The US Superbowl is this Sunday. Advocacy groups can’t wait.
Last year, General Motors featured a suicidal robot in its 60 second 5 million dollar ad. The robot’s portrayal of mental health offended a loud percentage of viewers. This prompted the huge corporation to publicly apologise to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention for its distasteful machinations.
Snickers featured two masculine auto mechanics that shared a moment of physical intimacy over a candy bar. After realising their “mistake”, they attempted to out-compete each other in displays of stereotypical masculinity. They pulled out their chest hair. This insensitive portrayal of chauvinistic male pride offended the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. Mars sincerely apologised only days after the ad aired.
Online viral videos–that is, user made or modified or just uploaded video content–generates huge audiences, and even its own content. Note the viral videos spiraling through the blogosphere for Nike. The brand showcased commercials featuring the hip hop basketball free stylings of streetball unknowns. Students, B-ball fans, and online netizens flocked to the YouTube and the search video sites to watch the show again and again. There were no famous celebs, no hulking (highly-paid) professional athletes. Just a bunch of kids and a ball in nicely woven montages that generated more wall-paper/screen-saver madness than ever before seen. People commented on and tried to copy the videos using their own computer equipment and inspired skills.
Ads today aren’t made for a small space of air time. Like the French ad art nouveau posters from the early 1900s, ads today are cultural icons. They are copied, modified and re-spun, carrying the Brand, Product, or Name along with them into the virtual homes, hearts, and minds of millions of online viewers. They elicit comment and commentary. Pundits mention the most memorable in news and spoofs, both on and offline. Marketeers can find themselves prolonging pain or profit through the creation of one noteworthy 30 second video spiel.
On the other end of the spectrum of the GM debacle, in the 2007 Superbowl spectators gave Nationwide insurance an extra 24 million dollars into unpaid media exposure, according to USA Today estimates. Nationwide featured the infamous Kevin Federline as a wannabe rapper working at a fast food restaurant. The National Restaurant Association trade group complained, but their bickering earned the general amusement of the public rather than supportive condemnation. What had been a short commercial in a long line-up of expensively packaged product teasers suddenly became a national sensation. Online, people posted the ad to their webpages. On YouTube, uploaded versions received over 600,000 views.
This year, family, female, and gay rights advocates are already stocking up on potato chips and broadband in anticipation of a new line up of expensive commercials. One isn’t exactly sure what to expect. Sure, the Superbowl is a family event, but advertisers know its not the acceptable ads that generate the additional free revenue. Advocate groups are equally aware that platforms for controversy are great marketing tools. As the two sides martial millions of spectators around the television, both may be hoping for a memorable post-season play-off.