The Super Bowl Ads Bob Garfield Didn't Like

It is unfortunate that ads can no longer be edgy and humorous without being trashed by the media. Predictably, the battle cry of 'Think of the children' was used to discredit the creativity of most of the ads reviewed. Is that really the best analysis you can muster? Those same children that were apparently 'terrified' by the ads can also understand the comedic value of Richard Simmons without having any idea of homosexuality or being homophobic. Kudos to the ad agencies for making some really inventive and hilarious ads, and not worrying about the backlash from proponents of saving the children from every remotely offensive piece of media in our society. After all, what kid is going to buy an Audi R8 anyway?

"Is it acceptable to use ad imagery likely to scare young children as Audi and CareerBuilder.com did in this year's Bowl"

---Those where the only ads I liked in the damn super bowl, aside from the fire breathing guy. Children see worse in video games, give me a break.

Is Bob Garfield completely out of touch?

It's people like him who over think everything that have made advertising the shallow pool of mediocrity it has become.

Give me a break. Your commentary is as lame as this years Superbowl ads.

Ditto on your assessment -- however I disagree with your take on the McDonalds' spot.

I have brought together marketers and charitable organizations on several occasions. Although the the reason was that the charity's cause was somehow related to the marketer's products or it countered critics it none the less brought about positive social change, attention to the cause, or direct contributions to the cause itself.

The McDonalds' spot represents something very right about corporate America and its ability to support causes that make our society, community and various social causes better -- to be part of the solution and help to improve America and the human condition.

It is corporate advertising and at its best provides a counter measure to critics and impacts the consumer's life. Yes it is a tool that corporations use to show their more human side and concern about its consumers and social causes that involve our communities and country.

Your concern was not that McDonalds support Ronald McDonald House, but the final scene of the logo and current tag. My sense is that not only is it acceptable, but almost mandatory -- after all, it is consumers who buy McDonalds' products that make it possible to begin with. So what's wrong with that reminder? No buy, no help.

More cynical 'cause marketing' programs can be found where your comments may have some grounds. But in the case of the "Ronald McDonald's" House it is not warranted. It is a good cause that is supported by consumer purchases as our their local community support programs.

My question was"who is Jackie, the child or the Mom."

Has Madison Avenue Lost Its Mind?!

We just suffered through one of the worst Superbowl commercial nights ever. As an Agency we are actually outraged that the majority of the commercials aired look like an America that was idealized a long time ago as a place where there were only white people in mainstream media, and an America where other groups of people were pretty much marginalized. This evening, February 3, 2008, we actually saw a commercial on the Superbowl that featured some stereotypical Mariachi's as comedic fodder promoting Taco Bell????!!!!!

Can someone out there explain to us the rationale behind these lame, frat boy humor(less), flat commercials? I can tell you that for us the most glaring issue was the minimal diversity displayed as well as the subtly racist stereotyping in some of these ads, i.e. dancing lizards with grills, nerdy Indian guy who barely speaks English, jive talking Black athlete, Mexican mariachis, etc! AT&T had the stereotypically goofy white guy trying to be cool rapping. I guess that it is fresh insight for Madison Avenue that whites like hip hop but aren't too good with the flow....Wow!

We know that the Coke spot "It's Mine" scored well with watchers but is it us, or did it seem kind of .....um....hokey? I am willing to bet it scored well not because of its inate greatness as a concept but because there wasn't much to choose from in terms of likability. Why are the majority of these commercials so trite, tired, and Caucasian in their sensibility? We think that Madison Avenue is out of touch and that there is increasing relevance for Agencies like ours that keep up with consumer mindsets, know where culture is going, and are organically comfortable with the notion of diversity. After watching last night I am convinced that it is time for a new crop of Agencies like ours to be given more opportunities to sell brands and products on the Grand stage.

Congratulations Madison Avenue and to the companies that approved these ads for doing such a fantastic job of connecting to all of us marginalized non- white folks out there. You really showed us how out of touch you really are, and how feckless the lack of diversity and true cultural insight can really be.

Kevin Walker
Managing Partner
CultureLab
Dallas, Texas

I'm surprised more people have not pointed out the strategic mistake the Audi R8 commercial made. While the concept isn't bad, the fact that an R8 beat a classic Bentley to death lacks the true stature of the car. An R8 is a street legal race car, not a lumbering luxury hearse. Of-course the 414 hp/309 kW sports car is going win, slaughter and or destroy it. The spot would have had more teeth, strategic insight and "truth in engineering" if it beat a Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo or another sports car in its class. For that huge mistake I found the spot almost as ridiculous as the Sobe lizards, but not nearly as horrific as Sunsilk. It may also be more apt to hit out at the clients as many of these appalling ads were done in-house and no agencies are actually on Madison Ave anymore. P.S. For as many spots W/K had on air, they had a very poor percentage for hits.

I really respect Bob Garfield and I love his articles in this publication and his show on NPR, On The Media.

But...
His views on the Superbowl ads are totally contrary to public opinion as well as most people actually in the industry.

What exactly are the criteria used to give his opinions on Superbowl ads any validity at all. I think this is one media sphere where he is in a bit over his head.