Super Bowl 2011 Ads: Failed Revolution
02.15.2011
In:
Advertising / Design
This year's batch of Super Bowl advertising was one of the more mediocre in recent memory. Aside from Volkswagen's charming "Darth Vader" spot, nothing seemed to really jump off the screen. The most notable trends of the year were the return of American car advertising, as well as the return of Eminem – which actually happened in the same commercial at one point.
Being such students of how brands connect with audiences, we couldn’t help but question the thinking behind Motorola’s commercial for the XOOM tablet. In it, a lone tablet-toting hipster attempts to use his new toy to lure the woman of his dreams out of her Orwellian stupor and into his arms. The implication seems to be that Motorola will free you from Apple’s cultural death-grip.
This commercial failed for two reasons, both of which relate to understanding one’s audience. The creators were clearly expecting viewers to catch their ironic reference to Apple’s landmark 1984 commercial, which positioned the new Macintosh against IBM’s Big Brother. But no one under the age of 35 is likely to get that reference, which eliminates a huge portion of Motorola’s target market. Secondly, the commercial’s essential claim – that the XOOM tablet is a revolutionary piece of hardware – will ring patently false to their tech-savvy audience. After all, didn’t Apple essentially just invent the tablet category as it stands today? The XOOM tablet wouldn’t even exist without the iPad. Some revolution. (In fact, Apple so defines the category, we’d put money on the likelihood that the majority of this commercial’s audience thought they were watching an iPad spot.)
We often lament how few clients are willing to make truly strong claims about their products, but it’s just as dangerous for brands to make bold claims that don’t resonate with their particular target. Motorola’s Super Bowl fumble could have been avoided with better research and insight into their customers’ worldview. That’s a much smarter investment than the roughly $6 million they spent to run a misinformed commercial one time.
