Dads Having Their Day in Advertising

Dads Having Their Day in AdvertisingThe typical American family is anything but typical these days and advertising is finally reflecting that. Brands are being lauded, and rightfully so, for their inclusion of more diverse family dynamics in their ads. While more drastic changes to the two white heterosexual parent households stereotype are grabbing attention, one family role is benefiting from these changes.

The capable dad.

Dads have long been the foil of mighty mom – the household managing, career-oriented and nurturing superwoman. Whether bumbling around the house, being gross or just plain lazy, dads just made life miserable for moms. But, thank goodness for product XYZ that made it easier for her to deal with this disaster.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the portrayal of super moms, because they are super without having a bumbling or disinterested dad. However, advertisers have mere seconds to connect emotional with their audience and deliver their message, so gross exaggeration and stereotypes are a necessary evil at times. Household products were the worst offenders, but dads are now being wooed by those very brands that once ridiculed them.

For too long advertisers relied on the ideal nuclear family of generations’ past – mom the homemaker, dad the breadwinner and the 2.5 kids. With more awareness of other family structures – single parents, breadwinning moms, stay at home dads, gay parents, interracial couples, advertisers are catching up with the changes in the family dynamic.

With an economy that demands both parents work and more women careers and motherhood, this generation of moms and dads are teaming up more on household chores and parenting. The idea of the bumbling male of the house doesn’t resonate with moms anymore. They wouldn’t trust that bumbling guy with grocery shopping, cleaning the house and watching the kids.

As a result, dads are also more involved in household shopping, which used to be dominated by the mom, hence the unflattering portrayals. Take a look at the numbers from a 2011 Yahoo! study on dad’s responsibilities in the house:

  • 51% are responsible for grocery shopping
  • 41% are responsible for the laundry
  • 40% are responsible for the house cleaning
  • 39% are responsible for the cooking
  • 60% for CPG products
  • 55% for personal care products
  • 54% for home goods
  • 43% for child and baby products

I was unable to find numbers from years past to compare, but it’s a safe bet that they would be smaller.

Speaking of numbers, one daddy blogger tracked what he called Dad-Bias in 140 commercials from 2013 that featured dads. He gave 60% of those commercials a good or mostly good rating compared to 20% bad and mostly bad with the remain 20% receiving a neutral rating. Not bad.

This may not the biggest stereotyping sin that advertising has perpetrated. The more favorable view of fathers may not the most heralded change in the portrayal of today’s families. But for this dad and son of a very capable dad, it is a welcome change.

To close, here a few of the better portrayals of fatherhood in advertising.

This Tide ad epitomizes this shift with dad doing a “mom” job well –

Transition into fatherhood

Dad the protector

Dad teaching important life lessons

One of the most accurate portrayals of mom and dad –

(Full disclosure: I have been a dad for 7 awesome months and after doing my share of diapers, bottles, baths and sleepless nights, I may be a little more sensitive to the portrayal of dads. Case in point: some of those ads above now make me man-cry. A little.)


How Brands Event-Jacked the Super Bowl

Like many brands in the weeks preceding the Super Bowl, Newcastle created a campaign around their Super Bowl ad. They went all out with a dedicated website, teasers and behind the scenes video. The catch was that Newcastle wasn’t a Super Bowl advertiser.

News-jacking is the term used for when an opportunistic marketer or PR professional is able to insert their brand or organization inside the buzz of a breaking news story. The goal is to siphon off some of the news story’s attention and direct it to the brand. When brands like Newcastle apply this principle to a mega event like  the Super Bowl, I call it event-jacking.

The hefty price tag of a Super Bowl ad is an insurmountable obstacle for many brands that covet the millions of eyes watching the big game. This year however, the $4 million barrier to Super Bowl was torn down by social media and the second screen. Oreo’s famous power outage tweet last year opened the imaginations of advertisers on how to reach Super Bowl audiences without an official commercial. While Oreo was a Super Bowl advertiser that year, non-advertisers like Newcastle and JCPenney were able to insert themselves into and event-jack this year’s Super Bowl.

The Build Up

Over the past few years, Super Bowl advertisers have begun building buzz for their ads with leaks and teasers in the weeks preceding the game. Newcastle took advantage of this hype build-up and lampooned it with their “If we made it” campaign which dovetailed nicely with their “No Bullocks” branding. Videos of storyboards, celebrity endorsers, focus groups and the epic b-roll footage they would have used flooded the internet like the leaks and teases of the big game advertisers. A clever interview with Anna Kendrick, the would-be star of the mega huge football game ad, made the most waves.

As the teaser for the ad they would have made says, they didn’t have the money to spend on a Super Bowl ad, so the essentially spent a lot of everyone else’s. They took advantage of the hype that was paid for by the Super Bowl advertisers who were maximizing the exposure of their pricey big game ads. These advertisers pre-conditioned people to look for Super Bowl commercial hype, opening the door for a non-advertiser to oblige.

Newcastle carried over the campaign’s mockery during the game by showing how they would have made some of the night’s ads. However they didn’t quite get the attention that another non-advertising, event-jacking brand did.

During the Game

Many brands prepped for real-time social interaction during the Super Bowl, looking to catch the magic that Oreo did the year before. As the game went on, JCPenney began sending out horrendously typed tweets about the action. It got so bad that people and even other brands began tweeting about it, assuming the account had been hacked or JCPenney’s Twitter manager was partying a little too hard.

jc penny super bowl tweets

About an hour after the first jumbled tweet went out, JCPenney let everyone know that they were tweeting with mittens on. And not just any mittens, these were Olympic -themed mittens exclusively available at JCPenney. They got us and as a result earned 150,000 mentions, 10,000 additional followers on Twitter  and, most importantly, saw sales of those mittens almost double.

While this tactic may cause an eye roll, JCPenney was able to steal second screen attention from the event (the game) and the event within the event (the commercials). In talking to Ad Age about the stunt, Sean Ryan, J.C. Penney’s director-social and mobile, said the company was looking create their own moment, rather than wait for the right tweet at the right time.

Where Oreo found that moment and showed the potential real-time social interaction last year, JCPenney successfully manufactured a moment and steered that real-time social interaction to their brand. All of the eyes that advertisers were paying $4 million to reach, JCPenney essentially stole for free by inserting itself into the Super Bowl conversation.

What’s next?

Super Bowl advertisers are already challenged to get the most out of their investment with additional engagement leading up to the game. Newcastle, JCPenney, several other brands spent significantly less to reach the same audience that advertisers spent millions on. As a result of this year’s event-jackers, both Super Bowl advertisers and non-advertisers will likely take more proactive steps to be a larger part of the “event” next year.

While brands will continue focus on grabbing the eyeballs of Super Bowl viewers, the lower barrier to entry will make it interesting see how this year’s event-jackers affect the decisions of fringe advertisers. Do they make the big splash again or do something a little different? Starting $4 million in the hole is difficult and some may chose to have someone else pay for it.

The 1st Annual Big Gamey’s: Awards for Super Bowl Commercials

I’m handing out awards for this year’s Super Bowl ads. Big Gamey’s is the best I could come up with. And the winners are…

Best Campaign by a Non-Super Bowl Advertiser Award:  Newcastle – “If We Made It”

Staying true to their “No Bullocks” brand, Newcastle lampooned the Super Bowl commercial hype with the Super Bowl ad it never made. For the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, they unveiled story boards, behind the scenes video and almost celebrity endorsements. The campaign can be seen in all of its event-jacking glory at

Most Overrated Award: Budweiser  “Puppy Love”

I know why people like this commercial – the warm fuzzies. I get that Budweiser was telling a “buds” story utilizing their iconic Clydesdales. But the horse took a back seat to the dog (as cute as it may have been).  The ad is receiving attention for reasons other than the product or the brand. In contrast, last year’s ad featuring the Clydesdale and its trainer told a similar story, but with more brand-centric warm fuzzies.

Warm Fuzzies Award: Hyundai – “Dad’s Sixth Sense”

I’m a few months into my gig as a dad, so this is a completely biased choice. This commercial was a refreshing dose of reality and humanity. Also, I enjoyed the portrayal of a capable Dad. Cheerios’ “Gracie” was a close second.

Oreo Lights Out Award: JC Penny

jc penny super bowl tweets

When poorly typed tweets came pouring out from JC Penny’s Twitter account, everyone assumed the account was hacked or their social media person was having to much fun at the Super Bowl party. About an hour into the game, JC Penny explained they were typing with mittens, specifically, the Team USA mittens it selling to benefit Olympic athletes. While not as earth shattering as Oreo’s tweet last year, it did get people, and other brands, to talk about them.

Best Use of Subtlety Award: T-Mobile – “We Killed the Long-Term Contract”

After two over-the-top ads with Tim Tebow, T-Mobile’s third was a stripped down, text only ad hammering home it’s no contract message. The magic of this ad resides in the background music. It’s the opening tune to Disney’s animated classic Robin Hood. This quietly positioned T-Mobile as the phone company of the people fighting against the tyranny of other rich and oppressive phone companies.

What the Heck Just Happened? Award: Maserati “Now We Strike”

Close call with Chrysler, but this ad missed creatively and strategically. Their creative for the “Ghibli” described an aggressive sports car rather than the introductory model of a mega luxury car. It was a cross between the previous years’ Chrysler epics with the utter nonsense of perfume ads. Strategically, I’m not sure the audience was there for a $66,000 car. Mercedes did this during last year’s Super Bowl with their introductory model, but the price tag was half as much.

Best Laugh Award: Volkswagen “Wings”

The engineer get’s it’s wings was well executed, but the rainbow kicker at the end got me. Fart jokes are always funny. Oh, and the ad creatively demonstrated a value proposition of the brand (longevity) – a rare site in Super Bowl ads.

Best Case of Irony Award: T-Mobile – “Tim Tebow, former Denver Broncos Quarterback”

The guy that Peyton Manning replaced is now out of professional football and therefore without a contract. Clearly a great choice to show the benefits of not having a contract. Who would have predicted that Tim Tebow would have a better Super Bowl than Manning?

Tried Too Hard to be Cool Award: Bud Light “Up for Whatever”

Too much, too fast. This concept would have been so much better as a scripted, over-the-top adventure. They still could have had Arnold Schwarzenegger playing table tennis and Don Cheadle with a lama in an elevator.

Best in Show: Audi “Doberhuahua”

Creative, entertaining and puppies, what else do you want from a Super Bowl commercial? This may not go down as one of the epic ads of all time (I don’t think any will from this year), it was clever and actually demonstrated and brand value – Audi doesn’t like to compromise when it comes to their cars.

That’s my take on this year’s Super Bowl ads. If you agree with all of these, you are lying. Who would you give these awards to or what other awards would you give out?

Super Bowl Splash or Consistent Current?

Super Bowl Splash or Consistent Current?The Super Bowl is an opportunity to make a big splash, tying your brand event with one of the most watched telecasts of the year. This year, advertisers are busy leaking and teasing their Super Bowl ads. However, a study was released just prior to the Super Bowl run up stating that 80% of Super Bowl ads are ineffective. Talk about a buzzkill.

At $4 million a spot, attaching “ineffective” to Super Bowl ads should not be taken lightly. However the study relies too much one singular ad appearance to move someone to buy. The problem with big splashes like the Super Bowl is they rely on one broad stroke and hope that a majority of the audience wants what you have to offer right then and there. Most buying decisions take long-term influence – a consistent current of brand activity.

A sustained presence in the mind of the customer means that when they are ready to buy, you are the one that they call. But, sometimes a brand-jolt like a Super Bowl ad is need to grab their attention. Both approaches have their pros and cons.

Super Bowl Splashes

Pro: Super Bowl splashes grab attention
The brand takes center stage in front of a captive audience that’s excited to be there. It’s an opportunity to do something memorable, make an impact and build momentum. The Super Bowl splash is best when you have something new to share. However, to take advantage of this momentum a follow up plan is needed.

Con: Short and ever-shrinking shelf life
Without looking it up, name one Super Bowl ad from last year. Super Bowl ads have shifted from selling to entertainment. Viewers are just not in a buying state of mind when watching them so the message is easy to ignore. Big splashes are becoming more ineffective with ever increasing amount of information and entertainment being consumed today. Super Bowl advertisers have been combating this over the past few years with mini campaigns for their ads to create additional touches.

Consistent Currents

Pro: Consistency breeds familiarity.
All things being equal, people will buy from brands they know and trust. To build a brand or community or loyal fans, persistence is the better option. GEICO, for example, has done such a great job of consistently using their “15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance” tagline, that in their current campaign, they don’t have to finish it.

Con: Becomes white noise
Familiarity can turn into background noise and become common place. It can easily fall victim to the increasing consumption of information and entertainment that Super Bowl splashes do. GEICO has used several campaigns and characters including a gecko, Dikembe Mutombo and a pig to deliver the message over the years. While the message needs to be consistent, changing up the delivery or creative keep it fresh and interesting.

Best Case Scenario

Beyoncé’s much discussed surprise album drop was heralded as a game changer in marketing. However, it was a result of “old” marketing tactics that combined the consistent current and Super Bowl splash. Beyoncé consistently delivered a brand experience her fans wanted and left them craving more. So when she goes for the Super Bowl splash, the response is mind boggling-record sales.

Super Bowl splashes keep the brand fresh. A consistent current builds loyal followings that anticipate big splashes. The best plan is a combination of the two, allowing them to feed off of each other.

photo credit: Steve and Sara via photopin cc

Why Kmart’s Potty Humor Worked

Kmart’s “Ship my Pants” and “Big Gas Savings” were internet sensations for the nearly forgotten discount department store. The junior-high humor certainly made us all giggle, but what made these videos such a hit?

A big creative idea? Close.

It was disruptive? Certainly, but not what we are looking for.

The answer: execution.

With juvenile humor like this, there is a fine line between making people giggle or making them groan. The script was crisp. The actors delivered their lines believable and with perfect annunciation.

These videos may have still gotten same traction and the laughs just on the idea alone, because, admit it, poop jokes are just funny. However, because of the level of polish on the final peace, people were felt safe sharing the videos. They were clean dirty jokes.

Watch them again, and see if you agree.

Using YouTube as a Test Lab for Commercials

I’m probably not the first, but I’ve noticed two recent examples of brands converting successful online videos into television commercials.

Pepsi Max had a disguised Jeff Gordon take an unsuspecting car salesman on the ride of his life. That video has over 35 million views and a few days ago, I saw a pared down version as a television commercial.The other is Kmart’s “Ship My Pants” video, which after becoming a viral success, the company announced it would begin airing the ad on television. (Both can be viewed in a few paragraphs. Keep reading.)

What’s interesting is the potential here for testing television commercials on YouTube. Before, the commercial came first then went to YouTube, except for recent Super Bowl “leaks.”

In Kmart’s case, what if the plan all along was test the reaction of a risque play on words. Compared to a more traditional television audience, the internet is more appropriate audience because they almost expect this type of content in that space. Reading through comments on the video, blog posts about the video and monitoring other social channels, Kmart could determine if it was safe to place on television or let it have its 15 seconds of internet fame and move on.

Instead of testing in front of a sample audience, YouTube gives advertisers the entire world as a test bed. Reading comments on the video itself and postings on social channels will allow for feedback that can be measured. You could argue that results are more organic as the audience doesn’t know it’s a test.

On the flip side, if it has been seen millions of times on the internet before it hits television airwaves will it have the same impact. What do you think?

Fanta Delivers Tasteful Engagement

Fanta Tastable AdTo push its new, more orangey flavor, Fanta has create the first ever “tastable” print ad. This was a strategic gimmick aimed at providing samples without have to give away product.

I like how advertisers are still looking to be innovative in print despite it’s decline at the hands of digital media. Print still has a tangibility that a screen can’t match.

This is engagement in real life. Adding an extra sensory experience creates a more lasting impression. Of course that’s ignoring the fact that you have no idea who or what has touched that ad before you put it in your mouth.

See it in action: