Comments

Superbowl = US Centric not world centric

Therefore limited in a global world?

Posted by PaulH at February 1, 2009 5:20 AM

How about a debate on the morality of betting $3m that a 30-second spot will produce results during an economic downturn that's the worst in nearly a century? (Not to mention the eternal, 'How do I tell if my advertising is effective?' question!)

Posted by Mark JF at February 1, 2009 6:16 AM

PaulH - We could care less whether you watch the the Superbowl or not. Fact is, you can! How global is that? The reality: We haven't even thought about you. Last year at this time I read similiar ridiculous comments. We are not into soccer. Get over it!

MarkJF - Regarding private funds and morality, I'm cool with the $3m 30-second spot so as long as my money isn't going toward it. Private industry can do with its money just what it pleases. Many large companies have large charities too. This is good.

Does every single practice of private industry need to be challenged now? This is a big annual U.S. event that generates large sums of revenue for the host city, airlines, etc. -- even if not for the advertisers. This too is good for the economy.

I suspect we will not see any bailout banks with a spot. But then again, we may just have to see about that. Probably not.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2009 8:45 AM

how about using the hashtag #sb43 as well?

then we can use summize:

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23sb43

or maybe #tpSB43 (tom peters Superbowl 43)???

-ski

Posted by Jeff SKI Kinsey at February 1, 2009 8:45 AM

Good debate already! Mark JF ... You're right to use the word "betting," and, while I don't think of it as a moral question, there are certainly times where creative director vanity trumps shareholder benefits, and I guess you could call that a moral issue. This is actually a good time to spend money on communicating with customers, but in this economic downturn, extra-broad broadcast isn't a good way to communicate with extra-scrutinizing customers. I want to spend my money on building stronger relationships with fewer customers, not spreading myself too thin.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 1, 2009 9:56 AM

steve, sally: what about the tom peters hash tag?
include that? thanks Ski.

#tpSB43

Posted by erik at February 1, 2009 10:26 AM

With so many companies going to governments the world over, I wonder how many of the ads will be paid for by private funds and how much of it will be effectively subsidised by those people who are watching it anyway?

Judith - "Private industry can do with its money just what it pleases." Wow. I've a feeling I might be quoting this back at you many times in future: do you really mean it?

Posted by Mark JF at February 1, 2009 11:32 AM

MarkJF - It is obvious that regulations are important and the lack of regulations has helped to bring us here. But I remain an advocate for free enterprise and think that it can be ethical. If you wish to break the law and be unethical I CANNOT stop you. But what we CAN collectively do is stop our taxpaying dollars from going towards bailing out companies that have broken laws and have been unethical in their practices and continue to do so -- like the desire to purchase that $50 million dollar jet. BARF!

Steve's point about the creative director vanity trumping shareholder’s benefit is well taken. But in a private company, who is responsible for this? Where is the board of directors in all of this? I think it is quite amazing that we have not heard a peep in the public debate about the responsibility of the board. What is the responsibility of the board in determining shareholder’s benefit and CEO salary caps? The decision is not yours or mine, expect, of course, when our money is being used as a bailout.

Private industries: Do what you please. BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECKONING. THERE NEEDS TO BE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES THEY HAVE NOT YET SEEN IN ADDITION TO RETURNING THE LOOT! What is for certain is that I CANNOT change my brother's mind and I most certainly CANNOT change a CEO's mind of a private industry. BUT HE CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. This is my point. So, I repeat "Private industry can do what it will with its money." You may also do so back to me a thousand times should you desire, but in the spirit in which it was meant. I concede that I may not have been clear. I hope this explanation bring a bit more clarity.

Now, I’m off to Orchestra Hall to hear a little Bach before the 'Bowl!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2009 1:26 PM

Mark,

I get your drift. Judith should have stated that, "Private enterprise can do with the government bailout monies just what it pleases...and they have." In light of that, I'm sure there are several responsible companies that have elected to spend the money on their employees and clients as opposed to the Super Bowl spotlight.

Pittsburg and Arizona or watching paint dry on HGTV.com. I'm not sure which we'll provide more excitement...

Posted by Candy Man at February 1, 2009 4:15 PM

During these times we sometimes forget what great charitable work banks and others corporations have done throughout the years. For as long as I can remember, since the age of 10, financial institutions and others have been supportive of the arts.

This afternoon I went to the Sphinx Competition sponsored by Chase, GM, Chrysler, and Ford without whose support it would not have been.
This competition is given yearly in support of young string musicians in urban areas to build skill and confidence; the competitors come from across the country and are trained by the very best. They appear at Carnegie Hall.

The Sphinx organization offers after school and summer programs supported by the above and many others.

So, thank you Chase, GM, Chrysler, Ford, et al for your many years of support of the arts and education.

Candy Man - In case you didn't know, there is very little that others "should" tell me that I "should" do and it be well received. Plus, it's rather insignificant to address what one "should" do when it is quite obvious that one has already done so.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2009 5:09 PM

Am an owner of an eight branch bank that was founded by an inlaw 50 years ago. $3M for 30 seconds - that is peanuts compared to what goes on in even small time banking. I highly recommend owning a bank - then like me you are laughing frequently - especially "all the way to the bank!"

PS: Arizona is undefeated (9-0) this year in all games it has 2 or fewer turnovers - key to watch for + Pittsburg Ben's QB rating in (his only) Superbowl XL was 22.6 - defense won it for him. Go Arizona! :>)

Posted by Contraire at February 1, 2009 5:10 PM

Don’t know how it works over there in the US but when a big football (soccer) match is shown in the UK on commercial TV channels, the advertisement break is the time I take a visit to the small room, go for a drink or find another reason to leave the TV. I am with Steve – it is a total waste of money as far as I am concerned. Its junk mail on a small screen. It’s not clever at all – it’s an insult to intelligence.

I am a soccer fan so I watch soccer on TV only for the soccer. Why oh Why don’t you advertising folks get it? – I don’t watch soccer in order to buy a car or a holiday - for crying out loud, how many more times – I’M JUST NOT INTERESTED!!

To me spending all this money on advertising is yet another indicator of how badly wrong we have got our use of time. I am not convinced for one nanosecond that spending that sort of money can in any way be justified on productivity grounds but more importantly on moral grounds – it is obscene …. And then we wonder why the world is all but bankrupt. get viagra no prescription

Absolute stupidity and capitalism gone mad

Apart from that I guess its ok :-)

On a brighter note … Good luck to all US citizens on your special Super Bowl day and may the best team win – even if I have no idea about the rules.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 1, 2009 6:35 PM

The coaches' "motorola" head pieces might be worth more than that $3M 30 second spot. How's that for product placement?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2009 7:03 PM

Judith,

How much wood could a woodchuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Sometimes I loose the essence of what's being said through the way with which it's stated. Wait----I'm beginning to confuse myself.

Posted by Candy Man at February 1, 2009 8:46 PM

Boohoo! :-( Sharpen up, Woodpecker. The beak's a little dull.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2009 8:59 PM

GO STEELERS!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 1, 2009 10:13 PM

Judith

I am afraid I found your comment quite hurtful. I don't particulaly like my comment labelled as ridiculous.

I was actaully posing a question and trying to kick off a bit of debate not making a comment.

For the record - I am not a soccer fan and (although I respect the passion of people who are) I don't watch it either.

Posted by PaulH at February 2, 2009 6:21 AM

PaulH - I am sorry that you were hurt, really. But c'mon man, your skin is that thin? Regarding your kick off, be prepared when such comments or any comment is made to be kicked back. You actually can't take it when someone thinks your comment is ridiculous? I assume others think the same of my comments and have even written so. SO!

There are a great many things that I do not like what others do or say about me, but I do not tell people how they should think or respond. What I try to do is respond accordingly, often in the spirit of the words written and sometimes not. Really, don't you have more chutzpah than what is evident here? I believe you do.

For the record PaulH, I appreciate a great many of your comments. For these and the others too, I say thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 2, 2009 8:12 AM