Two-Minute Commercial vs. Two-Hour Movie

This two-minute ad ran in the Super Bowl yesterday and the Huffington Post reports that it cost Samsung $15 million.

Go ahead and watch it. It is entertaining. Oh, and I have no idea who these people are. This is the result of not owning a television and trying to stay as far out of the mainstream as I can.

So, was that worth $15 million? I think the bigger point to pursue is that Samsung thought it was worth it.

And that a  major international corporation is willing to spend that kind of money to influence people answers the question of whether or not the media--movies, talk shows, video games--affects us. Of course they do. Because companies like Samsung--and Coke and Go Daddy and Budweiser and every other corporation you saw advertisng yesterday does not spend those kinds of dollars without a lot of research. Shareholders won't allow it either.

So, that pretty much answers the question, Do violent movies and video games influence people, making them do things that they otherwise may not have thought of themselves?

You got to ask yourself, if a company is willing to spend that kind of money for two minutes of influence to sell a phone, what the heck is a two-hour Hollywood violent bombfest capable of doing?

We've all heard the "experts." Violent video games give outlets to violence, they don't cause it. The same with movies.

But you know, parents long ago knew that sugar caused hyperactivity in children, and finally all the experts came to the same conclusion.

This is what's great about being a person. You really don't need the experts to tell you what's going, although most people have long ago relinquished their right to their own opinions based in their own intelligence. They wait for some "expert" to tell them what's what. People can't cook a turkey on Thanksgiving anymore without consulting Martha Stewart and all those nimrods on the weekday morning shows.

What was PETA thinking? Veggies make you sexy and smart.

Today, NBC rejected an ad proposed by PETA for the Super Bowl. Some of the reasons NBC rejected it were for:

licking pumpkin

touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli

pumpkin from behind between legs

rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin

screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)

asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina

licking eggplant

rubbing asparagus on breast

Well, eating vegetables must make you wise to the new digital world as well as sexy. PETA won't have to pay the reported $2.6 million NBC is asking for a Super Bowl commercial. Instead, it will get millions of free hits on YouTube and Action Bob Markle and places like the Huffington Post, where I saw it first.

$2.6 million dollars for an effing 30-second television commercial. People, to me, along with the salaries of the NFL players and coaches who will be showcased this Sunday (and let's not forget that old guy who will be playing at halftime), $2.6 million for a commercial is what's obscene.

Of course, you never see anything obscene or raunchy like sexual innuendos on network television.

And what's even funnier is, I'm not even a big fan of PETA. But I know a good digital marketer when I see one.

Best all-time Super Bowl ad for EDS

Sunday is Super Bowl Sunday, a big day for the ad industry. There have been some gems over the years--the Apple ad introducing the Mac, Homer Simpson for MasterCard, even the Budweiser frogs--but one of the all-time most entertaining in my book was one for EDS that showed a bunch of tough cowboys herding cats.

So much of today's advertising depends on very slick (and stupid and expensive) effects, and less on the old tried and true elements of messaging and strong story-telling and characterization with a heavy dose of satire.

This little thirty-second sucker in my mind has it all.