Stiller were Steve Martin and Ben Stiller.
And Paul Stanley from Kiss teamed up with Ozzy Osbourne, Joan Jett, Billy Idol and Gary Clark Jr to sell admin software.
Of all the adverts I saw, the 'rock star' commercial was my personal favourite. You could tell the creative team had taken an insight and really run with it. The execution was fun and the ad was memorable. It topped a few industry best of lists.
Creative, yes. But commercially? Here's what industry veteran Bob Hoffmann thought:
After reading this Tweet, I spent a lot longer than I should have trying to recall the brand before plumping for Xero, on the basis it was one of the few finance brands I could think of and I was relatively sure accounts were mentioned somewhere.
This is why big brands have an advantage. They come to mind when you think of the category, not just the product.
Not that Workday's $47bn market captialisation means that they're not a big company or a big brand - and I'm certainly not the target market, although I’ve had to use Workday multiple times (and have never used Xero).
But there’s a big difference between saying “My favourite Super Bowl advert was the Paul Stanley one” and “My favourite advert was the Workday one.”
This is why celebrities can be tricky, especially when it comes to brand attribution. The risk is the celebrity overshadows the brand, especially if it’s not part of a wider campaign or doesn’t play within the confines of the brand codes.
As System 1's Andrew Tindall notes, celebrities in Superbowl adverts generally have no long-term brand building effects, although can produce a short-term response.
And yet brands continue to spend large sums of money on celebrity advertising - as they have done since turn-of-the-century generals were slapped across cigarette packets.
Money well spent?
So what makes a good celebrity advert? And by good, I mean effective rather than creatively good (although an advert is unlikely to be effective if the creative is bad).
Each brand is different, but it falls somewhere between a very clear strategy, a very clear sense of the brand and its role versus the celebrity, and a very clever creative team who spot something that most of us will miss.
It’s why Uber Eats’ “Tonight I’ll Be Eating…” campaign worked so well. The format was distinctive, in part thanks to a large media spend, pairing of odd couple celebrities, and a consistent structure.
It could also guarantee incrementality through media coverage - Simon Cowell and The Wiggles, and Sharon Strzelecki and Kim Kardashian were so strange and inspired, it would have been a surprise if the spots hadn't attracted column inches.
Celebrities also tend to work better if there’s a long term partnership at play. I’m not sure if Walkers crisps intended Gary Lineker to become a distinctive brand asset but he became a case study in how to use celebrities well.
Conversely, Bruce Springsteen's one-off Superbowl advert attracted more publicity for Bruce Springsteen than it did for the brand (Jeep). Yes, there was incrementally, but the story was Springsteen does Superbowl advert - followed by Springsteen advert pulled after drink driving arrest. In years to come, it may well end up as a pub trivia question.
Plenty of other celebrities come and go. Ladbrokes have kept the Ladbroke it platform in Australia but Mark Wahlberg's short lived Chief Entertainment Officer Mike Iceberg was moved on for a more generic bunch of mates commercial, while I've lost count of the number of brand endorsements will.i.am has showered across multiple sectors.
That's probably more beneficial to the will.i.am brand than the companies being advertised, although the celebrity missteps probably say more about the brand's marketing team not being entirely clear of some part of the strategy. A bad brief can still result in good creative, but it reduces the probability of resulting in effective creative.
That doesn't necessarily mean a one-off celebrity idea is bad if the strategy is right. But it's got to make sense for the brand first and foremost.
Why Tourism Australia’s spot from Droga5 worked
Tourism Australia did the job superbly with their fake Crocodile Dundee advert. It was clever. Not just because of the idea, but because the strategic objective of increasing consideration of Australia as a destination amongst Americans flowed throughout every part of the campaign.
It tapped into nostalgia for a shared cultural reference point. It built incrementality far in advance by effectively using social media and PR to tease a non-existent big event movie. Chris Hemsworth is probably about as Australian as you can get as a distinctive brand asset.
Despite his star status, his presence reenforced the positive associations around Australia as opposed to making it a Chris Hemsworth advert. Australia's distinctive brand assets - golden beaches, the Opera House - got an airing and the advert itself was full of category entry points.
Finally, the digital performance elements were ready to land and ensured the campaign had through the funnel, through the line integration. It was a masterclass in how to plan and execute a campaign.
Celebrities are not necessarily good or bad within themselves when it comes to advertising. The same is true of Superbowl adverts. But they'll only work if the strategy is right. Too often, it isn't.
Interesting stuff
Raise Your Arches
In the last newsletter I was on the fence about McDonalds’ Raise Your Arches advert. Listening to the strategy behind it from Leo Burnett UK on the On Strategy Showcase podcast has changed my mind. It’s very clever, and the team are right: it’s a very codified advert. If you listen to one thing, I highly recommend this. LINK.
AI not immune from Godwin’s Law
Google’s AI powered chatbot demo contained a basic factual error. Bing’s AI compared a journalist to Hitler and said it wants to be human. Both were predictable. AI may well disrupt search, but currently its greatest skill is to talk with the confidence of a cold calling salesperson. We’re impressed because it looks and sounds convincing, but any AI is only as good as the data it analyses and the programmers who train it. LINK.
A trend deck you should read
Benedict Evans is always interesting. His annual trends decks are always worth reading. This one’s themed “The New Gatekeepers”. LINK.
Spotify’s podcasting strategy
Spotify’s podcasting division has been hit by the recent tech layoffs. The strategy now appears to be fewer and better, which is probably more sustainable - and profitable - than a strategy based on buying lots of podcasts. LINK.
Did the pingdemic save lives?
Perceived wisdom in the UK was that the contact tracing app was useless. But the BBC ex-tech correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones looked at a Nature study that concluded thousands of lives were saved. Sometimes things are hard to quantify until after the event. Whether it was value for money is another question and probably depends on your ethical outlook on life. LINK.
2023’s biggest marketing trend…
… is inflation. The Economist thinks it’ll be hard to bring down. This has far more immediate implications than any kind of technology. LINK.
Thanks for reading this far. If you like this newsletter, please share it with somebody else you think may enjoy it.
Playing us out this week: Hifi Sea and David McAlmont - The Skin I’m In. Very few people seem to have listened to their Happy Ending album, which is a shame, as it’s a strong contender for album of the year. McAlmont is also part responsible for Yes, with Bernard Butler, which is easily one of the best tracks of the 90s.