This is the coup-de-grace (or lack thereof) of a slow, tortureous cancer that spawned within MTV ever since the first appearance of "The Real World". Despite several unsuccessful attempts of saving her, (yes MTV is a HER) decay and eventual passing became inevitable with one musical generation after another (regardless of your opinion about them). MTV's raison d'etre vanished. Music, - good or bad- was replaced by, well, crap. To crown decades of involution they've now squashed/incarcerated the last symbol that bore humanity's hope of music and freedom. MTV is now - officially - dead - Long Live MTV. –CARACAS

either they are a little unsure or just completely lazy. mtv.com > right click > view background image. refresh page and repeat. –Dallas, TX

This just shows that Music television has nothing whatsover to do with music anymore - and I'm not sure what it says about our "culture" if Snooki et al are considered a draw/inspirational to a new generation of viewers. Video killed the radio star, but "reality" killed the music. –SEATTLE, WA

Trying to hard to be like others... when you think they innovated back in the 80s. –Moncton, NB

The beauty and creative value of MTV, their contribution to the music and the artists, and their branding, died the moment that episode #1 of the first season of The Real World started. –Scotts Valley, CA

This does not seem really to be a redesign but rather, an "imperceptible" modification. Good thing you told me it was different. I wonder how many people noticed? What was the reason for the "redesign"? Was there a communications strategy? Tips for successful logo redesign, http://bit.ly/bfhHGV –HOUSTON, TX

I agree with Ian, this is definetly AOL. –ISTANBUL

completely agree with jbvideo - LMAO! so 'expanding on' the replacement of edgy music programming with lame reality content would justify taking the words 'Music Television' off the logo. Maybe they should replace with Myspace NV? –Brooklyn, NY

I just love it when logos are "redesigned" like this. They probably paid a ton of money, for a bunch of design and branding "experts" to meet with a bunch of "focus groups" over many months to come up with the ground-breaking idea to simply crop the logo. I am sure brain trust at MTV made sure it was a very "strategic" decision. –Greenville, SC

Funniest line of the entire article..."Music is still at the center of so much of what we do, but we've really expanded what that means," he said. Music hasn't been at the center for at least 10 years. Maybe they should change the name of the network...that would make more sense. –CLEMSON, SC

Phillip at www.dbdnet.com –EVANSVILLE, IN

I agree with RyanJamesAgency -- in the examples shown in this article, the logo is only as relevant/edgy as the talent/person in the logo. The new logo is not the forward edge that the public (or the graphic design community) expects from MTV. In the new world of instant measurement of any communication (Internet Lead Generation and Measured Response), will any "leap of creative faith" have a chance. We're entering a time when creative is less important to a greater number of people -- but also, ironically, creative will become very important to a few enlightened souls. I thought MTV was part of the small group of enlighted design souls. –EVANSVILLE, IN

Laura FTW –SAN FRANCISCO, CA

I think this treatment makes MTV only as relevant/liked as the person in the logo. Could be bad, could be good. –HAMILTON, NJ

unecessary crop. change it back. ctrl+z = undo –Pearl River, NY

This isn't really a logo re-design as much as a logo "optimization" or modification. The MTV brandmark has always been a vessel through which pop culture travels and this tweek is no exception - the question is, is a logo tweek what's needed or a programming overhaul? I guess if you consider Jersey Shore a hit, then tweek away. –NEW YORK, NY

I, for one, felt awkward by clicking "enlarge" right under this lady's [giant] boobs. –New York city, NY

PRO: I like the subtle nod to 4:3 vs. 16:9. CON: It feels like AOL's most recent re-branding effort. It also draws attention to what I miss most about MTV. The channel used to be the draw. Now the shows dictate the personality. Shows are temporary. The network needs to be "the one". Adult Swim does a better job with that these days, and that's really just a programming block. Jersey Shore could work on any network. MTV needs to be M-T-V. It's tough when multiple personalities dictate the personality of your parent brand. Sometimes MTV is The Hills. Sometimes it's Jersey Shore. Sometimes the clothes do not make the man. –NEW YORK, NY

I agree with all of your points. Recently a prospective agency asked me to jump through hoops to help them with a client who was looking to sponsor a tour...3 months ago...still no answer. "NO" IS AN ANSWER... How do you recommend a small agency get in the RFP mix? We've done great work for blue chip clients but can't seem to get included on a regular basis? We're a branded entertainment agency with an expertise with Heartland consumers. Thanks. –Brentwood, TN

Thanks Jennifer for representing your brethren and their interest here. Candidly, as a mid-sized shop, we rarely respond to RFP's if we do not have a relationship with someone representing the brand. Our experience is unfortunately similar to yours... Going Dark, Late Invites, etc., and we just cannot afford to spin our wheels like that. RFP's have their place, and if you are a small or mid-sized shop, you need to know where that fits within your own cost structure. And for us... it is few and far between. –SAN FRANCISCO, CA

I wonder how these brand ambassadors feel about The Source calling them "Glodal Hue"........ http://img49.yfrog.com/i/picture1kg.png/ –New York city, NY

Thanks for this Alan - I've just been thinking the same!. I have a blog community for women in business - that shares a name with a rising rapper...(@flokka) so in my twitter searches I've stumbled across this demographic and read with fascination the prolific 'ghetto slang' tweets. I monitor social media closely but no-one has mentioned this demographic, that seems to have really embraced twitter, before - so thanks for highlighting it. –AUCKLAND

I, too, believe that gross generalizations aren't relevant. While twitter is more difficult to learn vs. most other social media, the age,ethnic,gender,language "lines" are broad and blurred. After a year of intense learning about it, I believe that the more you know, the more you know you don't know. –Dallas, TX

I'm a little old lady who has yet to tweet, but this is really making me curious. I was a BUMP-ie back in the day (Black Upwardly Mobile Professional) and a "Thug" was an 'undesirable'. Not any more, I see. –PORTSMOUTH, VA

Great article, but I can't help wondering how many marketers who are trying to reach African Americans who use "ghetto slang" are sophisticated enough to appreciate the potential of using Twitter to reach them? I imagine that someone will point out that no matter how educated most African Americans become, they retain the ability to code switch, but something tells me that the people Wolk wrote about aren't among them. Also, there's the issue of authenticity. African Americans are as keen as any group of consumers when it comes to figuring out ads and brands that are genuinely culturally literate (think P&G and McDonald's) versus those that use a black face here and there to seem connected (think Polo by Ralph Lauren). –Chicago, IL

Great post. I recently commented to a Harvard Business post. Here is my RT of the Tweet citing the post: itgEvangelist RT @HarvardBiz: Let's Tweet About Something Important! http://bit.ly/9YnpD7 itgE: By who's standard? Admirable goal misses point of Twitter There are two things I really like about Twitter: - Its fostering of spontaneous truth - The unpredictability of its possible use and future Unintended application of new technology is an awesome by-product of our industry. The Twitterati need to lighten up. Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist http://community.ca.com/blogs/theitgovernanceevangelist/ –Pleasant Hill, CA

THANK YOU for pointing this out! I touched on this slightly at the end my last blog post (http://kissafernandez.tumblr.com/post/379389943/). I'm definitely one of those "just sitting back, reading the tweets and laughing." –Chesapeake, VA

This is a great reminder for all the marketers out there that regardless of the #trend and the #technology the best way to engage your audience is with a #smile. –SHAVERTOWN, PA

I think it's a mistake to make broad demographic generalizations based on viewing a small sample of profile photos on Twitter. I know men who use a photo of a sexy girl as their profile photo (not as deceptions but as a boast) and ghetto slang isn't isolated to African-Americans just like rap can cross racial boundaries to include Hispanics all of the way to white suburban kids. I definitely think it would be a mistake to make class judgments based of participation in hashtags but one could probably say most users are relatively young (14-35 years). I do agree though that whoever is participating in hashtag trending topics is a vital, active group of Twitterers who are invisible to early adopters, most celebrities, and tech bloggers. I have noticed with the hashtags that many are started by comedian @LilDuval, people post repeated Tweets (not just one) on the same theme, and many are using UberTwitter client. –Madison, NJ

This is hilariously accurate, we were just talking about it yesterday. I share a condo with two other twenty-something, college educated African-Americans and though we don't think it's the best representation of "us" for all of twitter to see. It's fun and we thoroughly enjoy reading the tweets. Snowed in all day yesterday we spent the bulk of the day tweeting and coming up with crazy lines for the hashtage, #youknowyousprung. Great way to pass the time. LOTS of people were doing the same thing. It's a definite can't miss for marketers. THANK YOU for noticing and for writing. –Dallas, TX

I agree that the message is what should've been focused on however, let's be honest....it's the rabid superbowl team sports crowd....you really think they're gonna really 'take in' a love story in France from a search engine after slogging down a bunch of Bud Lights with their bros at the local sports bar? I say no. Onward. –Scotts Valley, CA

The lesson: MESSAGE MATTERS --- NOT CREATIVITY Maybe we need to throw the wanna be junior movie makers under the bus and actually produce spots with an effective message that sells a product. EEEEK! We couldn't do that now, could we? Carl Hartman | www.brandgineering.biz | Denver & Los Angeles –Ft. Collins, CO

agree with jack in montclair. it was a delightfully stunning, emotional, compelling ad. looks like it cost little to produce. and it didn't "require" a high degree of involvement as quoted by that "expert" at deep focus. it was compelling enough that you wanted to watch, to see what was next. bravo google. well done. unlike most of the forgettable ads during the game. –santa monica, CA

I liked the spot and so did most of my students. Will we use google more because of it? Probably not. Do we have a slightly more positive attitude toward google now? Yes. –ITHACA, NY

First, probably the most interesting target audience for Google tended to be the ones you loved the ad. If you hate reading, you probably don't do as much searching either... Yes, Google definitely had the smartest copy and story development of the ads we saw this year, and unlike so many brands that fade as an irrelevant character in their own commercial, Google's ad was all about Google. Doritos ads could have easily been for Snickers or any other snack food. I appreciate people pointing out how very UNscientific the USA Today Ad Meter is. Most liked ad does not equal most effective ad, does it? If you think they are synonymous, look up EDS's cat herder ad from over a decade ago. Entertaining as advertising gets, about as irrelevant to EDS as it could have been. I taught 3 advertising courses that year (undergraduate and MBA) and EDS's cat herder ad was the most recalled and most liked ad in every single class I taught. That said, only 2 students out of over 150 recalled the ad was for EDS, and the rest of the class still had no idea what EDS even did. BEING THE STAR OF YOUR OWN AD is pretty critical for a brand that is looking for impact, not just ad meter points. My only complaint was Google's ad being in the Super Bowl, when so many folks are in a large group and concentration is weak. Of course, being on the Super Bowl got them tons of buzz, and god knows Google can afford the 2.5 Million. However, the ad being positioned later in the game, after so much beer was consumed by so many viewers, was a definite mistake. I think some folks were too distracted and or drunk to pay attention to this powerful piece of creative work. It deserved a more sober audience. : ) My suggestion to marketers: If you have a Super Bowl ad that requires a lot of concentration, put it at the start of the game, when the intoxication levels of the average viewer are likely to be the lowest. I give them an A+ on creativity and brand relevance, and a C on when-in-the-game they placed the spot. : ) Michal Ann Strahilevitz Ph.D. Associate Professor of Marketing Golden Gate University San Francisco CA, 94105 www.MarketingProf.net –OAKLAND, CA

The Google ad told a story and along the way educated a lot of people that the standard search is only a little piece of the power of what can be done - translate, directions, suggested search terms. Those 30 seconds were packed with information while being entertained. For those of you who said this isn't going to make people more likely to use google, does Betty White make you want to eat more Doritos? $2.5 mil, they made that back by the end of the game. –Cleveland, OH

I thought it was the best Super Bowl ad since "1984". –Montclair, NJ

I believe the company is called Radian 6. –NY, NY

I'm not only surprised, but also saddened by some of the comments here. And that is because I assume they are made by people who work in this field (otherwise why would they be reading this publication). This Superbowl was in my opinion the worst I have ever seen as far as ads go, with Google being one of the few exceptions. However, one thing that everyone seems to be overlooking is that a media buy in the Superbowl, is not your average media buy. When you buy a spot in the Superbowl, you're really shooting with a shotgun, since it is the most watched event. Therefore you have people from all socioeconomic levels, all ages, all sexes, all ethnicities, all educational levels, watching this game. And the commercials usually have a very specific target market. So the outcome of this, is that you'll have a lot of people watch commercials that are NOT aimed at them. Some of the spots were aimed at middle aged men, some at adolescents, some at college aged men, some at women, some at higher income/education peeps, some at lower income/education peeps. Obviously USA today does not tell you that, when they tell you their "real people" opinions based on their completely unscientific poll of 250 people who are also influenced by the other people in their focus group like a bunch of lemmings. Don't be fooled. The buzz created by Google's ad, was more real than USA Today's marketing alchemy says. The buzz was not "measured" by anyone... it was all over the internet, and while twitter may not be "everybody", they people who use it are smack in the center of Google's target audience. As for the slapstick kick in the groin ads, marketers are making a HUGE mistake in underestimating their audience. I may (or more likely may not) laugh at someone getting slapped. But that's only telling me that your chips are aimed at retards. –Phoenix, AZ

It's so funny that we are analyzing this to death, counting tweets and plays and whatevers. As if social media buzz really matters in this case ... other than among the social media mavens, of course, for whom the online buzz is everything. The buzz in my TV room never went online and was approximately as follows: Mom: "It really works like that?" Brother in law: "Neat!" Nephew: "It's true, my whole life is written in my searches." Grandfather: "Reminds me of what friends are for." Sister: "Could I use your computer for a minute to try something?" –ANN ARBOR, MI

Google vs. Doritos I would like to be the guy in the closed coffin lying on a bed of Doritos. And, I'd be using Google to surf the web on my laptop. Why does everybody want to draw a line and take sides? Favorite this, favorite that, taking polls. Who cares? It complicates life. Go with the flow. –Fort Lauderdale, FL

seems 9 out of 10 readers preferred Google. But shouldn't we be asking "Why did they do it?" could they be experimenting (and mining this thread for future SBs??). Or are they preparing for more Jobs-inspired backlash against their Don't Be Evil values, and trying to seed some popular love for the brand? could it be they fear legislation coming their way? –Brooklyn, NY

I enjoyed the Google ad and think it was a successful advertisement. - It made those of us that use Google feel good about using Google. - It's been watched millions of times via millions of links post Superbowl. - Plus then add in the chatter, blogs, posts, and tweets and I would easily say it simply can't be ignored at this point. - Plus plus Google did it all IN HOUSE, which I think is where the story really starts to get interesting. –Hollywood, FL

Branded, told a story, required attention...was ran during the third quater when interest and attention to the game is spiking. Too fast for some demographics to read/follow, did not show the product that makes the gretest portion of their revenue - paid ads, see more commentary here http://michaelcnewhouseblog.blogspot.com/ Michael Newhouse Brand Strategist WCNGroup.com –VENTURA, CA

All I know is my un-marketing, commercial skipping, doesn't understand what I do for a living wife told me her favorite ad of the Super Bowl game was the Google spot. I would venture a guess that a growing segment of SuperBowl'ers, I'm talking females, loved the narrative and emotion contained in the ad. I think it was very "google" and a well-placed experiment by Google Creative Labs. Jeff Reckseidler http://jreckseidler.posterous.com –San Antonio, TX

It turns out the web didn't *really* love Parisian Love either. Or at least it didn't want to watch it. This, according to TubeMogul: Google's Parisian love ad literally has the lowest completion rate (39.4%) of all of the Super Bowl ads we are tracking. By way of comparison, E*Trade's ads averaged 81.04% completion rates, and Doritos' ads averaged 82.52%. –NEW YORK, NY

I liked it. But i'm not sure at what other time, someone would commit themselves to paying that much attention to a TV ad. Maybe that's why they ran it then and there. It was the only time that people might actually read an ad on TV. –Venice, CA

As a native Louisianian and lifelong Saints fan, I thought it was the best Super Bowl ever. The best for football at least, but not the best for advertising - which is why I usually watch the game. 'Parisian Love' by Google was branding at its best. It provided a compelling relate-able story that formed an emotional bond. It was also nice to see an ad that wasn't so completely geared towards men. http://www.therussogroup.com/razor-branding-blog/2010/02/09/search-on/ –Lafayette, LA

Cutting through the chaff...it was the only spot that communicated and reminded everyone the true essence of the brand. Keith Reinhard once told me a brand needs to differentiate itself by attributes and attitude. The Google spot did this beautifully. –NEW YORK, NY

** be immediately comprehendible ** be visual ** be verbal ** be head ** be heart ** be good Most of the "shoulds" of TV ads have been violated by history-making spots. Can't fault Google for showing what it is and does. What struck me in the room of the party I was attending was that the men were headed for the chips and the women were glued on every word and "awww"ed at the end. Anecdote, but if that was the target, they hit a home run. Are they sensing a shift in the Super Bowl viewership demo? Maybe that's what made it the highest-watched ever. –SHELBURNE, VT

I agree, it was brilliant! I watched the game with a group of average americans and we all loved it. It was by far the best commercial I saw in a sea of sameness. –Tampa, FL

The Google ad was memorable if for no other reason than it was a welcome break from the Super Bowl "formula" of commercials trying to be funny, brands trying to be cool and all missing the mark because they are not genuine...they are just ads for the Super Bowl lost in the clutter. Google's ad was creative and captivating. It was genuine, meaningful and different. Read more on my blog at www.heasleyandpartners.com –Scottsdale, AZ

I also agree with the minority. This ad is good and effective advertising! It engages, shows the power of the product in a totally relevant way, putting a smile in your face at the end. And doesn't cost a fortune to produce. –Lima

As a marketing professional I love the SuperBowl - it's like the Oscars for ads. On my blog I gave an "Oscar" for most humorous to CareerBuilder's "Worst Seat" (Doritos didn't even get a nomination). Google got my nod for most effective (I too was glued to the screen to watch the search unfold). Best overall ad went to NFL for its "Best Fans" spot. That one gave me goosebumps. I also singled out GoDaddy for its blatant use of sex to drive web traffic, e*Trade for failing to meet my high expectations, and Taco Bell for... well... sucking. shareofblog.blogspot if you're interested. I'm really not trying to use this post to shamelessly plug my blog - I just wanted to support the Google spot, and comment on the Doritos spots. Thought you might want to see the post. –Stratford, ON

No matter how much we'd like to believe it's true, most people are not watching the Super Bowl ads leaning forward on their couches asking everyone around them to 'shush'. That is why so many brands crotch kick, butt slap, tighty-whitey flaunt, and baby-speak. It's a break within a football game. When millions are partying and going for the guacamole/beer. There's definitely an art to telling a story within 30 seconds. Most of the ads made that attempt. But that art gets practiced every day. What's surprising to me is that the Super Bowl should not be the place for a 30-second story. It should be the place for a spectacle. Plopping down $2.5 million should set a brainstorm on "spectacle" mode. Shocked at how few spectacles (given access to social media and mobile platforms right in peoples' hands) there were this year. Were there any? The biggest spectacle seemed to be Google doing an ad at all. It's sad, really. Creativity failed us this time around. Maybe next year. –NEW YORK, NY

would those be the vast majority of idiots that comprise the better part of this wonderful country? Who probably don't even know what the hell Google is or does. Ya think? And to the point, "Google's ad didn't make the top-10 most-watched on TiVo" People that TiVo'ed the Super Bowl did so for a reason... errr they didn't want to watch the commercials. And, Mr. Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus, you are certifiably idiotic for just about every comment that you made above... How do you people become CEOs??? Shocking! And for the record, I wanted to give Bing a shot in the hopes that MS might actually for once be able to produce a relevant working product that actually leads and doesn't sit in the background and usurp quality after it's already been created... but alas, Bing would more appropriately be named Flop. Fact is this, Googles ad was the smartest and best realized ad this SB, without question! And it visually and conceptually sums up it's brand and product perfectly: C O N T E N T As for that stupid Doritos commercial... well, I don't know what to say honestly. It had absolutely no point what so ever. However, it did get a chuckle out of me, admittedly. –brooklyn, NY

Does it matter that this ad wasn't one of the most watched during the actual game? Most of the benefit of buying that time during this event is the publicity before and after the event. Certainly it's proven that it's achieved this with all the online discussion. I'm actually not surprised that it did so poorly with actual viewers. It's a subtle ad that requires attention to follow a minute long story. At a crowded super bowl party when people are shouting, "Pass the potato chips!" it's easy to let this get lost. Much easier to just see a guy getting kicked in the groin and remember that than something as subtle as what Google has done. That said, this is a phenomenal ad and one that endears the user to the product. That positive online buzz was correct and proves the benefit of investing the ad dollars. Kudos to Google. –CHICAGO, IL

A thoughtful ad to sell a thoughtful product. And a mental snack to sell a snack food. Makes sense to me. –Portola Valley, CA

Nothing against Google's ad at all, as I liked the spot, but don't you think that if all the commercials required you to read copy and then there was the Doritos kid slapping the mom's date, we'd be talking more about the Doritos ad? Yes Google's storyline was great, but it is also about its overall differentiation from the other commercials. –Alpharetta, GA

My household (n=1) thought the ad was great and we actually rewound our DVR to watch it again. Google doesn't need to tell people to search more... everyone knows about the product. They just did a great job of reminding people of what they do better than anyone (give you answers quickly to questions) in a delightful way. Raj –Carmel, IN

Seems to me we might be debating whether Google, who created an engaging (and totally charming) ad that actually required people to read, belongs on during the Superbowl. I think so, but then again, I might be in the minority of folks who likes to actually read and watch football and can do them simultaneously. That it was low budget, didn't pander to any of embarrassingly low common denominators and is generating this much conversation is worthy of a round of applause. –briarcliff, NY

I think parts of several of the above comments are relevant. For example, I had to read the words out loud on the screen for my parents (both 69) who couldn't see the small text, especially as it was moving on the screen. The same out loud reading also worked on my kids (9, 12, and 14) who weren't really following or grasping the significance. You did have to follow along to appreciate the"story" the search phrases were telling. I thought it was great. 2/3 of the USA is not the "digital elite". For all of our noise making on venues like this, the average person in the USA is still much more like a Walmart shopping person, than a Brooks Brothers-wearing wine drinker. I got much more of a kick out of the Doritos commercials than I did the Google ad, but I feel biased since I was following the Doritos stuff in the context of wondering (and hoping) if another "nobody" from Hicksville was going to be out the Ad Agency bluebloods for most popular. I think slapstick will ALWAYS have a bigger impact than serious. Slapstick simply fits the limited-attention-span viewer mindset far better than anything that requires reading and thinking. My surprise this year was how many nasty looking men in their underwear I saw as featured parts ads. It may be sexist, but I would way rather look at good looking women in Super Bowl ads than fat nasty balding men in their BVDs. –Stoughton, WI

In response to 2010AdGuy...Deep Dishes quote also doesnt make sense if you read back the first sentence. Dortios ads were not slapstick they were predictable as usual! "It required a high degree of among of involvement to watch it through. The most accessible spots were the Doritos spots, and they're slapstick." –New York, NY

I'm a digital marketer and a digital consumer. I've seen iterations of that type of Google ad on Hulu for a couple of months now so the Parisian Love spot was neither entertaining nor clever. I think Google wasted money on advertising search when it should be advertising Nexus One. Everyone already uses Google to search. It's why we now say "google it" instead of "search it" or "search online". Google needs ads to convince everyone that they are completely, utterly, indispensable. Google ads on all of the great Google products would really do the trick, especially in the Superbowl where not everyone is a digital elite. –Jersey City, NJ

Correction to above: "It actually had an idea" –Saco, ME

"Google's spot came in at No. 2 in web buzz to Doritos according to media monitoring firm Radian 5 and Mullen due to its high percentage of "positive tweets." God please enough with the stupid tweets already... Googles spot was the only one worth watching. I actually had an idea, that didn't really on bad slapstick, overdone jokes and actually catered to an audience who by all accounts thought the rest of this years offerings were sophomoric dreck. Gave me hope that at least there is still someone creating work with a brain out there. –Saco, ME

i watched the entire ad which is rare. it was engaging and got the point across -- that being google connects you to relevant information, in seconds... what more can you ask for? they told a great story in 30 seconds, even more rare. great brand that produced a meaningful & impactful message. and they didn't use luke wilson so that's the icing on the cake. –dallas, TX

It was an image campaign - and brilliantly done. If we're defining inaccessibility as forcing people to read, that contradicts the human senses of engagement, in which accessibility would be irrelevant if it didn't connect with me on an emotional level. This was experiential communication, not intrusive advertising. That's why we're talking about it. –Racine, WI

I have to toss my hat into the pro-Google-ad ring. It showed creativity beats big production costs every time. Seeing Google on TV grabs your attention. The fun story line pulls you along. –Wichita, KS

Agree @stephanhokanson. Perfect targetting since those who don't want to read are unlikely to be those who want to search :) –New York, NY

Artificially flavored and unnaturally colored tortilla chips being touted by a rude kid slapping his mother's date in the face. Versus an intelligently executed message about the endless possibilities available through the most viable and memorable invention of our generation, and probably the next. This warrants a discussion? –San Antonio, TX

It kept my attention while watching it and I thought it was cleaver but when I saw your article, I thought, "Google ran an ad during the super bowl?" It wasn't until I saw the screen shot of the ad here that I remembered it. That doesn't bode well for it making an impact long term. –DES MOINES, IA

Oh god, @atalerico the "digital elite" is two thirds of America. –New York, NY

It was brilliant, it told a compelling narrative story in search terms. It was by far the best commercial in what generally was a load of crap. –NEW CANAAN, CT

In all seriousness, I think the Google spot wasn't "the most accessible" because it required the viewer to read copy. The spot (which, as a copywriter, I loved), wasn't a "push" but a "pull." If you chose to engage and follow the story, the spot was a delight. If you chose to not read—or perhaps, if your reading skills didn't allow you to keep up—you were left out in the cold. Cheers. –Grand Rapids, MI

Did that guy from "Deep Focus" (who no-one has ever heard of) really just suggest that "Slapstick" beats "Involvement"?...Ironic that his agency is called "Deep Focus" when it seems philisophically oriented toward disposable advertising with sight-gags and no creative idea... –New York, NY

The people chattering online about the Google spot are are clearly a subset that don't represent the average TV viewer during the Superbowl. I will be surprised if the Nielsen numbers later today show that Google's ad ranks well. The digital elite got it and buzzed about it. Our excitement was largely driven by the significance of Google's first serious foray into mainstream, network advertising. The average person on the street didn't pay attention. If you ask the average person on the street what their browser is, many of them will say "Google" (and they don't mean chrome). And if you ask them what their favorite search engine is, they will say "Explorer". –BOCA RATON, FL

I think it was a waste of money. I do not think more people will use Google because of the ad. If they want to do something great. How about making Adsense Transparent. Now there is something that would bring an uptick in revenue. In terms of growing usage, I think they should focus on killing the iPhone with a phone that works on a network like Verizon. –HOPEWELL JUNCTI, NY

Actually, I'm quite interested in your mentioning (in paragraph 5) of the Wiccan Media being involved with Foursquare =D –Tucson, AZ

I'm most intrigued by the Zagat/Foursquare partnership, since that seems to be Foursquare's answer to Yelp adding check-in functionality. Overall, I think it comes down to how users feel about these sponsorships. If they feel that the sponsor adds to the experience (which, based on the initial deals that Foursquare has lined up, I think they will) then sponsors will be an accepted part of the service, and Foursquare and the rest of the geo-location services will have an easier time monetizing as they continue to grow their audience. However, if users feel that sponsors are able to just 'buy' their attention and interrupt the normal flow of using the service with intrusive ads that offer little to no value, then there will either be backlash against the sponsorship element, or an abandonment of geo-locations services all together. –San Francisco, CA

re: kramerc I have considered the demographic that uses MyTown (there is a slightly higher percentage of minorities than Foursquare), this audience should not be less appealing to a broad market advertiser such as Bravo. FourSquare is benefitting from the fact that it has higher share of mind with the advertising community than MyTown, but the audience facts and integration opportunities on MyTown are more complelling. I bet that we will soon see brand marketers embrace MyTown if they can correct the awareness issue. –Los Angeles, CA

Playing along with "How to Make it in America" is sure to quickly unlock the Douchebag badge. But seriously, the branding game has changed. Technetium Advertising & Web Design www.technetium.com –Orlando, FL

re: adguy29 If you consider the demographic that uses MyTown, then it makes sense that brands like Bravo and HBO are heading Foursquare's way instead. –Bloomington, IN

Great article, but it's interesting how foursquare and gowalla are getting all of the hype in this category - even though they have less users and less brand integration opportunities than Booyah's "MyTown" app. –Manhattan Beach, CA

It would have been nice to see Doritos or Bud Light or Miller donate their ad time to a pure philanthropic effort, but I thought Miller High Life came close with "Little Big Guys." http://littleguysbiggame.millerhighlife.com/ –Chicago, IL

Using a pro-life ad as an example to guide brands in cause-related marketing is a little misleading. In our experience on hundreds of cause-related campaigns, corporate cause-marketing is generally aligned with issues that are not polarizing but are embraced widely as having vast public benefit. Also, to suggest that emotional appeals are not based on fact is like suggesting thousands of marketing campaigns that forge an emotional connection with a consumer are lacking rational benefits or a fact-based strategy. When done right – when a brand is aligned with the right cause and the messaging is based on research and not opinion – cause-related campaigns can be of immense benefit to brands. More like a walk in the park, with all the attendant good feelings and good will, than walking a minefield. Debra Sharp Manifest –Toronto, ON

Tim and Derek, I don't know what your political or religious views are, so I have no clue what your angle on the abortion issue is and what motivates you, but regardless of whether you are for or against abortion, I think that your analysis of the Focus On The Family ad is WAY off base. Your contention is that they were not effective because they used a soft-sell approach, and as a result, viewers were not motivated to investigate them further and so they wasted their money. Let's analyze that concept... If they had gone for the hard sell, tried to be shockingly brazen or in-your-face about it, then I contend that CBS would have rejected outright their bid to place an ad. Instead, by going for the soft sell, they played a brilliant move. They narrowly avoided getting the axe from CBS and as a result got FAR MORE free media attention from the news media, bloggers and left-wing pundits (and even from you guys) than they would have if they had instead submitted a controversial, hard-sell ad that would have forced CBS to reject them before they even finished opening the door. If anyone had not heard of Focus On The Family before Sunday February 7th... well, the news-media, bloggers and pundits have corrected that oversight for them! CONCLUSION: Focus On The Family played this one just right! –WINDSOR LOCKS, CT

Unless 107 million people are neck deep in Pepsi's social media right now, I'd say they're "reviewing their decision" about pulling out. Just a wild guess. John Barker, Barker/DZP –NEW YORK, NY

MediaCurves.com conducted a national study among thousands of Super Bowl viewers taking online surveys during the game. Final results found that commercial of Super Bowl XLIV. All Super Bowl ads from 2010 can be seen along with their individual ratings and scores at: www.mediacurves.com Thanks, Ben –ewing, NJ

We were thrilled to discover the book "The Design of Business," as it eloquently summarized the important and necessary steps to maintain a competitive advantage through innovation. Great design is more than the extraordinary composition of creative elements; it is a process of originating and developing long term goals and solutions from insights and a carefully constructed strategy, all with measurable results. As the market continues to shift from awareness to relationship driven marketing, design in every sense of the word is the key to differentiation. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com "The Great State Of Design" www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX

This really is an interesting take on the Super Bowl. I mean win or lose, who the hell in their right mind is going to Indianapolis for vacation? The win puts a spotlight on a great American City that needs the "positive" attention. It's funny, during the game I was rooting for Indy... but now I'm rooting for New Orleans. Tommy Z . publisher, planetZman The Last Great Bastion for REAL Men http://www.planetZman.com http:www.twitter.com/planetZman –Oak Ridge, NJ

The problem with advertising is deciding what is a good ad. A good ad should have a goal to sell product or raise awareness, not receive accolades for its fine work. I am sure this flies in the face of a Madison Avenue mantra, but essentially that is why anyone advertises. While all the Denny's stupid chicken ads are annoying at best, they are memorable and will drive traffic and in the end that is all that matters. While brands like Coke and Budweiser are known for their Superbowl ads I am of the mindset that a brand could flash their logo for 30 seconds with a buy our product voice over and have success. It wouldn't be "good" ad or award winning but it would be memorable and talked about. Being distinguished from the crowd is as important as anything at this event. The Super Bowl is the most important event for advertisers and this one proved it. When an event is the highest rated TV show ever and the highest rated TV show since 1983 that is astounding. Also what other event can deliver viewers who actually look forward to watching ads and go back to look at ones they have missed. Even those who DVR the event watch the ads. No other program can boast that and no other program can deliver a target audience who will buy whatever you are pitching. There is a new Sheriff in town, ratings wise - the NFL and its big event can deliver like no other. When the creativity of these ads is brought up I am reminded of the early ads for Infinity, the car brand. These ads won a bunch of acclaim and awards but sold no cars. They were creative and unique and memorable only because they did not feature the product. –Indianapolis, IN

What's with the blatant self promotion Cat Dance? That HomeAway spot was clearly designed to raise national awareness of an unknown brand in an unknown category. While we all love home made virals, the Superbowl with its 100 million national audience, probably achieved greater national impact than your alternative suggestion of a youtube viral with 800 hits. The PR coverage alone probably paid for the ad. Upstart advertisers in the Superbowl should be encouraged - as long as the quality of the advertising and messagin is good. –new york, NY

The Super Bowl has changed for marketers because Event TV, like the Super Bowl, is increasingly rare. There's a lot of press lately about this Super Bowl attracting more viewers than MASH's finale. It's hard to imagine any scripted show today beating the Super Bowl's live (and even live +SD) ratings. Live television (and advertising) isn't as dominant as it once was because of media fragmentation brought about both by more channels and more ways to watch. Big advertisers who are trying to maintain brand awareness have had to develop more "long tail" strategies to reach people who are watching programming on three screens and hundreds of channels. This is why we're seeing more product placement and more integrated marketing campaigns. Consequently, big ad spends (like the Super Bowl) aren't necessarily part of top advertising branding strategies. This change isn't bad for the advertising industry or the television industry. It means that there are more opportunities for advertisers to engage with customers across platforms and accordingly more opportunities for publishers to create advertising opportunities. And, as this article points out, Super Bowl is as profitable as ever, it just serves a slightly different function: brand awareness rather than brand maintenance. –Cambridge, MA

the best spot in the entire game was the one the NFL ran thanking their fans (featuring music by the Arcade Fire.) Technically superior, beautiful dramatic, and focused. Perfect. –NYC, NY

Google's ad was arresting -- just the Google logo floating (as it does on their home page) and the story unfolding of the continued search. Charming, a convincing product demo. Talk about 'cutting through the clutter.' This did. Historians will tell you Apple's 1984 ad was not a lone, two minute Ridley Scott bombshell, but part of a massive and coordinated marketing launch. Ironically, like Google, the ad gets undue credit for the success of the product's launch, the most important factor being, of course, the revolutionary product itself. Had the Mac been a trivial technology advance, we'd regard the commercial as an old joke. –Portola Valley, CA

It is spectacle. Many of these advertisers (*Bud*cough*Doritos*) are paying the network for the privilege of putting on a series of mini-halftime shows. For what? The reward of being crowned Prom Queen the next day? An empty sugar high of post-game buzz? Unless you're pulling it together with a larger effort, like Denny's or Dockers, or reclaiming the '1984' element of surprise with work that really speaks -- like Google -- I just don't think the expense of the Super Bowl is justified. Tracy L. Adverteria.com http://www.widowsnorphans.com –Johnstown, PA

Whoops. That first sentence should have been... "You can't ding the Coke/Simpsons ad..." –Sheboygan, WI

You can't the Coke/Simpsons ad for borrowing equity when you've held up 1984 as the gold standard for Super Bowl Ads. It was one of my top spots of the game because it communicated the core values of the brand in a way that was culturally relevant. Oh, yeah, it was also entertaining. http://harveybriggs.blogspot.com/ –Sheboygan, WI

Read your own article http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=141990 The audience is there. But creative for the channel is seriously on the decline and marketing justification for dollars required is elsewhere-- and better spent in other places. The game was so much better than historically the case. Without the ad dollars for the status, maybe the competition for the game itself must be maximized. –CHICAGO, IL

Great article. I totally agree that the ads in the Super Bowl don't have the impact they used to. The customer is no longer willing to accept anything you throw at them. The simple answer is the way people communicate is totally different then it was even 5 years ago. The distribution channels have changed dramatically. Viewers used to have no choice but listen to messaging on TV. Now with technology we can TIVO, text, chat, Facebook, Tweet all in a matter of seconds thus avoiding anything we want to. The message we want to listen to is our decision. The Viewer is now in CONTROL because it's OUR CHOICE. That's the biggest difference. If your a company the best way to reach your customer is be part of the conversation and shift from shouting to sharing. It's the only way to reach them. So don't spend millions on a Super Bowl ad and hope your desperation pass hits the right receiver. –Dallas, TX

The talking baby ads were so, so FAKE! I mean, as if a baby could posess that kind of vocabulary... Please... –New York, NY

Pure excrement. An embarrassment. Creatively bankrupt. The Titanic. –Cleveland, OH

The game is changing once again, though. The Super Bowl isn't the beginning anymore thanks to the massive amount of hype leading up to the game. Just think of how much attention Focus on the Family got. Do you really think they would have gotten that much buzz just off of their commercial? I wrote a blog post about this thought today: http://bit.ly/62RQWA –Lubbock, TX

106 million viewers; coverage of commercial breaks by blogs, news casts, and even potential mentions within SportsCenter... oh yeah, and people actually pay attention to the commercials you are spending on. Not sure how you can question the event's relevance as a media platform. –ATLANTA, GA

Truth is, I watch the Super Bowl for the game not the commercials. Perhaps, there are more of me out there to whom THE GAME is more important than the commercials –Dallas, TX

I think we have a case of over blown expectations. Yes it's too bad that fedex did not participate (I love all fedex ads). Pepsi and GM have never had great ads. Every year you get 3 to four great adds, and the rest just try to hard. It's the same every years. It hasn't changed to much. Great ads this years: Green police Google Snickers Horrible ads of the year: Godaddy anything with small people in it. –Denver, CO

Companies are puling resources from marketing, and refocusing some of the leftover resources into the new media push, therefore we are left with lower level work and representation of companies. No one wants to give up getting their message out there, but they are all willing to cut staffing, research, planning, communication and time. How can anyone expect these ads to be better over prior years??? or inspiring in any way??? This decline was expected and will continue until something changes in terms of marketing focus and resources. –Oakland, CA

I can't take 6 hours of pre-game coverage and 4+ hours of spectacle so I just caught up with the commercials with the most Twitter buzz on YouTube which is having a competition where viewers vote on their favorite ads. This way I can just skip the misogynistic commercials and view the more creative, original ones. Since I don't watch a lot of network TV any more, YouTube is where I see most ads I'm curious about. –Madison, NJ

Agreed - HORRIBLE year. I'm assuming that the agency creatives are a bunch of twenty year-old imbeciles. And, what is up with the "emasculating" themes? –San Antonio, TX

A miserable showing for the ad industry. Here's one 30-year vet's reviews of all the ads http://bit.ly/cwLx7h, http://bit.ly/cLVy7x agree or disagree at will... –ATLANTA, GA

Unfortunately most of the ads don't sell and are not memorable. The Google ad at least SOLD. The better companies are at creatively selling their unique position the better. Instead we get random creative nonsense for the sake of being creative and shocking. Quite sad. Erik Johnson http://www.BrandAidBlog.com –Phoenix, AZ

There are so many ways to look at all these ads, especially the Homeaway ad, the newbie in the roster of advertisers on Super Bowl. As a vacation rental home owner, I am happy for any exposure vacation rentals can get. As a marketing professional, I am more than a little skeptical that Homeaway sufficiently delineated the core difference between hotels and vacation rentals, nor did they really focus on the advantage of a VR. Though the ad is being dissected with rigor on all the vacation rental owner chat boards, with half exuberant and half dejected, my over all impression is that this was not necessarily a win for vacation rental owners when it comes to the immediate draw of attracting (appropriate) rental guests. For a fraction (literally zero cost) of the expenditure, there are several youtube videos that make a vastly more understandable differentiation concerning vacation rentals. One of these is by Second Porch, a new application of Facebook, which offers the transparency of social media for people who own or rent vacation rentals. And it's got its own little buzz going with nearly 800 visits. Hope you might have a moment to take a look your self: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-gAuPUPSM –West Orange, NJ

Traci, This is a great article. I think many employees should be asking this very question. I think this show could be the answer a lot of people were looking for. I hope it will change the outlook of corporate companies and allow workers to feel ever more valued. I also felt it was important to share my thoughts about the show, Undercover Boss, so I also wrote a short post on my blog as well. I'm looking forward to the next show, it will be interesting to see how next Sunday's show plays out. Dallas J. Moore Director of Business Development and Social Media Social Republick @mrdallasjmoore @SocialRepublick –Ames, IA

I think that most people in advertising agree that the quality and creativity of the Super Bowl ads are depressing, myself included. What's the advertising response the spots are trying to get? I don't think any of them inspire any strong response that's why none of them is really good ads. The Google spot idea is pretty good and simple but yet I think the execution is poor. TV, to me, is still the most powerful ad medium that can touch the human heart with motion, sound, and imagery. Why aren't we making good use of this medium, where are all the good ideas? Rachel Cheung Account Executive DTKH Communications, Vancouver, B.C., Canada –Vancouver, BC

What strikes me is that we as an industry seem to have lost our ability to tap into a core truth, and do it well. "When I Grow Up" is every bit as true as it was in 1999, when Mullen portrayed it so masterfully for Monster.com. Has anyone truly tapped into that core truth as well since? Yes, there has been fun stuff, and neat stuff, and participatory stuff, and I've enjoyed a bunch of it. But nobody, nobody in the job search category has successfully owned brand-defining mindshare the way Monster did in that moment. Fragmented communication channels are no excuse for not having a simple, clear brand-defining idea. Stephen Curry, CD Lewis Communications, Birmingham www.lewiscommunications.com –Birmingham, AL

I agree, Bart. This years SB ads were awful! I also agree with the above comment that the Dodge Charger ad started off promising but was just too long and ended up slightly depressing and under-realized. One exception to me was the Google ad, I found it the most impressionable and powerful, especially in light of the recent and on going (horrible) Bing campaign by MS. It's supposed market challenger. The new E-Trade commercials are pathetic compared to the genius original creative which are at this point a decade old. At least that's my take on it. –brooklyn, NY

I think the people in this business have lost sight that we are selling stuff. Creativity plays a huge part in make or brands unique, it gives them personality, makes them different. But creativity without strategy, without clear objectives, without unique insight is missing half the equation. I was embarrassed for my industry. I was appalled by the sophomoric stupidity. Googles spot was the only shining bright light in the dank dismalness of this years Super Bowl offerings. One out of 32(?) says a lot about the state of creativity in today's agencies. Hopefully, the agencies have listened. –Saco, ME

OK, I'll accept people watching the Super Bowl to be entertained by commercials. But are those really commercials? Or are they just expensive comedy clips like those people indulge in from YouTube? Apparently, those ad agencies & clients want to entertain people. It's OK as long as their goal isn't selling products &/or services. Hey, let's blow millions of dollars & not sell anything! Even if the advertiser entertains people, will those people remember the advertiser, plus the promoted products or services? Maybe, but don't quit your day job. Will people who were entertained buy what the entertaining advertisers offer? A - Maybe - - if the advertiser sells entertainment. B - Probably not - - if what the advertiser offers isn't entertainment related. Is a funny commercial apt to sell anything that's boring? Don't bet on it! Those commercials may go the way of the dodo because they're a bunch of doo doo! How can advertisers keep paying for messages that sell nothing? Let's pretend I have some money to invest (I wish). I should ... A: Pick a full service brokerage so I can get some advice. B: Pick a service to buy what I want without offering advice. C: Pick a firm that has babies who can lip sync. D: Pick a firm based on the entertainment value of their advertising. It's a tough decision. Which of my 3 Lifelines should I use? 50:50, Phone-a-friend or Ask the Audience. I'll call my friend who works in an ad agency. Really, you'd pick answer C. Why is the audience groaning? I'll poll the audience. Hmm, it's an even split between answers A & B. Computer remove 2 of the wrong answers. A: Pick a full service brokerage so I can get some advice. B: Pick a service to buy what I want without offering advice. Darn! I was thinking maybe answer C or D was correct! Now what do I do? It's obvious, isn't it? I'll write a commercial based on this scenario & sell 50 million cars, plus I'll win some advertising awards. I can't lose, can I? Let's ask the audience! Oh no! I used up my lifelines on the 1st question no less! But I've persuaded all of you to trust me with your marketing, right? Is that your final answer? P.S. Bart, Erik, Tripper & Joni: Each of you made good points. If we accept the premise of advertising being a sales rep made of paper & ink or digital bits & electrons, what would we hire a sales rep to do? His/her job definitely wouldn't be what we see & hear in most broadcast commercials. That's my final answer. Dennis S. Vogel marketing consultant independent contractor Two Rivers WI –Two Rivers, WI

Thanks for calling the Super Bowl ads what they were, boring and depressing. The Charger ad which has received positive attention was just depressing, I mean really, is life really that awful? One didn't get any sense of joie de vivre from these Charger owners, apparently when not in the car they were just depressed losers, the fabulous car had failed to transform them. And Men Without Pants, what? Or let's make a bridge so a truck can drive over us, helloooo? Or the staring gopher youtube riff, again? But as I was scrolling through AdAge looking over the critiques and the news I thought, advertising just doesn't seem as fun as it used to be. Where did the fun go? Where did the creativity go? Even more, how about wit and intelligence? I went to a sports bar to watch the game, dog ate the cable years ago but that's another story, and as I watched the premiere ad event of the year, I felt like I had entered an alternate universe of dumb, boring and irrelevant. I know some of the problem is that in an effort to get accounts, we are letting the clients call the shots and they aren't advertisers. Some of the problem is focus groups. Some of it is that ROI is elusive and tough to track. But the biggest problem is that we have become like those hen-pecked men in the ads, we've lost are gonads and are just going through the motions. (While I am a woman, I can recognize gonads when I see them.) Going through the motions and doing whatever the client asks, or storyboarding a crowd-sourced ad isn't fun. Creativity takes guts, an item seriously lacking yesterday. Joni Dahlstrom Deadline Girl Copywriting –Sedona, AZ

Good stuff, Bart. I was beginning to think I was crazy as I heard on the radio talk of how funny some of the spots were. On three or four of them (referred to on the radio), the punch line could be spotted halfway through the prior ad. Although there may be people who do think there was great stuff last night in the ads, there's an entire different level we should be shooting for. –Atlanta, GA

Maybe the ads are less effective because they hardly ever sell?? If it doesn't sell, it isn't creative. David Ogilvy Too often selling gives way to being creative and the unique aspect of the business is lost along with its ROI. your difference + creativity + drama = a memorable commercial. Ads need to get back to the basics of selling. Erik Johnson http://www.BrandAidBlog.com –Phoenix, AZ

The Who. All I can say is I hope I die 'for I get old and embarrass myself like that. Depends missed a prime opportunity for product placement here. Best of the best for me: Dodge, FloTV, Census Bureau, Google, Miller High Life. Worst of the Worst: Taco Bell (Chas Barkely on the munchies? I don't get it). Huyndai Sonata..errrh um, it's still a Huyndai, embrase reality about your brand. Bud (Cut your budget or spend the extra effort to do an pre-broadcast agency shoot-out our something. Robert www.rqimarketing.com –chicago, IL

As an industry professional, you and I and all of us should be embarrassed for what passed as advertising yesterday. The vast majority of the ads were bad on every level: over produced, under written, unclever, derivative and, as the Brits might say, "too clever by half." These 'gems' came from supposedly the best and brightest and biggest agencies -- it's no wonder our profession is not respected and why agencies are losing clients. Why pay for bad ads when anyone can make a bad add all by themselves... and seemingly have better odds of making an ad that works than so the 'professionals.' You should be angry. If you're in marketing and/or advertising and you lose your job this year, you can thank the people who made these boring, uninteresting ads. They've poisoned the water for all of us. Suddenly, being a feng shui philosopher or selling multilevel vitamins seems like an honest profession. –Park City, UT

Google definitely had the smartest copy and story development of the ads we saw this year, and unlike so many brands that fade as an irrelevant character in their commercial, it was all about Google. My only complaint was their being positioned later in the game, after so much beer was consumed by so many viewers, I think some folks were too distracted and or drunk to pay attention to this powerful piece of creative work. It deserved a more sober audience. : ) Michal Ann Strahilevitz, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Marketing Golden Gate University –OAKLAND, CA

For once, I could go the BA and get a snack during the SB -- Viva la lack of CRE8TIV-AyeTee. And, Monster...get a clue (beavers, really?) and CareerBuilder move to England and Teleflora next year have the cute girl and the mousy one fall in love with each other AND all you all "Get a freakiing volume check!" the five people that did have lines burbled them. Interception anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Cue Jennifer Grey..."No one puts Baby in the corner." Except the average Joes that made Dorito commericials. –Atlanta, GA

ChaCha, the service that allows users to go online, call or text questions on mobile phones and receive free answers within minutes, says that a poll of its users, primarily teens and young adults, who asked questions during the Super Bowl last night showed that their favorite commercials were for Doritos. The ones they disliked most were for Go Daddy and the one most talked about, as measured by text traffic, was Denny's, mostly asking where was the nearest location of the restaurant to collect their free meal on Tuesday. –NEW CANAAN, CT

For the record...the Doritos ads were lame. missed the Snickers ad- glad I did- Denny's was OK, Dodge was expected; Audi showed us how scary our world might become from the Green Police-in spite of the trumped up climate issue; Bud was lackluster on creativity; The Tebow ad was uplifting for the role of family and parenthood amid the outragte from pro-abortion crowd. In any event the ads lacked punch and for once the game was interesting through 4 quarters. –Philadelphia, PA

What my gray hairs have taught me, as evidenced by my reviews of the Super Bowl spots http://bit.ly/cwLx7h, http://bit.ly/cLVy7x –ATLANTA, GA

I think this article is interesting and to a large degree I agree with Fame Foundry. There are possibilities with the world of technology to lend it's hand. With magazines, CDs, and other things, I think there are two types of people. 1. The people who want instant gratification. They want to feel their purchase in their hands, they want to hold if, feel it and are excited to get what they want, the same day they want it and walk away happy. 2. The other kind of person, is okay with waiting for something they want to come in the mail (Amazon, Zappos, etc.) they may pay a little less for the item, but make up for it in shipping. Time is money and they don't want to have to search for it. They want to know they can go to one place, push "buy", hit the "check-out" and calmly wait for the mail. These two different types of people are all consumers, AND more importantly are NOT two different demographics. It all has to do with trends, background, your upbringing, your personal preference. The other important thing to understand is that each of the two different types of people can switch between the two, depending on what it is they are looking to purchase. People now like less choices, because they know what they want. People would price shop, if time were not money, but it is. People want service and are willing to pay a little extra for it. People want to feel good about their purchases. Maybe most important of all, spending across the U.S. is slow. 1 in 10 American adults are out of work. The sales are down, because nobody has money to purchase a magazine, let alone read one. I also believe that people who are buying books and magazines are not doing it for leaser, but to learn and to expand their mind. People are looking for opportunities and a lay off is a perfect one to change your life, change what you want and change your interests. I don't think very many people are keeping up with the Jone's much right now. People are looking out for themselves, their family and their best interest. Back to what Fame Foundry said. I think the iPad is being marketed wrong. They were so excited to share it, and they should be. But the iPad looks and more or less is a giant iPod Touch to me. Market it to the older generation. Coffee, coffee shop, check and email, yes please. Reach people where they are, sell them what they need and some of what they want. –Ames, IA

Don't underestimate the potential of the iPad to revitalize the publishing industry. http://www.famefoundry.com/1683/fame-foundry-sound-off-ipad-–-the-good-the-bad-and-the-possibilities @FFcommunicator Fame Foundry http://www.famefoundry.com –charlotte, NC

Doug, that's easy to say while enjoying the benefit of your skin color. The problem is that you've been hearing but never listening. Gays aren't asking to be physically attacked, they simply are. Women aren't asking to be paid less than white males, they simply are. Minorities are asking to be less hired, less paid and first fired, they simply are. I'm sorry you don't want to hear it but stopping up your ears don't make it better. As long as any group is not equal, the conversation is well worth having. Sure we are further along than we were but this isn't horseshoes or grenades - "close is not good enough." Being close to everyone being equal is not enough. –Grand Prairie, TX

Your talking about it creates the problem. Give up the skin color, the ethnicity, gender and orientation, and let it go. We've come a long way and it's time to stop noticing. I'm just sick of hearing about diversity. Let's just "be" and move on. DW –PROVO, UT

Sheiglagh, Hispanics will be the majority in Texas but will they wield the power? How many will be in the decision making position at the largest companies in Texas? When we talk about the majority and the minority, we are not always talking about pure numbers but pure power. The numbers only matter in government where leaders can be elected by the number of people voting. Business does not function like government, so even though the population may shift, the description of those making the business decisions remains the same. A group of people can be in the majority as a population and be in the minority when it comes to power and influence. England rule the world but had one of the smallest populations at the time. The problem with Vanity Fair is that it continues to push an image or idea of who is powerful or attractive or desirable that does not reflect reality. We can pretend that this is harmless or not worth the fuss but there are studies that would suggest otherwise. To answer your question, when all the board of directors for the major companies in the country convene, whites are not in the minority. They are the majority where it really matters, in the seats of power. –Grand Prairie, TX

Why do you equate diversity as having people who are NON-white? I have always wondered about that. A Spanish person (from Spain) is NOT considered a minority because he or she NOT HISPANIC. Funny part is that Europeans do not see each other as one race. The British as Anglo-Saxons, the French are Gallic, the Italians, together with the Spanish are Latin, etc. etc. That said, I would like to say here that I'm Asian. Among the Asians, the Japanese, Korean and Chinese do not consider themselves as one race. The South East Asians - Thai, Filipinos, Indonesians and Malaysian may feel that they are from the same race (Malay), but because of differences in religion and language, they feel that they are not one also. Now, since I come from Dallas, I also know that in a decade or so, the HISPANICS will be the majority here. In short, pretty soon, the Anglo Saxons, which strangely enough is the one that most people are the only white people in the world are actually a minority (see beginning of this comment) This might sound politically INCORRECT, but who are the minorities nowadays? I being white, simply because they're white is considered a majority because of their skin color though their actual number is smaller than the rest? If that is the definition of a majority, then we have become a nation of racists, which is truly sad because I thought we had moved forward since the Civil War. –Dallas, TX

As a consumer, I feel uncomfortable about doing business with companies that don't seem to "get" diversity. As a creative director, I make sure it doesn't happen for my clients. It's not an ideological thing; it's a sense that if the organization doesn't get my community, will it get me? Photos of the all-male, all-white Republican presidential candidates lined up to debate in 2008 made them look out of touch with modern America. The overwhelmingly perfect, overwhelmingly lily-white women in commercials for The Firm workout program give off a Stepford Wife vibe. (They're headquartered in South Carolina and they only have that one almond-colored customer in the back row? Really?) When I was growing up in the 60's, almost all positive images of women in media were fair, blonde, and blue-eyed. In fact, until Olivia Hussey starred in Romeo and Juliet, the only time I ever remember seeing someone who looked like me -- dark hair, dark eyes, and olive-skinned, but still safely, mostly Caucasian -- was the woman who was using the wrong floor cleaner. A few years ago, I asked a group of teenagers to name an "all-American girl". The question was a throwaway, but the answer stopped me in my tracks: Jennifer Lopez. If Vanity Fair doesn't get with the program, they're going to find themselves as irrelevant as a segregated country club. –Simi Valley, CA

I wouldn't rush to lash out Vanity Fair, when the supposedly-diverse U.S. Hispanic media insists on portraying role models that look whiter than many of the kids on Vanity Fair's Hollywood 2010. Ever watched a Univision or Telemundo telenovela? Do you know what their main news anchors look like? One would swear all Latin Americans hail from Sweden! Here's just one tiny example: http://lauramartinez.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/texan-educators-want-your-children-to-learn-all-about-brown-people/ –New York city, NY

Advertising Age presented its Agency A-List http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8Z5Q7nkW8LU/SXa6mSIYSoI/AAAAAAAAIEQ/ZZwaY5HtGYw/s1600-h/A_List.jpg Welcome to the world we live in Doug! –insider

I think the Oscars iPhone app is a bit much. Will it be inactive for all but a month or so each year? And how many people care so much about their predictions about who'll win what that they'd want something like this? Part of the problem in reaching a younger audience, I believe, is that the Oscars are viewed as part of the Hollywood establishment. Younger audiences don't wait for or care about validation by the Academy about films they like or don't like. Having a Fecbook page isn't going to change that. –Chicago, IL

This is a huge step forward for both TBWA/Chiat/Day and the advertising agency business. Agencies must match professional buyers (procurement agents) with professional sellers, and the concept of a Chief Compensation Officer is an excellent way to do this. In addition, a few other progressive agencies have appointed a "Value Council," a small group of senior agency executives whose job it is to insure that the agency prices on purpose, according to the value received by the client instead of the costs incurred by the agency. Congratulations to Tom Carroll, Neal Grossman and the executive team at TBWA/Chiat/Day for helping to move the cause of value-based compensation forward in a big way. Tim Williams Ignition Consulting Group twilliams@ignitiongroup.com –SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Great initiative. Love the campaign. But where will the $$ come from? The assumption being that involving people will prompt them to want or purchase product? Hope is not a strategy, and although I have heard about the campaign through industry sheets, I've seen nothing to generate awareness.( Not being a Pepsi drinker myself) –riverside, CA

This was a smart strategic move by Pepsi. In my opinion, it's a no-lose proposition for them to reallocate their spending, drop out of the Super Bowl and focus concerted energies on the digital space. Dropping from the Super Bowl cost Pepsi nothing. It's unlikely that a series of Super Bowl spots would increase the brand's awareness (already sky high), meaningfully shift long-term sentiment or create a sales lift. Not advertising in the event won't hurt Pepsi. At the same time, striking out into this digital and social marketing effort will yield significant learning for Pepsi, regardless of the degree of "success" that they experience with this particular series of programs. No matter what, the company and its executives will be much further up the digital learning curve, and that can only benefit the company and brand long term. I'm looking forward to following this effort. Ted L Simon –San Rafael, CA

Thanks for a great article, excellent insights and a very helpful look at the risks and rewards of Pepsi's bold moves. I believe Pepsi has scored a game winning touchdown with its latest moves and that it will be very successful. It's a wonderful example of a major brand being true to its core values and making people an integral part of its marketing. (People, the 5th "P" in the marketing mix). I just posted an interesting take on Pepsi's opt out of the Super Bowl and opt in to Social Marketing and why it matters. The Refresh Project is a great example of Asset-Based Thinking at its best. http://thewisdomguy.com/?p=401 The fact that you and other savvy thinkers and bloggers are not writing about the Coke Super Bowl commercials is indicative of the boldness and smartness of Pepsi's initiatives. Hank Wasiak. –NEW YORK, NY

Wow crowd sourcing their overall marketing ideas/plans! It is a true connection to marketing what people want - without the ridiculous salaries of a full marketing team! or the retainer cost of an agency! it is the way of things to come for big marketers wonder how middle management mafia for marketing feel about this... (at pepsi) Amol Waishampayan http://www.maidenmediagroup.com http://www.facebook.com/maidenmedia –bridgewater, NJ

Great initiative! Congratulations Anamaria Irazabal and the rest of the Pepsi brand team! –OLD GREENWICH, CT

In the short run, Pepsi has done superbly - just the news that it has decided to skip the Super Bowl has kept it on par with Coke in terms of visibility in the online world. How sustainable it is would depend on how this online visibility will translate into paying customers, but I think they're off to a very good start. You can find out more on how Pepsi and Coke measured up against each other over the Super Bowl by dropping a line over at http://www.adsofsuperbowl.com/ –Kuala Lumpur, N/

While it is a possible first in the spend and depth of the program, it is hardly the first for a brand to use social for cause marketing. Most recently Chase has been running the exact same campaign on FB under the name Community Giving since November. And there have been others before. Painting Pepsi as the radical brand that experiments is a disservice to those who stepped in years ago. –New York, NY

I'm sorry, but how is this any different than the AMEX Members Project? http://www.membersproject.com/about/past_projects.html Or the Chase Community Giving initiative? http://apps.facebook.com/chasecommunitygiving/ Don't get me wrong; I think it's a good project. I just wonder how bold and groundbreaking it is. –New York, NY

A pretty bold move indeed and one for the books for sure. By the way, thanks for the viralheat tip, very cool service. www.viralheat.com –Houston, TX

Agree with the article 100%. This will be one of the most closely watched case studies in the history of digital marketing. –Quezon City, WD

Giving back is important to Gen Y and also moms of all generations. Both would be very important audiences for Pepsi. Top ranked submitted proposals include - Special assistance for the military troops in various ways, using fresh produce to fight childhood obesity, girl scout cookie distribution, helping seniors take care of their pets and expectant baby care packages for parents in need are just a few. This is definitely not a Pepsi infotainment celebrity pitch of the past. It has quickly moved Pepsi up the Facebook and Twitter ladders, where the brand was non-existent not long ago. A strategy that awards and migrates the captured audience into extended engagement and promotion of Pepsi's community efforts through social media and mobile GPS should be in the works. The more good that is done from the efforts, the more opportunity to grow social followings. The only risk is control. It would be easy for an odd, unflattering pitch to win through juiced consumer votes. But that situation could be spun into further social discussions and opportunities for Pepsi. We cover Moms, Gen Y and Social Media in special reports available free on our site. Rodney Mason, CMO www.moosylvania.com www.twitter.com/rodmoose –FRISCO, TX