1. I see people enjoying a product despite its ridiculous side-effects.
Therefore, it must have a really high benefit.

2. I know I can enjoy that product without the ridiculous side-effects, because I’m not an idiot who gets fooled by an animal.

3. On the cost/benefit scale, I get the same high benefit without the same high cost. Ergo, it is a worthwhile purchase.

In this sense, it isn’t so much an appeal to the Id as it is an appeal to the rational side that only wants to buy things of high value with a good cost/benefit ratio.

The only ads I even remember were the Boost Mobile Shuffle and the Google ad. The rest were just white noise. And I remember thinking “Why did the fricking Census Bureau pay $2.5 million of OUR money for a Superbowl ad?” But I don’t remember the actual content of the ad. Blah.

And those Tebow ads were definitely pro-life- there was a stir/stink beforehand, and Planned Parenthood went so far as to put up its own response online before the Super Bowl (and thus the ads themselves) even aired (officially).

@Bob: That Google commercial made me tear up a bit- granted, I’m a rather easy cry, but I’d agree with you in that it was the one that I felt most affected by.

Part of the appeal of Super Bowl ads nowadays is that we *expect* them to be over-the-top. And the more “out there” they are, the “better” they get rated as. When it comes to the Super Bowl ads, I think the companies are in a competition with each other to make the most memorable commercial possible- so I suppose it has to do with the branding Lisa mentioned up at the top of the comments. And I think this permeates into regular advertising in general, too. The ads that “stay with you” are the ones that are effective, be it positively OR negatively. Context and prior knowledge sometimes has influence (I mean, really, I am SO not buying into Toyota’s ads about how they’re fixing things, given how they just admitted there are MORE problems in MORE cars today- I’d rather avoid a Toyota now, thanks). There is often brand recognition in the commercials themselves, even, and I’d also argue that sometimes the ads that seem the LEAST connected to the product are the most memorable *because* whatever is happening in the ad is so unrelated. “WTF does that have to do with soda?!” and you sit and ponder it for a while, ergo pondering the brand, etc.

I guess I’m kind of rambling, but my point is “out there” sticks in the brain, and the ads where bad things happen seem to me as though they aren’t really meant to show what actually happens. They’re assuming we suspend our disbelief in phenomenal proportions and reveling in that experience, I suppose.

The GoDaddy ads featuring Danica Patrick (someone whose attractivness is negated for me because of the fact that the ads insist that she is a hottie, thus making me suspicious about it) are a great example of something that should work, but doesn’t (at least not for me). Guys, you’re with me on the whole “hot girls making out” appeal, right? Now say that you get an ad where this is not only hinted at, but guarenteed when you visit a particular website. This is the greatest thing since sliced bread, isn’t it? Yet for some reason, I feel a little insulted, as if I recognize the crass appeal to my lower instincts (oh, girls making out) for what it is: a shameless plug for a website that might cuase me more grief than pleasure. Sex does sell, but not when it’s omnipresent (at least I feel that way, I’m guessing I might get some disagreement here). It’s simply a case of “too much of a good thing,” as well as the fact that I don’t find Danica all that “hot” in terms of her status as a cultural figure.

The Letteman/Leno ad was basically an uneasy truce along the lines of every attempt to bring peace between Palestine and Israel, but it was unexpected and didn’t wear out its welcome. That one takes the cake for me in what was an underwhelming Super Bowl commerical edition (the game wasn’t half-bad either, come to think of it).

1) “White Noise” – the biggest category for me, this is where I see an add that elicits Zero response. I’d say 90% of ads fall into this, including most “Water Cooler” commercials.

2) “What, What, What” – These are commercials I see and I want to see again. Whether it is the Google Commercial (Which I believe to be one of the best commercials ever – it correctly assumes everyone knows and uses their products and tells a story in a simple way that elicits an emotional response from just words and music. Brilliant!) or the David Letterman (Was that Leno!). Having a marketing degree, I like to see an ad with something that is fresh or new.

3) “Things that make you go Hmm” – I’d say once every few months, I’ll see a commercial that actually make me want that product. Most of the time, it is something I already like but forgot about or there is a new flavor to it (“Chili Cheese Cheetos, hmm. I’ll have to get”). Every now and then I’ll see a movie based on its trailer/commercial (Shutter Island was so bad, Paramount moved it from Oscar contender to February, but with DiCaprio, Scorsese and an interesting Trailer, I want to see it)

4) “Get in the back and make me a Whopper!” – Commercials so bad, I never want to purchase the product again. I can only recall when Burger King had the ‘If we get rid of the Whopper, our slack jawed clientele would be too stupid to order anything else from the menu’ commercials to cite, but there are several things I won’t purchase just because of my disrespect for its consumers in how they market to them.

Just my two cents, for what its worth.

I agree that the AXE ad was quite bizarre. I kind of see where they’re going with it: “You will be as irresistible as chocolate. And you *know* how much women like chocolate, don’t you?” The translation of this idea, though, was not very effective, because it ended up being so downright bizarre.

They are probably selling the idea that people love the product so much that using it will cause them to lose control, but even put this way this is a worrying message in the context of the Bud Light ads. Or it could be the adage that any publicity is bad publicity. Or people are really expected to behave like Homer Simpson now.

Someone pointed out to me once that television advertising doesn’t directly sell products, what it sells is stupidity. The idea is that some products (like Bud Light) will only be consumed by really stupid people, so television is used to make people stupider so they will consume more. I found the ads depressing just because I don’t usually watch TV, my exposure comes mainly from wandering into a bar to watch sports, so I had forgotten about this.

It helps that most of these products are not actually addictive.