« Wal-Mart save your pennies. | Main | Good News »

February 2007


Laura Ries

Ahh, the salesgenie.com ads. They were better suited for a middle of the night infomercial in my opinion. I agree they almost looked like a joke, they had no business on the super bowl. It is the problem of credibility. No one has ever heard of sales genie. So they are unlikely to pay any attention to the ads or the offer.

The super bowl is an advertising beauty contest. That is why is it only useful for the big brands who can afford it and need the exposure should be in it. Brands that have little PR potential, are leaders and fun are best suited for the game. For Bud, Doritos and Pepsi it is money well spend. For the others probably not. Expecially for the ones that totally flopped like Snickers and GM.

Orion Suydam

Good post as usual Laura. For a spot-on take on the Snickers ad, see item #3 at http://www.profootballtalk.com/XLITenPack.htm

Also, I'd like your opinion on that Salesgenie.com ad. The only explanation I can think of was that it was done ironically. But even then, it still missed the mark. What do you think happened there? And does their strategy have any hope for success?

David Taylor (from wheresthesausage.com)

Which Superbowl ad is the best? Who cares. The Superbowl has become an advertising beauty contest with the contestants extortionately expensive 60 second bits of "sponsored entertainment", funded by the brand owners, but ultimately paid for by the shareholder.

But what about the bottom line benefits of all this? Does any of this pay off in building the business? Haven't the marketing people making these ads, and the commentators spending time analysing their handiwork, have forgetten that their job to make money, not movies? More here on this view:

Laura Ries

My name? Laura Ries. Thanks for reading Igor. Since you like my comments you might like my book with Al called The Fall of Advertising & the Rise of PR.


Blockbuster's ad may have been funny, but they are late in the game. Netflix has already won the online market by being first in the mind. Blockbuster should have made the move immediately and "blocked" Netflix from entering the market and the mind of consumers. But short-term revenue losses are hard to swollow even for the long-term furture of a brand. It is just now Blockbuster is paying for the mistake after many solid years of ripping us off on late fees.

The Snickers ad just makes no sense to be either. Totally crazy. Who ever approved it is likely to be in lots of hot water.

Igor M. Search Marketing Blog

Great post ... (I still don't know your name).

"If a consumer laughs at an ad but can’t remember who the advertiser was, it was not a successful ad"

This is a great statement. I wrote the same thing (different words) in my Superbowl blog post today. Careerbuilder and Blockbuster did the best ROI in my opinion.

Snickers ... why would they create an ad that had men squinge while looking at the snickers bar and 2 guys kissing? Dumb move.

The comments to this entry are closed.

By Al & Laura Ries

As seen on

  • www.flickr.com
    ries brown's items tagged with badge More of ries brown's stuff tagged with badge
  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from ries brown tagged with badge. Make your own badge here.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2004