Will he still hold the cup in May?

This week it was revealed that following a request from the PM’s office to appear on one of the nation’s most popular TV shows, the BBC handed Gordon Brown a yellow warning card

However, the show was neither Question Time, nor Newsnight.

It was Match of the Day 2.

Rovers fan, Gordon Brown was keen to roll up his sleeves and appear alongside presenter Adrian Chiles to shoot the breeze about England’s bid to host the World Cup finals.

The programme would have been broadcast towards the end of 2009, however, at the time, the corporation declined as it felt the show was too near to the forthcoming general election.

Some months after the programme would have been broadcast, ITV1 invited the PM to chat about life, politics and even football – attracting an audience on the night of 4.2 million viewers.

Wishing to also have their man preened and polished by TV make-up girls, Conservative party spin-doctors have ensured that David Cameron regularly appears on breakfast TV.

Next week, in response to Mr Brown’s interview with Piers Morgan, a documentary promising to reveal the private Cameron behind the public headlines will be hosted by Sir Trevor.  The show will be broadcast on Mothering Sunday.

Discussing the interview, Sir Trevor said:

“At such a fascinating time, I’m delighted to be able to give viewers a unique glimpse into the life of the man who hopes to lead the next Government.”

Tea and Tony

A star-studded past

Former PM, Margaret Thatcher recorded a special script in honour of her favourite show, ‘Yes Minister’.

Tony Blair was a doyen of mainstream TV.  During November 2005 he appeared on Football Focus.  He also made several appearances on ITV’s This Morning, and was a guest on BBC1’s Saturday lunchtime show.

He even appeared with the ultimate TV star – Homer Simpson – but that was one occasion that ‘yellow’ would have been the ideal colour for any shade of party political leader.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

The battle of the giants

The Congressional hearings surrounding Toyota’s global recall excercise continue.

Toyota’s President – Mr Toyoda reminded the congress that the brand is a major manufacturer in the US, employing approx 170,000 American people.

Yoshimi Inaba, President and Chieve Executive of Toyota Motor North America announced that the company will introduce safety systems that will  go beyond minimum US regulatory requirements.

That offers the chance for other car manufacturing brands to also announce tightened up production processes – as well as discuss their own previous records for reliability.

US brands under the strain of recovering from the general global slump may seize the opportunity to discuss their distinctive heritage and ‘homeland’ workforce of dedicated men and women who get jobs done quickly and smartly.

More than 100 Toyota dealership owners and staff gathered on Capitol Hill to support the brand.

“We take great pride in the fact that as of last night, together we’ve done over 690,000 recalls already and are pacing at 50,000 a day throughout the United States.”

Paul Atkinson, chairman of the Toyota National Dealer Council, said.

Meanwhile some of the media is  beginning to publish data pointing to the brand remaining high in drivers’ estimations.

The New York Times reported that Toyota was ranked third in the annual spring auto issue of Consumer Reports;the same positon as last year.

Rankings were based on the performance, comfort, utility and reliability of more than 280 vehicles.

Honda (which includes Acura models) and Subaru were jointly  first place, the fourth year that Honda was the leading manufacturer.

They were followed by Toyota, and Hyundai (including Kia) was ranked fourth, up from ninth last year.
Signifcantly the report said:

“American manufacturers fared poorly. Ford was ranked 11th, moving up one place from last year. General Motors and Chrysler occupied the bottom two slots, respectively.”

… So the scene is set in the battle not just for the world’s biggest car manufacturing brand – but the war against Brand Japan and Brand USA – in the aftermath of the global recession.

Talk is rife over whether the brand will recover – some of the conversations can be heard here:  toyotabranddisco

From the ashes of disaster sometimes come the roses of success

Not necessarily the end of the road for the brand

Millions of cars have so far been recalled for problems ranging from awkward floor mats to sticky gas pedals and faulty brakes.

However Toyota is not the first brand to have suffered a major recall disaster – and may not be the last.

Some of the more sensational brand slip-ups over the years include:

In 2006 Cadburys reportedly lost around £30 million following a salmonella scare.  Millions of bars were recalled.

In 2007 about 175,000 Curious George dolls were recalled because of a risk of lead poisoning.  (Although no reported illnesses came to light).

In 2000, Firestone and Bridgestone announced an initial recall of 6.5 million types; later extended to replacing a staggering 17 million tyres.

That recall was topped by the world’s largest toymaker, Mattel which in 2007, summoned back 18 million made-in-China toys because of small magnets that could be swallowed accidently.

In 2002 air bag issues led to General Motors recalling almost one million Chevrolet, Cadillac and Pontiac branded vehicles.

But the award for the most dramatic recall and recovery exercise must go to Johnson and Johnson which reportidely spent over $100 milion on withdrawing Tylenol, a non-prescription pain reliever that alegedly caused deaths through cyanide poisoning.

To the brand’s credit, decisive action and the prompt introduction of triple-sealed, tamper-proof packaging led to the resumption of sales in weeks.

So even though Toyota  acted late by not formerly investigating earlier – it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the end of the road for the brand from the land of the rising sun.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Assertive leadership or bullying tactics?

Nobody approves of bullies – yet somehow we have long admired assertive and determined leaders: from Elizabeth I, to Alan Sugar and even Fabio Capello.

From a public brand image perspective, there is more than just a healthy argument that any man or woman ‘at the top’ needs to be a person not just of moral conviction but a genuine character who is not to be messed with.

Allegations of Gordon Brown’s short fuse may be just the touch-paper he needed to rebuild his otherwise former lack-lustre image of a leader in the shadows of man who famously was even prepared to go to war to fight for what, he at least, sincerely believed was a noble cause for the greater good.

Reportedly, when Winston Churchill stepped into Number 10 he did so with a boorish attitude towards Downing Street staff.

It is said that when stressed, he even turned to more than the odd tipple.

Boorish - but brave

He became renown as a leader, figurehead and defender of the common man .

Then there was the ‘Iron Lady’ who at first may have  come across as dainty rather than daunting to some campaign professionals at Tory HQ.

As with Blair, one of her defining moments as a leader with grit, came with the battle cry to avenge and protect British interests around the world.

How very apt that just as the 2010 election campaign steps up a notch, the people at the helm of Brand UK sanctioned drilling to start for oil near the famed Falkland Islands.

Some may point to the happy coincidence that all this has happened the very same fortnight that Gordon Brown was touted in the media firstly as a man of compassion- giggling on the Piers Morgan show – then a leader of fury – caring so passionately about issues affecting the common man and woman that, on occasion he was allegedly moved to hurl the odd piece of office supplies around the ground – and have little time for time wasters.

Pinning her colours to the mast

Some PR commentators could  suppose that much of the recent events were somehow cunningly leaked and managed by Conservative brand spinners.

If they are right, the ploy may have backfired for the opposition.

What has been created – for the Conservatives –  is  the worst of all opponent leadership attributes: the perception of a multi-faceted person who, on one hand is seen as caring, whilst on the other, prepared, determined and stirred enough to do whatever it takes to fight for the nation’s pride, honour and respect.

In other words, from a branding viewpoint – a rounded person.

For the Conservatives, that would be a very hard act to follow.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Lentz defending the brand in front of the headlines

Ahead of Toyota’s president, Akio Toyoda taking his seat in Congress on 24^th February to discuss the global recall of vehicles, the company’s formidable US head James Lentz has admitted to failing to promptly respond to information provided.

He said:

“It has taken us too long to come to grips with a rare but serious set of safety issues, despite all of our good faith efforts.

“The problem has also been compounded by poor communications both within our company and with regulators and consumers.”

Continuing:

“In the case of sticking accelerator pedals, we failed to promptly analyse and respond to information emerging from Europe and in the United States.”

Lentz is expected to be the first Toyota executive to be cross-examined by Congress.

Following an initial examination of documents provided by Toyota, Congress Committee chairman Henry Waxman highlighted  reservations:

• Toyota “consistently dismissed” the odds that electronic failures could be responsible for acceleration problems.

• Toyota’s public statements about the adequacy of its recent recalls appear to be “misleading”.

• The report that Toyota commissioned to consider potential electronic problems appears to include “serious flaws” and the company was too slow in initiating it.

Bottom line results

Toyota said on 23^rd March that global sales were 15% higher in January than a year ago.

Domestic sales jumped 45%, while overseas sales rose nearly 9%.

However, Toyota shares fell 0.5% to 3,325 yen, ahead of the US hearings.

Bowing to public opinion

Using advertising to restore lustre

Toyota’s president has already faced an angry Japanese media that vilified him for not bowing profoundly enough at recent press conferences.

Working in tandem with the new PR push designed to manage public perception surrounding the Congressional hearings, Marketing Week magazine reported that Toyota published full-page adverts designed to restore confidence.

The full-page print ad carries the line ‘We’re pulling together to put things right’, and stresses that the company has 10,000 employees trying to rectify the situation.

It claims that of the 300 UK automotive recalls in the past two years only four have affected Toyota. It also refers to the training of over 1,100 Toyota technicians to repair the vehicles.

Brand trust can Toyota's campaign pull it off?

The ad says:

“At Toyota, building safe cars for the UK is what we have been doing for over 40 years – and we are committed to continuing that legacy for decades to come.”

The advert thanks customers and authorities for help and patience during the recall process.

The Canadian perspective

Meanwhile Toyota Canada launched a nationwide media campaign to assure Canadian consumers that the brand is working to alleviate concerns.

Representatives from the brand’s Canadian division will travel across Canada, to demonstrate why thousands of cars have been recalled in Canada and what is being done to fix them.

Stephen Beatty, managing director of Toyota Canada told CBC News:

“One of the things that’s really important for us is to try to distinguish some of the news coverage that’s coming out of the US about US issues that really don’t apply to vehicles here in Canada.”

“In the short term, have we caused people concern? I’m sure we have, and nobody wants to do that.”

“…I think down the road, people are going to look back on this and say, ‘Did they take care of me properly?’ and if the answer is yes, then I think that people will understand that Toyota has behaved in this situation exactly the way that they expect Toyota to behave.”

To boost sales further it is reported that Toyota is offering customers incentives and warranties.

Earlier in the month, James Lentz used Web 2.0 to restore confidence with the wider blog and Twittersphere.

embedded by Embedded Video

Last week the company released an advertisement featured on YouTube also designed to return faith with the brand.

Drivers, commentators, marketers, spin-doctors and competitors will all no doubt be listening to the congressional proceedings with great interest.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Tiger Woods' Viduy (Great Confession) prayer for the millions

Last weekend will surely go down in popular culture as the ‘Long Weekend of Mea Culpa’: A contemporary take on the Jewish 27 hour Yom Kippur.

First taking the blame on the road to redemption was Tiger Woods; currently the world’s most discussed brand endorser.

Tiger’s plead for forgiveness lasted  13 minutes and contained 1,527 words.

The intimate confession was between him, his family, friends, deity, sponsors and millions of viewers.

The admission was punctuated on average every three minutes with words like, ‘sorry’ and ‘atone’.

So great is his brand power that Bloomberg News estimated that across all U.S. equity exchanges, volume fell to 456 million shares during the confessional.

During one part of the ‘Viduy’ (The Great Confession) he said:

“I recognise I have brought this on myself, and I know above all I am the one who needs to change. I owe it to my family to become a better person. I owe it to those closest to me to become a better man. That’s where my focus will be.”

In the UK, the admission came across to many as stage-managed. Critics were quick to condemn the event as a stunt.

However, this was not meant for a UK audience alone.

It was squarely aimed at the American audience, brands and especially sporting business world which desperately needs him to return.

What they desired, he delivered:

• Humility (staged or otherwise).
• A declaration of family concern.
• A road map promising a return to golf

… and best of all – a hug at the end from ‘Mom’.

The albeit sickly-sweet family message is crucial for brands such as Gillette which must to convey a wholesome family image – taking into accounts modern life’s ups and down – providing it all leads to smooth contours for the road ahead.

A poll of over 100,000 viewers taken by ESPN, the American sports channel, following the broadcast revealed that sixty five per cent of viewers believed the player was sorry for his actions.

Prior to Tiger’s crash into a fire Hydrant, Forbes estimated his brand to be valued at about $90million – $110 million.

Currently it is thought to be worth approximately $82 million.

embedded by Embedded Video

Toward the end of his confession, Tiger said:

“I ask you to find room in your heart to one day believe in me again.”

And there lays the key to salvation: ‘belief’.

Belief from fans, sponsors and sports industry.

Only time will tell if he is completely out of the bunker.

His brand image will never be able to fully buff-up the tarnished hue, but irrespective of the cynical press, he is certainly emerging out of the thick rough.

His future - fare for all?

From the king of golf to Prime Minister – it’s hip to have humility.

Following the theme of mea culpa, none other than the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was next up to step into the televised confession booth.

Walking, head held high, to the spiritually uplifting tune of ‘Your Love is Lifting Me Higher’, Mr Brown set the tone to announce the Labour Party’s campaign slogan for the imminent general election.

“I know that Labour hasn’t done everything right,” He said.

“I know – really, I know – that I’m not perfect. But I know where I come from, I know what I stand for”

The words could have so easily been from Tiger.

New Labour – old slogan

Labour’s internal codename for the campaign ‘Operation Fightback’ was given the more middle-England suitable ‘ A Future Fare For All’.

According the Daily Telegraph, the election slogan was used by Tony Blair seven years ago.

“A Future Fair For All” was the title of a 2003 consultation document that discussed, among other things, the potential benefits of joining the euro.

In terms of copywriting, the re-branded slogan was perhaps a touch too austere and ‘worthy’ rather than catchy.

A future fare for all is instantly subject to a play on words of ‘fare’ as in charge or bill – in other words: ‘A future cost for all’.

It was quickly lampooned by the likes of Iain Dale et al.

A far better slogan was hidden in the Prime Minister’s speech.

“Stand up for the many, not the few.”

In terms of a clear mission statement, that line would have been a far better, offering greater branding flexibility:

I spoke to the BBC about the new slogan from a branding perspective:

embedded by Embedded Video

“It was me what done it”

Meanwhile the Long Weekend of Mea continued unabaited with the much-anticipated live UK screening of BBC’s ‘Eastenders’.

The show was part of the celebrations to mark 25 years of the iconic series.

Someone had murdered the character – Archie (as in,‘Archie the Arch Villain’).

25 year British icon

Many had reason to kill him- all regretted their past and publicly stated their remorse.

Sixteen and half million viewers tuned in to speculate over who was guilty.

Eventually the killer was revealed.

Now that the Long Weekend of Mea Culpa is over, with hindsight perhaps the only ones really left with guilt are the rest of us who, at worst, have turned scrutinising everyone else but ourselves into a bloodsport – and at best into a pleasantly distracting bit of telly watching.

Either way, it all suggests that a bit of confession is good for the soul, game, votes and from the branding perspective, soaps – in all senses of the word.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

embedded by Embedded Video

The build up to the press conference – Repositioning Tiger’s Brand for a specific target audience

embedded by Embedded Video

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Reaching the floating voter

This week, hot on the heals of the Labour Party’s controversial ‘Camera -on/Cameron- off’ poster, comes the Tory’s latest slew of posters designed to win votes and rouse confidence in the electorate.

The latest poster campaign turns away from personalities (albeit finely airbrushed ones) to feature policies affecting individuals and families from working and middle class England.

The new campaign is squarely aimed at floating voters or would-be virgin Tories.

Highlighting the targeted electorate, at the launch of the campaign Cameron said:

“We are not the same old Conservative party. We are the party of the mainstream majority in our country.”

Poster headlines start with the words: “ I’ve never voted tory before but …”

Whilst the campaign is clearly intended to win over the undecided, what was probably unintended was how the posters’ designs made them easy-pickings for bloggers and Tweeters to add their spin to the messages.

Sites like, http://ivenevervotedtory.wordpress.com, Facebook pages like http://www.facebook.com/mydavidcameron?v=photos, and tweets like, http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23ivenevervotedtory, sprouted up faster than yet another award for Lady Ga-Ga.

From a branding perspective this tactic may work for, or against a political brand.

On the upside, awareness is spread far and wide in a matter of clicks.

Wit from Tweets

However, the adpated message is often a far cry from the intended original.

In fact it clearly lampoons it.

Yet, strangely enough, all may not be lost for the political brand.

At the heart of politics is a debate.

As any corporation that has scrupulously tried to avoid blogging will testify – you can’t stop people talking about a brand.

The more you try – the greater the chatter.

In the case of the latest poster campaign, as fast as one Twitterer whistled up a sarconic interpretation of the campaign – another put across a different view.

The Web became a dawn chorus of wit and tweets.

Setting the Presidential precedent

The recent US Presidential campaign was the first to heavily rely on Web 2.0 tactics to boost political funds and awareness within disperate American communities.

Just as Web 2.0 shifted tactics and strategies over there, so in the UK, an important shift is occuring in traditional political branding and marketing.

Poster of the century as voted by Campaign magazine

Classic political posters such as ‘Labour Isn’t Working’ summarised manefesto pledges in pithy headlines and incisive graphics, to be seen and debated by the ordinary man and woman waiting for a bus, train or in traffic.

Today it’s not just what’s written on the posters and adverts throughout the country that forms the hub of the wider conversation.  It’s how those messages are carried on iPhones laptops and Blackberries, and interpreted by the networked community that really matters.

Modern marketing directors will affirm that in the final analysis, real egalitarian power rests within the community deciding a brand’s fate rather than at such a community’s borders.

Irrespective of the number of marketing meetings and focus groups with floating or even sunk voters, taking the longer view, the real writing on the wall for a brand is something that no single poster campaign alone can cover.

And that is true democracy.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Valentine’s Day 2010.

What sweeter way for lovers to pass the evening than cuddled  together on the sofa in front of the TV watching Prime Minister Gordon Brown revealing how he proposed to his lovely wife Sarah?

The idea may be to win over not just the minds, but hearts of the UK electorate who, in just a matter of months, will be invited to fasten the fate of the country’s government – not with a SWALK, but ‘X’ factor style cross on ballot papers.

Feeling those vibes

Reports of the interview  sent vibrations – not all good – around the world.

Of particular concern to voters was the prospect of seeing their leader hold back tears as he discussed the tragic loss of his daughter and illness of his son.

In addition to being a highly personal and sensitive issue, by mixing personalities with policies, the Prime Minister is contradicting his frequently repeated views on the subject.

For example in 2008 he said:

“Some people have been asking why I haven’t served my children up for spreads in the papers – and my answer is simple:  My children aren’t props, they’re people.”

Last year (30 September 2009) in an interview on Sky News:

Brown:                                  I suggest we should be talking about policy issues – not     personality issues.

Interviewer:                        But personality does matter.

Brown:  (Irritated)            It does obsess you.

Brown's Got Talent?

The Brown branding strategy

Considering all this from a purely branding perspective, in addition to using the TV interview to showcase his own brand, Piers Morgan (the journalist who has been groomed by celebrity brand – alchemist, Simon Cowell) may have convinced the Prime Minister’s branding team to welcome the interview for key strategic reasons.

Emotional branding wins votes?

Any brand needs depth.  Such an interview offers voters a different view of Mr Brown.  That can help when it comes to making a final decision on the man and his policies during vote time.

Secondly, consumer brand messages often feature something called, ‘ESP’ – Emotional Selling Propositions.

For example, bread brands often highlight commercials with demographically appropriate families seated around the traditional kitchen table, sharing ‘quality time’ over a meal topped-off with a nice slice of nostalgia – in the shape of the said branded loaf.

Thirdly, last year, at its peak, a reality talent show featuring Morgan – Britain’s Got Talent – attracted 12.7 million viewers.

Significantly, that show was broadcast around May 2009 (the same possible month of this year’s general election).

Cue Coldplay track

During the interview, Morgan’s studio crew used many methods perfected by Simon Cowell to elicit an emotional response from viewers.  These included lingering shots of the Prime Minister’s wife as he spoke of his family’s tragic experiences.

For many, such crass ‘packaging’ of a Prime Minister may come across as contrived.

(Although there is no suggestion that the Brown’s personal losses are anything but dreadfully sad).

In Canada, one newspaper spoke of the PM being formerly remote and out of touch – with the TV interview offering a chance to come across as genuine to most voters.

embedded by Embedded Video

A brand leader needs a clear message

Any brand leader needs a clear and consistent message.  Not one, which is confused or diluted by anything weakening  its potency or is suspected to mimic for the sake of it, what a competitor, says or does.

Equally tragic, Brown’s main opponent, David Cameron, also suffered terrible loss in his family – and has spoken of it.

What would be galling for Brown, Cameron, as well as the electorate is, by also speaking of his loss, the PM comes across as playing some some vulgar tit for tat manoeuvre.

Brown’s problem is that as PM – the branded elected leader of the country – if he says nothing he is damned as aloof.

Revealing feelings he comes across as trying too hard to be empathetic and ‘one of the people’.

Quiet dignity

Breaking from tradition

Traditionally, politicians have kept their personal lives out of the media spotlight.

For example in 1963, Jackie Kennedy went into premature labour. She gave birth to a boy, via emergency Cesarean section.  The boy’s lungs were under-developed. He died.  Apart from a few official announcements, the tragedy was kept in the family.

However since the death of Princess Diana – who Tony Blair posthumously branded,  “The People’s Princess”, politicians have increasingly mixed personalities with politics.

In America it is a blood sport.

If Piers Morgan gets it right, the classic talent TV show format treatment of telling a ‘back-story’ full of pathos and lingering looks, will undoubtedly move some to vote for their guy at the Ballot Factor final.

On the other hand, for the deeply cynical, the release of the interview on the weekend that the UK took part in US-led Operation Moshtarak, meaning “together” in the Dari language – may be a brand ploy too far.  Especially as at least one UK fatality has already been announced.

Rather than sweet, the branding exercise may leave a very bitter and long lingering taste in hearts and minds.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

A clear message for the Labour party brand?

The latest campaign round of marketing mortar rounds from the Labour party against the Conservatives may backfire.

In terms of branding, it won’t be the first time.

A poster playing on the words Cameron, ‘Camera-on’ aims to show the duplicity of the Conservative leader’s stance on NHS promises.   According to the poster, on one hand David Cameron says he is committed to the NHS.

On the other hand ‘Camera – off’ claims he wants to scrap early rights to see a cancer specialist.

At first glance it is all strong stuff.

On the other hand it is also confusing.  Most motorists passing the poster will only ‘take-in’ a cursory glance of the message.

The blogoshpere was quick to publish its version of the poster

With the main political parties only feet apart in terms of perceptions, it is perhaps time for the marketing ‘politterati’ to come up with something more original than the standard respected leader taking a personal pot-shot at the other.

Previous examples of character assassinations include:

‘Demon Eyes’ campaign by the Conservatives against Tony Blair in 1997.

The classic demon eyes negative campaign

‘Dave the Chameleon’ adverts by the Labour party, showing Cameron as a computer generated reptile cycling on his bike through a Shrek-like world; changing colours and views as he goes.

Is it a bird... a plane ... no just negative political campaigning

But even those stabs pale into insignificance when compared a 2008 Canadian campaign.

An advertisement showed Opposition Leader, Stéphane Dione being defecated on by a puffin.

Sliding further still, the 1993 Canadian federal campaign featured a televised attack against Liberal leader Jean Chrétien, focussing on his facial deformity caused by Bell’s palsy.

Today’s electorate is surely more discerning and sophisticated.   It demands more than a Punch and Judy show.

It demands unambiguous political messages concentrating on policies – not , at  least at this point of the campaign – personalities.

Through avoiding such playground digs, political brands would come across as ambassadorial rather than territorial.

Soul Traders. How honest souls lost out to hard sell

My book, Soul Traders, discuses the various campaign tactics used over the years to score political points over opponents.

This current classic tactic is called, Ad hominem, in which one smears an adversary’s character, rather than addressing their argument.

Perhaps it is apt to consider research published in the Journal of Advertising, which concluded that negative political advertising makes the body turn physically away from such messages.

However the mind remembers the message – albeit perhaps for a the wrong reason.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

embedded by Embedded Video

The 2010 Indianapolis Colts vs. New Orleans Saints will be remembered not just for the game and remarkable come-back from the New Orleans flood by the Saints, but as a turning point for the annual love-fest of funny and insightful commercials.

The Super Bowl attracts an audience of 100 million people (by comparison, 37.8 million Americans watched a full-day of President Obama’s ingratiation).

Many tune in just for the ads- renown for their steep costs to broadcast at prime-time.

A survey  showed that Canadians were more interested in watching Super Bowl commercials than the big game.

Back in 1967, 30-seconds airtime for a Super bowl commercial cost $42,500 (£26,522.72) on CBS and $37,500 on NBC (£23.500).

This year, CBS asked $2.6 million (£1.62m) for 30 seconds.

Super bowl when the biggest brands on the market come shoulder-to-shoulder with biggest names on the field

Many familiar names chose not to pay.  These included FedEx, General Motors and Pepsi.

In Pepsi’s case, the brand felt it would be more prudent to donate the money to its community based social Web 2.0 Pepsi Refresh campaign.

Controversially, CBS allowed a conservative group called ‘Focus on the Family’ to air a 30-second commercial that told the story of the mother of footballer Tim Tebow of the Florida Gators, who chose his life over abortion.  Reportedly CBS charged $2.5m to broadcast the commercial.

However the global publicity surrounding the commercial was so great that by way of coverage, in terms of brand value Focus on the Family received back, several times what it cost to broadcast.

Sharing the love

The community spirit also spread to other brands on the Super Bowl commercial playlist.

Doritos crisps held a competition to produce its iconic Super Bowl commercials.

Four thousand entrants applied.

Six finalists each won $25k.

The top three, featured at the game itself, were rewarded $2m between them.

Rival brand Coca Cola featured a commercial with the Simpsons.

Many brands used the Super Bowl to cross-refer TV viewers to websites in order to complete their brand experience.

Some PR spinners used the Super Bowl to showcase commercials that would never get to the game simply because of CBS’s judgement on what constituted contentious content.

However the last laugh went to the brands, which, thanks to viral ‘web-of-mouse’ received thousands of hits for their ‘banned’ commercials online.

These included GoDaddy: Lola in which Larry Jones played a flamboyant gay man.

Man Crunch: Men Kissing.  Another example of CBS’s bias concerning homosexuals

Doritos: Murder, in which a crisp eater accidently kills a pedestrian.

(Definitely not a pro-life move).

Meanwhile rival sports brand conglomerate NBA, which boasts some of the world’s best-known basketball players who have deals with some of the biggest sport brand icons,  is gearing up for its version of the Super Bowl – the All Stars Weekend.

NBA has muted the idea of spreading its brand deeper into the European market.

Jonathan Gabay

www.brandforensics.co.uk

The Super Bowl commercials for 2010

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: