Thinking small after the big game – why Superbowl ads aren’t all they’re cracked up to be

I think any sports fan who watched last night’s Superbowl can agree that it was a fantastic game. But the day after, it always seems to feel like dissecting the commercials is as popular a topic across the message boards, Tweetdecks and (if you’re old-fashioned) water coolers of the world, as the results of the game itself.

The incredible buzz generated from these spots is enough to make any brand marketer drool. At their best, they take brands to a cultural iconic status. At their worst, the brand still makes off like a bandit with the amount of vitriol they evoke from the commercial critics that seem to come out of the woodwork. Beginning with Apple’s famous “1984″ ad, we’ve seen the rise of the  the “Go Daddy Girls”, the instant superstar launch of businesses like E-Trade, the continued saga of the Budweiser Clydesdales, and beyond. They’ve triggered mind-boggling web traffic, making introductions between companies like Viacom and YouTube, and peppered our conversations for days and some times weeks after they air. But is such a giant catch-all the best place for your brand to be, or is it more of an ego stroke to be a part of the most envied conversation in advertising?

For all the things I love about the Superbowl and those Super-ads, I still often wonder what brands are thinking when they write that multi-million dollar cheque?  For the Budweiser’s of the world, its about presence.  We’ve seen those horses for so many years that to go without them for a Superbowl might literally cause their stock price to slip from a loss of investor confidence – let alone the potential impact on the sale of suds.  But they’re the exception, much more than the rule.

Brands like Go Daddy and E-Trade could’ve literally lost their businesses if their ads flopped, so clearly there we see a very calculated, high risk gamble – luckily for them, they seem to have paid off.  But what do these success stories do for the rest of the brands out there who are working to build their profile?  Isn’t it only natural for them to grab a hold of that great Western-world “me too” attitude and aspire to have that same level exposure for their business?  For a brash marketer building their brand and wanting to be the best, the thought of purchasing and airing one of these outrageously-priced spots is both literally and figuratively, the Superbowl of advertising.

And here I tell my cautionary tale.

If maximum exposure is all you crave, then open up your wallet and shell out because, as has been consistently proven, when it comes to attention paid to advertising, the Superbowl is peerless.  But before you start writing all those zeros on the cheque, consider if you really feel that talking to everyone and knowing your audience is in there (somewhere) is better than truly engaging them on a more personal level?

We’re in the digital age – and the venues through which to engage an audience in a brand discussion are greater than ever before.  With so many incredible tools out there, you could operate a quality viral or social media campaign for literally years on the same budget as one 30 second television ad!  For me, that math is more than enough to overcome the ego stroke of seeing my brand in lights, but this clearly isn’t so for everyone.

So yes, let’s continue to love the Superbowl for its clever, memorable, and astronomically priced advertising.  But let’s also remember that there are amazing alternatives out there for a resourceful brand – ones that could garner a great deal more loyalty from, and interaction with, their consumers.  When budgets are being slashed across the board, now is the time to turn our collective admiration to those who can speak to their audience and truly engage them on a shoestring, rather than the brand that coughs up the dough to have Mr. Potato head hock tires for $100,000 a second.

Oh, and congrats to the Steelers too, I guess..