So I sort of waited for a while to get a new post in, and I’ll tell you why. I was doing some research. For the past 2 weeks, during the Lions’ games, I’ve been watching commercials. And tracking them…
I was interested in seeing how many commercials were aimed at women during the games, if any. I know the great majority is commercials directed at men; we are well aware of the demographic of people watching the game. But I was surprised to find there actually are commercials directed at women. And, shockingly, both weeks yielded them at the same time during the games: the beginning and end.
Perhaps this is when women are paying attention most. But these commercials had very similar make up, too, with one main component: emotion. According to Siefert, et all, “ Recent models of advertising effectiveness have emphasized the importance of emotions, suggesting that advertisements that engage consumers on emotional levels will be most effective,” (1). If this is when women are watching the most, it makes most sense to play these types of commercials then.
Each of the commercials had a theme as well: empowering women. They emphasized successful women, women portraying a champion or showing independence. I thought this was pretty cool seeing that men can relate well (and share in forming an opinion about the ad) because it’s applicable.
Moreover, I also tracked the commercials “interactive factor.” By this, I mean those that encouraged social media interaction, app interaction, or website direction. The overwhelming majority of ads represented some sort of interactive factor. Additionally, the majority had web direction: “check out www.blahblah.com for more info,” etc.
As many could guess about advertising, “data suggest that interpersonal communication between consumers is more effective in influencing consumers' willingness to purchase a product than exposure to advertising alone,” (Advertising Age, 2008; Mohr, 2007; Rogers, 1995). By including this “interactive factor,” companies are giving viewers the perfect opportunity to create a legitimate buzz about the ad/product. If advertisers were smart, there wouldn’t be one single commercial without some sort of link presented.
My last observation that I found interesting was the advertisements for applications. Usable on the iPhone and Droid (prominently Droid), these applications were from two main genres: football and alcohol. There were a large amount of commercials directed at Fantasy Football players, promoting their fantasy platform.
Here's a stream of said ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QmH4jkqJFQ) (What I noted most interesting about these is that people that are playing fantasy are already well into their season, why keep advertising the programs? For the phone?)
Secondly, and the most interactive ad of both weeks, was the Bud Light commercial, asking people to “snap a pic” where the product was sold and “tag” Bud Light on Facebook to be entered into a contest. Interesting!
I really liked doing some research on the advertisements for the past couple weeks. It was a really tangible experience seeing what we’ve been researching/studying sort of come to life!
References:
Siefert, C. J., Kothuri, R., Jacobs, D. B., Levine, B., Plummer, J., & Marci, C. D. (2009). Winning the Super "Buzz" Bowl. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(3), 293-303. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
ADVERTISING AGE. "Family and Friends Most Influential on Shoppers/' April 9, 2008.
Mohr, I. "Super Bowl: A Case Study of Buzz Marketing." International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 9, 1 (2007): 33-39.
Rogers, E. M. Diffusion in Innovation, 4th ed. New York: Free Press, 1995.
TV Pic Courtesy:
http://thebsreport.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/too-much-tv-may-mean-earlier-death/
Rosie the Riveter Pic Courtesy:
http://askmissalpha.com/2010/07/the-myth-of-the-independent-woman/
