Pete_thumb[Posted by Peter Kim]

Now that 24 hours have passed since the Pats’ super bust, it’s actually a perfect time for this post.

Think back about the game.  Do you remember any of the ads – without any aided recall?  Did any of them really "engage" you?

For $3 million, I was curious about how engaging the ads would be.

Thinking about engagement, Forrester’s definition states "Engagement is the level of involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence an individual has with a brand over time."

OK so were any of these ads really "engaging"?  A Super Bowl spot could be a perfect first step – and the second would lead online to a deeper, richer pull experience.  So restated: did anyone take advantage of the opportunity to start a conversation with consumers and integrate online?

As expected, the only one that did with any effectiveness was
GoDaddy.  The trick wasn’t the suggestive humor – it was their URL
displayed on screen for the entire spot.  (I spoke with their PR
director last month in Vegas who said this is a recognized
value-creating tactic.)  Whether you agree with their creative ideas or not, they’ve done something for three years that helps drive web traffic – and business.

I can vaguely remember some vanity URLs:

  • A talking stain during a job interview.
  • Sunsilk – something with music, nothing to do with shampoo.
  • Doritos using again.
  • Sobe had one, but I just remember Thriller.

I also remember some of the other advertisers – Bridgestone, Audi,
Coca-Cola, Victoria’s Secret, FedEx, Gatorade, and
(their URL was ../tv I think).  But if they had vanity URLs, I can’t
remember them.  (were there any others?)

Keep in mind that I’m biased, in the industry, and trying to keep the addresses in mind.  Blame the memory, I suppose.

Forrester’s data shows over 72% of adults have internet access.  Of course we could go to myspace and look at all the ads.  But
isn’t the point of engagement to say something that a viewer will
remember – and then do something about?