Showing posts with label measurement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label measurement. Show all posts

22 November 2020

Book Review: If Then by Jill Lepore

If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation Invented the Future
By Jill Lepore
Liveright Publishing, 432 pages

The guys who invented predictive analytics never saw failure coming.

That’s the upshot of Jill Lepore’s latest book, If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation Invented the Future


Ostensibly, it’s the story of Simulmatics, founded in 1959 on the idea that with enough data collected in one place, everything and everyone would become predictable. The name is an attempted portmanteau combining the words “simulation” and “automatic.” You’ve probably never heard of Simulmatics because it folded in 1970, but during its short history it played a role in electing John F. Kennedy, mismanaging the Vietnam War, seeking answers to 1960s social upheaval, and speeding the presence of mainframe computers at advertising agencies.


If Then: Book Summary


The founder of Simulmatics was Ed Greenfield, a midcentury ad man, but not like Don Draper. Lepore delightfully introduces him: “He was like a ten-million-volt Looney Tunes electric magnet, a giant red-handled iron U that pulled everyone toward him.” His personality, his ability to influence others, was what propelled him. As evidence, the story includes a lot of bold-faced names, especially from Democratic Party politics, which is what Greenfield cared about most.


Indeed, he built an impressive team. Lepore introduces the other main players early, and efficiently. Harold Laswell, the influential communications theorist. Eugene Burdick, novelist and self-styled adventurer. Alex Bernstein, mathematician and computer programming pioneer. Ithiel de Sola Pool, a social scientist specializing in technology. Bill McPhee, a FORTRAN programmer – and this is such an emblematic aspect of the story – who wrote “the core intellectual property” of Simulmatics while he was committed to Bellevue. Yes, a mental hospital.

Punchcards
on parade


Like any startup, the group had big plans. They bragged they had invented “the A-bomb of the social sciences.” They called it a “People Machine” that could predict the outcomes of advertising campaigns and government policy initiatives. Sadly, they couldn’t get out of their own way. They overplayed their true role in JFK’s winning presidential campaign of 1960. They overpromised how they could help the New York Times analyze the 1962 midterm elections in real time. They overestimated, tragically, how Western-style social science techniques could understand Vietnamese culture. They oversold their value to blue chip brands but opened the door to a legion of market research providers still selling soap today.


One gap in the story: What projects did they actually finish? The only projects fully described were the political ones, and there was only fleeting mention of having sold studies to various corporations, like Bristol Laboratories, Philip Morris, P&G, and some others. Simulmatics was always starved for data, so most of the projects had little effect. Still, it would have been interesting to read more about those episodes.


Eventually Simulmatics folded, although some of its work survived in projects undertaken by individual team members, thus laying the groundwork for today’s data-driven marketing. They accomplished just enough to push things forward, but not enough to get pinned with credit or blame for what we have now. Oddly, Simulmatics’ most accurate predictions came not from data but from the very human insights of Ithiel de Sola Pool. He envisioned with eerie accuracy the role of technology in our lives today: the interconnectedness of the World Wide Web, the ubiquity of social media, and the rise of “mobile computers,” today’s smartphones.


Why Simulmatics matters now


Lepore’s book is thoroughly researched and well-written. It’s a solid history, which is why Simulmatics matters: because we learn from history. Here’s what I took away:

  • No data. It shouldn’t have been surprising, but was nevertheless shocking, how Simulmatics never seemed to have data that were complete or accurate. In an almost poignant moment, Lepore writes, “Pool raised the question that Simulmatics would never really answer: ‘What is the data we would need for this model?’” Ad agencies, which had data, filled the gap, bringing in their own IBM mainframes and offering the services to clients directly. Today we have plenty of data, but we still have to answer the question: Which data do we need to solve this problem?
  • No humility. The Vietnam phase of the book is a troubling read. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1962: “Every quantitative measurement we have shows we are winning the war.” That might have been all too true; Lepore points out that military progress was measured by “the number of insurgents killed,” with the implication that indiscriminate killing ran up the numbers. Humility is a function of introspection. Are we thinking things through? Are we seeing the big picture? Are tracking the right metrics? These questions are relevant to the work we do today.
  • No humanity. Lepore points out that computers can simulate a flight because physical laws like F=ma are constant. “But the computer simulation of human behavior … is much more difficult. Behavior is not a law.” If, as some Artificial Intelligence experts say, the brain is just a very sophisticated machine, then eventually we will create a machine that can think like a human brain. But there is a (so far) unquantified human element that no series of If-Then scenarios in FORTRAN, C++ or Python could ever predict.

Simulmatics failed where other succeeded. There’s still lots of room for modern failure, which is why these lessons from the past are important.

18 November 2020

What is Ad Majorem?

Thank you for visiting my blog, Ad Majorem.  When it started in the late 2000s, it was a view on modern marketing from within a large advertising agency.  Now it’s a view on modern marketing from the perspective of a CMO.

The title, Ad Majorem, is part of a familiar Latin phrase and loosely translates to English as “to the greater.”  As in, there is always an opportunity for better marketing: stronger consumer insights, more powerful ideas, channel-neutral marketing plans, and accountability so we know what sells and what doesn’t.

 

There’s also always an opportunity for better marketing people.  It’s important to me that team members keep learning as they go, staying curious and maintaining a perspective of continuous improvement.  We’re happier when we’re learning and growing, so that will continue to be a theme here.

The “ad” in Ad Majorem means all marketing communications, from social media to direct mail to Internet gaming to television commercials. To most consumer audiences all of these are advertising. My 
professional experience

in these channels provides a perspective that is part specialist, part generalist.

A lot has changed since 2009, not all of it “to the greater.”  We’re at a very inauspicious moment, with uncertainty, threats, deepfakes and divisions.  This blog has always avoided politics, and will continue to avoid politics, because there are too many wannabe pundits in marketing and advertising already.

That said, there’s always hope for the future, so the tone here will be hopeful as well as honest.  Don’t come here for dirt, fear or loathing. The closest I’ll come to that is self-criticism of the marketing business. Occasionally I’ll stray into a review of a campaign but only in service of a larger point.

Please comment. Otherwise this wouldn’t be an honest look at an industry where communication with consumers should be two-way, not just one-way.

One thing hasn’t changed since I started this blog.  Ad Majorem’s reason for being is to keep myself honest on embracing the challenges and changes of modern marketing. My hope is that you, too, will derive some professional growth from it.

29 April 2015

Happy Twitterversary


Eight years ago today I tweeted for the first time.

To celebrate, Twitter lost 24% of its market value yesterday.

Twitter hatches

Although I didn't remember exactly what I tweeted that first time back in 2007, nor the exact date, I very clearly remembered the circumstances.  Twitter had suddenly taken SXSW by storm the month before.  I was on a business trip to Europe, reading an article about it in The Economist and decided to give it a try.

Signing up back then was very different:  You SMS'd to 40404 and by exchanging text messages you established a username and got started.  Coincidentally, just the other day I discovered a site that will find your first tweet.  I entered @SteveS1 and suddenly it all came back to me:

(Yes, I misspelled "coffee".  So sue me.)

Twitter lays an egg of its own

Yesterday afternoon Twitter's stock price was a fairly typical $51.19, but then their (somewhat) disappointing 1st quarter results came out prematurely and a day later shares are trading at $38.98.  That's about a 24% decline, not far from where it was on Day 1.

Is that bad?  Not really, for two reasons.

First, this news puts Twitter in proper company with the rest of the tech world, subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.  Just because Twitter is famous doesn't mean its stock won't go up or down.

Second, they're still racking up some impressive ad revenue, "only" $435.9 million in 1st quarter, which was 74% above the same quarter a year earlier.  Yes, it was a drop from the previous quarter, but their chief sin seems to have been missing financial analysts' expectations, which were more like $456.8 million.

The real question is whether this news represents a real weakness in ability to attract ad revenue.  Or as Twitter CEO Dick Costolo put it, the company had a "demand problem".  Here again, they're in proper company.  Many emerging media platforms have this problem, because advertisers aren't sure how or whether a new medium fits in their overall mix.

I'm not an investor in Twitter, so I can watch this play out with merely professional curiosity — what about you?  Any thoughts on the future of Twitter?

24 April 2015

Display Ads: the New Subliminal Advertising


In the days of Ye Olde Marketing there was a belief in "subliminal advertising" -- the idea that TV commercials would be spliced with fleeting images, usually sexual, to overpower your psyche and make you buy something you didn't need.

Although the science behind subliminal stimuli is interesting, it's never really been used in advertising and we have no examples of it ever working.  Most of the urban legend is based on a 1957 movie theater experiment that never actually happened.  

Comedian Steven Wright sent this up with one of his 1980s one-liners:  "I saw a Subliminal Advertising executive….but only for a second."

Online Display is the New Subliminal Advertising

This all came to mind when reading the Internet Advertising Bureau's latest viewability standards:  "Desktop display ads to be considered viewable if 50% of their pixels are in view for a minimum of one second."

Banner ad?
I didn't see any
banner ad.
50% of the ad for just one second.  We used to call that subliminal advertising.

In a not very subliminal display of honesty, the IAB press release on this topic is headlined "100% Viewability Measurement Is Not Yet Possible".


It's Like We Never Noticed This Before

How did we get to this point?

The Internet didn't used to allow advertising at all, banning it until 1991.  The first form of advertising was actually email — yes, direct mail — which as we all know spawned spam.  The first clickable display ad came in 1993, and in 1994 Wired started selling banner ads to clients like AT&T, with a click-through rate of 44% (no, that's not a typo, and we should point out that the click bait was an online tour of seven of the world's most acclaimed art museums).

These initial approaches revealed a direct-response mindset, and unrealistic expectations as to how perfectly measurable advertising would be on the Internet.  Not quite!  As click-through rates have dropped to infinitesimal numbers, online display has gone from marketing's Holy Grail to just billboards posted on the Information Superhighway.  Today's tools don't consistently measure page takeovers, road blocks and other customized placements.  As IAB president Randall Rothenberg said, "Different ad units, browsers, ad placements, vendors and measurement methodologies yield wildly different viewability numbers."  If you were expecting an accounting exercise that neatly reconciled everything, we don't have one.

The goal is "100% viewability" and at some point we'll get there.  In the meantime there will be some tough discussions among advertisers, agencies, media and researchers.  

Meanwhile, the irony is that an urban legend from 1957 is reality in 2015.

24 March 2015

Ad Spending: Pixels are Up, Ink & Paper are Down


U.S. ad spending went up slightly in 2014 because pixels increased more than ink & paper declined.

That's my analysis of fresh data from Kantar Media summarized in this chart:


The pixels were TV (+5.5%) and Internet Display (+0.9%).  Representing ink & paper were Magazines (-5.1%), Newspapers (-10%), Outdoor (-0.2%) and FSIs (-2.8%).  Radio was also down -3.9%.

Like everything in modern media, though, it's never this simple.

Two Questions to Think About

Please consider the environment
before printing this billboard
The "pixels" category above only seems to represent the "First Screen" (TV) and the "Second Screen" (personal computers).  We don't see the Third Screen (mobile devices) and Fourth Screen (digital out of home).  That leaves us with a couple of questions.

What is TV?  As posted recently, TV isn't dead, it's just morphing into a more personalized experience.  If anything is dying, it's Cable TV.  Now, Cable ad spend actually grew +6.8% last year, a big reason for TV growing +5.5% overall, thanks to sports and political campaigns.  But viewers are cutting the cord, or at least shaving it, in favor of new OTT options.  The thing is, it's harder to track the ad revenue, which is there if you're watching The Flash online at CWtv.com, but not if you're watching House of Cards on Netflix.  Kantar says their data doesn't track online and mobile video ad spend.

What is Outdoor?  The vast majority of OOH (Out of Home) inventory is still ink & paper, although many media companies continue investing in DOOH (Digital Out of Home) and Digital Place-based Media.  Kantar pointed out "digital outdoor ad spending has grown six times faster than the overall medium".  So it's reasonable to say that Outdoor's -0.2% decline is probably a mix of pixels being up and ink & paper being down.

31 January 2015

The State of TV Advertising on the Eve of the Super Bowl


The Super Bowl has always symbolized the power of TV advertising.  Is that power waning?

Many business journalists seem to think the Super Bowl is the last bastion of TV advertising.  Just this morning as I was writing this post, The Economist daily news digest arrived, calling the Super Bowl "something increasingly rare in television: a programme that people watch live and in large numbers."

Surprise! Most TV Viewing is Still Done on a TV

Now let me explain
"Programmatic" to you
Actually, Live TV viewing is holding steady at about 4-1/2 hours per day.  Yes, 66.8% of Broadband Users Under 35 watch TV on a combination of these devices, but for all age groups most TV viewing is still done on a TV.  

This will shock Upper West Siders who binge-watch Orange Is The New Black on Netflix.  But regular people are watching live sports, NCIS, Dancing With The Stars, American Idol, Judge Judy and Big Bang Theory.  Bazinga!  

But Fragmentation Will Continue

TV was never dying; it was just following audiences to new platforms.  Cable supplanted Broadcast and new devices emerged like DVRs, OTT, Online and Mobile.  There will always be big audiences, but they will continue fragmenting.  In Ye Olde Marketing buying and selling TV was relatively straightforward and audience delivery was measured by Nielsen.  But now audiences are fragmented and sometimes not even measured.  Only Netflix knows how big the audience for Orange or House of Cards really is.  (A Los Angeles Times reporter tried thinking it through.)

The Super Bowl doesn't have this problem.  The marquee advertising will air during NBC's broadcast, and people will see it on TVs, tablets and other places.  The audiences will be big enough that few advertisers will worry about under-delivery against their $4.5 million (unless they're spending that money in the 4th quarter of a one-sided blowout).

The Revolution May Not Be Televised, but TV Will Be Personalized

But even in a big event that almost everyone watches or knows about, we see the future of TV:  Personalization.  For the Super Bowl it takes the form of second- and third-screen programming, i.e. game analysis, ad analysis and social media traffic.  Little of this is driven from broadcaster to audience; it's more of a conversation where both participate.  The famous Oreo dunk-in-the-dark tweet generated very small response:  15,000 Retweets and 20,000 Likes.  (In fact they probably generated more blog posts than that, but I digress.)  But it's OK because they learned how be part of people's conversations.  

In the same way, Oreo's latest stunt -- yes, it's a stunt -- using programmatic methods to buy a :15 in the Erie (Pennsylvania) DMA is a harbinger of things to come.  "Programmatic" is one of those words that's taken on too many meanings, but it's generally associated with media buying, just like the online ad world from which it came.  Its real value will be as a pathway to addressable TV, a way for audiences to customize the programs they see -- and advertisers to customize the messages that make them possible.

Enjoy the game -- and the ads -- and know that you'll always have plenty of company watching that first screen.  Keep one eye on those other screens, too, because they're a window to the future.

01 October 2014

Tablets Are Not "Mobile". They're "Portable"



This has been bugging me for a while.

Tablets — be it the iPad, the Kindle, the Galaxy or anything with a capacitive touchscreen larger than a Pop Tart — should not be considered mobile devices, like smartphones.

Consumer behavior proves it

All Mobile is Portable but
Not All Portable is Mobile
Sure, tablets and smartphones both run on the same "mobile" operating systems like iOS or Android, but people use them differently.  For example, people report accessing the Internet in their living rooms on both tablets (72%) and smartphones (67%), but in out of home situations, the numbers are quite different.  On the daily commute, for example, 49% use their smartphones and only 9% use their tablets.  In Stores, 75% use their smartphones and very few use their tablets.  (All of this research comes from a 2013 Forrester study; see a nice summary here.)

Why does this matter?  Follow the Money

Likewise, not all mobile ad spending is created equal.  When you hear things like "Mobile advertising spend will be about $18 Billion globally in 2014" you need to think beyond tiny, unreadable banner ads on a smartphone.  Those big numbers also include banner ads and video pre-roll that are better seen on a tablet.  That $18 Billion also includes a lot of Paid Search, which is a natural ad medium on the tablet, and a lot of Messaging, which is a natural ad medium on the smartphone.



Google Agrees:  Tablets Are Not "Mobile"  

In an SEC filing last January, Google admitted that as tablets became more ubiquitous, "their usage had much more in common with desktops than with handsets".  Going further, they said "the meaning of 'mobile' at Google has shifted dramatically to 'handset' from 'tablet + handset'."  Why tell the SEC?  Because it affects how they report their very considerable ad revenue.  It also affects how they might collect revenue in the future:  This was the same SEC filing that grabbed headlines like "Google Will Advertise on Thermostats".  So the definition of "Mobile" also matters to Google, but it goes way beyond tablets to the so-called Internet of Things, or in Google's case, the Internet of Things That Collect Ad Revenue.

God bless them.  As long as they start referring to tablets as "portable" devices.

30 April 2014

Greetings from Startup Land


Which one delivers results?

This past month on Ad Majorem I've described in a series of posts how I went from Ad Land to Startup Land.  My hope is that you found it interesting or helpful or both.

There are a lot of differences between the two worlds.  I'd argue that one big thing Startup Land can teach Ad Land is how Technology and Marketing can work together.

One big similarity?  I've seen that whether you're in Ad Land or Startup Land, the only way to create real value is to focus on delivering results.

Here's an index to the whole series.  Thanks for reading.

How I Went from Ad Land to Startup Land

Startup Land Has No Boundaries

Startup Land, Where Technology and Marketing Work Together

In Startup Land, Management Really Is Nimble

Results Also Matter in Startup Land

Book Review:  Quick and Nimble

23 April 2014

Results Also Matter in Startup Land


Decades ago the Ad Land pioneer Rosser Reeves asked, “What do you want from me?  Fine writing?  Or do you want to see the sales curve start moving up?”  We may argue, half a century later, as to how widely Ad Land holds that sentiment.  Startup Land depends on it – or at least depends on the sales curve rising fast enough to beat the burn rate.  

Or does it?

Years ago, Eric Schmidt described Google's business strategy as “URL” -- Ubiquity first, Revenue Later.  That worked for Google, but many venture capitalists who invest in technology seem to take it literally.  There is a lot of money poured into companies that may still be in the red for years, like Amazon, Pinterest and many others.

Dollars and Cents

Sadly, most people in Ad Land are insulated from business results until the moment when agency layoffs are unavoidable.  Agencies have been slow to embrace results and accountability.  One pundit says clients are complicit.

Last of a series
Because Startup Land is for the most part small and nimble, it’s impossible to be insulated from business results.  Everything is very out in the open.  If your company hasn’t gone public, you’re still accountable to your investors, whose money you’re spending to grow the business.  Our investors hold us accountable, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  

Traveling in these circles, however, I am struck by how few investors really do their homework on the day-to-day operations of the companies they invest in.  Some are far more interested in financial instruments – credit facilities, warrants and the like – than in what makes the sales curve go up.  Many investors love seeing stock prices rise on the possibility of future results.  (Today's news suggests that caution is order.)

Kiss a Lot of Frogs

There’s an old saying, repeated often in Startup Land, that you have to kiss a lot of frogs before getting to the prince.  It applies both to raising capital (which we recently did) and raising the sales curve (which we are always doing).  As I’ve mentioned a couple of times in this series, it’s easy to get impatient.

Impatience may be a virtue, but don’t lose focus.  Whether you’re in Ad Land or Startup Land, focus on delivering results, not just the promise of them.  It's the only way to create real value.


03 February 2014

Super Bowl XLVIII Advertising: Fumbles, Turnovers and Stats


I'm still trying to decide if yesterday's Super Bowl game was a metaphor for the advertising, or the other way around.

Both had fumbles and turnovers.  The Seahawks dominated the Broncos.  TV sales teams ran up the score about $4 million at a time.

Then there were the stats.  Did you know that losing quarterback Peyton Manning set a Super Bowl record for most completions?

In the same way, some advertisers won popular opinion surveys, or earned the most Likes, but failed to move the sales needle.

The Rules for Great Super Bowl Advertising

This was an ad for Pepsi, not pistachios
Every Super Bowl commercial has to be memorable, persuasive, well-executed and epic.  Ask yourself two questions:  Did you remember the advertiser?  Did you remember what they told you?

This year the ad industry disappointed the audience (and perhaps clients) on all these measures.  It's hard to pick clear winners and losers, so here are some group dynamics among some of the commercials you saw.

My Strategy's Showing!  No, It's Not

Early in the game we saw two carmakers take two totally opposite approaches.  Ford Fusion's "Nearly Double" was obvious and clear, practically hitting us over the head, while Maserati's Ghibli "Now We Strike" was pretentious and muddy.  Ford, a mass appeal car with a mass appeal message, surely got more for their money than Maserati, a car for the 1%.

Don't Tell Anyone, But That Was a DEMO!

Product features can be communicated with great drama, and even smart product demos can work in the Super Bowl.  None of these were "epic" but all three pass the two-question test -- you know Hyundai has an auto-emergency brake, that Jimmy John's is easy to order, and that Beats earphones sound great.  Among all the auto advertisers, do you think people remember Brand Hyundai today?

Tug at the Heartstrings

Super Bowl audiences expect emotional ad moments, and four advertisers did a credible job.  MetLife's Peanuts, a licensing deal I never understood, made sense for once.  Coke's America Is Beautiful continued an E Pluribis Unum ad tradition.  Chevy surprised us with a strong tribute to cancer survivors.  And Cheerios brought back Gracie -- I hope they keep that series going.  None of these were truly epic, however.  They could have been turned up to... well, given the Seahawks win, they could have been turned up to 12.

Pistachios and Pepsi

I have a sick fascination with bad Super Bowl advertising about nuts (see here and here).  Wonderful Pistachios -- Gangnam Style last year, Stephen Colbert this year -- understands that pistachios are green, but the branding still gets lost.  Having a generic name surely doesn't help.

Pepsi's halftime show was an ad.  The game and the advertising were boring, but Bruno Mars validated Pepsi's long experience working with celebrities and judging talent.  The show will turbocharge Mars' career, and surely helped Pepsi build their brand.  They need the help.

Lastly, a wise word from beer advertising expert Dan Fox, who tweeted this about the new Bud Light campaign:  "Crazy night for one guy.  Which beer?"

What About You?

Let me have it:  Which commercials did you think were memorable, persuasive, well-executed and/or epic?  Comment below.

06 February 2013

Adobe's Pre-Roll Ad Mocks Unwise Super Bowl Investments

My Monday morning quarterbacking of Super Bowl XLVII advertising asked whether all the advertisers remembered that they were selling something, and if not, whether their media investment was wise.

"Spend wisely" is the advice given by Adobe in a pre-roll ad they're running on trade websites this week.  It comes wrapped in an amusing send-up of Super Bowl attention-grabbing tricks.

Click the video below.  It's a fun 30 seconds.


Related posts:




04 February 2013

Super Bowl XLVII Advertising: What Worked


How did a Super Bowl advertiser know if she spent $4 million of her media budget wisely yesterday?  And what about that production budget?

The answer doesn’t depend on popular opinion surveys, like the USA Today Ad Meter declaring Budweiser’s Clydesdales the winner.  In the end, clients want results, and while some seek popularity, all advertisers look for sales, share and brand equity.

We can’t share any internal documents stating those goals and whether the ads achieved them.  But the universal laws of strong communication still apply.  Based on those, we can pick some winners.

Universal Laws of Advertising Still Apply on Super Bowl Sunday

Every commercial has to be memorable, persuasive and well-executed.  Most Super Bowl commercials are memorable, even if it’s a memorable failure, and even if it resorts to stupid attention-getting tricks like featuring babies, animals and/or celebrities.  And most are well-executed.  Or at least well-funded.

No, really. Where's the
copy strategy for this?
It’s the persuasive part that many Super Bowl commercials miss.  In many cases that’s due to a lack of clear objective.  In most it’s because the brand, product and story aren’t all present or linked together. 

I’m not prescribing a claim or product feature, although those are far and few between during any Super Bowl.  It’s more simple:  Did you remember the advertiser?  Did you remember what they told you?

Super Bowl Advertising Also Has to be Epic

There’s one more rule that applies to big events like the Super Bowl:  Advertising has to be epic.  That could mean making a special emotional connection, launching a (truly) revolutionary product, or even a celebrity.  Think of the Super Bowl as a premiere.  It would be silly to run an ad everyone has already seen.  (Oh.  Wait….)

The problem is, epic falls flat if there’s no story being told – not just the story on the screen, but the advertiser’s story.

Super Bowl XLVII Advertising: What Worked

Based only on the above thoughts, here were three that worked well.

“Morning Run” (Milk).  Milk’s marketing works best when it focuses on the “healthy body” claim.  In this case they turned the “Got Milk?” storyline into the promise of  “Protein to start your day.”  Dwayne Johnson’s role reinforces the product benefit.  And it was epic.

“Farmer” (Dodge Ram).  I admit that the Paul Harvey speech drew me in.  Which was necessary because I’m not in the market for a pickup truck.  Doubly necessary because of Dodge Ram advertising’s sophomoric track record.  Yes, it amounts to a product usage suggestion (“great for farming!”) but they effectively used the brand to herald a cause.

“Miracle Stain” (Tide).  I had to go back and watch it again this morning because I apparently missed the “Go Ravens” line while feeding tortilla chips to the children.  Kudos to Procter & Gamble for resisting the urge to feature a claim and/or a demo until the very end.

What didn’t work so well?

None of these spots had all four ingredients (memorable, persuasive, well-executed and epic).

“Crackin’ Style” (Wonderful Pistachios).  Even the star of the most viral video ever can’t compensate for lack of a point or an unmemorable brand name.  In fairness, salty snacks is a tricky category.  Past Super Bowl nut-vertising offers a cautionary tale.  The billionaire Resnicks should heed it.

“Effect” (Sodastream).  My in-game tweet on #AdHuddle:  “SodaStream verdict: The pre-game controversy did way more for them than the in-game #Advertising.”  They could have made a much more clear connection to saving the environment, or even saving money, than this botched attempt at a side-by-side comparison.

“Party” (Pepsi Next).  At first glance this is classic Pepsi: a situation comedy where young people raise Cain and get away with it.  But wait, it’s not classic Pepsi, it’s a line extension, and they don’t get away with it.  The entire situation is contrived to fit around a product usage occasion where the dad recites the brief:  “This is real cola taste.”

What about you?

I’ve only chosen a few commercials here, so please put your own reviews in the comments section below.  Which commercials did you think were memorable, persuasive, well-executed and epic?