Spring Break
Lack of originality, creativity, make commercials mediocre
A Review of this year's Super Bowl commercials
Casey Farrell
Issue date: 2/5/07 Section: Features
What would you do with 2.6 million dollars? You could pay off your student loans, get rid of your 1989 Mustang and at the very least get out of that apartment that has a questionable substance growing in the left corner of your ceiling behind your TV.
Or you could pay for a 30 second advertisement during broadcast of Super Bowl XLI. Yes, you heard it, about 2.6 million dollars to spend 30 seconds telling viewers, who are probably out grabbing another beer from the kitchen, why they should buy your product.
As ridiculous as the amount may sound, the Super Bowl is prime advertising space. It brings in the largest viewing audience of the year, and advertisers will do practically anything to get your attention.
Super Bowl commercials are notorious for being over the top and many people look forward to seeing commercials that have an original spin. Sometimes the commercials are the only reason people watch the game.
The hype of these commercials sometimes causes viewers to be disappointed. Overall, this year's commercials were a disappointment. There was a big focus on computer graphics and making the ads 'look good,' but they lacked substance and originality. There wasn't any "roll-on-the-floor-laughing" commercials this year.
Aside from the focus on making commercials visually pleasing, there were several old commercials thrown into the mix, which took away from the originality.
CBS got their time in too. If there were anymore "CSI" commercials, there wouldn't be enough room for football.
Not all of the featured ads were particularly bad, they just didn't live up to the hype. A few companies pulled through with satisfactory performances that resulted in a giggle, or even deserved a "well, that was clever".
In the big game this year Anheuser-Busch took over major advertising time by featuring eight commercials throughout the four quarters, not to mention being a game sponsor and getting air time every time one of the announcers spoke. But they proved to give some of the most entertaining ads.
Or you could pay for a 30 second advertisement during broadcast of Super Bowl XLI. Yes, you heard it, about 2.6 million dollars to spend 30 seconds telling viewers, who are probably out grabbing another beer from the kitchen, why they should buy your product.
As ridiculous as the amount may sound, the Super Bowl is prime advertising space. It brings in the largest viewing audience of the year, and advertisers will do practically anything to get your attention.
Super Bowl commercials are notorious for being over the top and many people look forward to seeing commercials that have an original spin. Sometimes the commercials are the only reason people watch the game.
The hype of these commercials sometimes causes viewers to be disappointed. Overall, this year's commercials were a disappointment. There was a big focus on computer graphics and making the ads 'look good,' but they lacked substance and originality. There wasn't any "roll-on-the-floor-laughing" commercials this year.
Aside from the focus on making commercials visually pleasing, there were several old commercials thrown into the mix, which took away from the originality.
CBS got their time in too. If there were anymore "CSI" commercials, there wouldn't be enough room for football.
Not all of the featured ads were particularly bad, they just didn't live up to the hype. A few companies pulled through with satisfactory performances that resulted in a giggle, or even deserved a "well, that was clever".
In the big game this year Anheuser-Busch took over major advertising time by featuring eight commercials throughout the four quarters, not to mention being a game sponsor and getting air time every time one of the announcers spoke. But they proved to give some of the most entertaining ads.
Be the first to comment on this story