I don't follow football, or much of sports for that matter except for the Olympics. The only time to tune in for Superbowl Sunday is to watch the cacophony of ads. At $4 million per 30 second slot, this is all the more reason to make whatever message your company wants to convey really count. Instead of harping on the truly terribly ads, I thought I might point out ones that really captured my attention. Movie previews are excluded. I looked at things like:
- Core (corporate) message or product brand easily understood?
- Speaks value to the right audiences?
- Feel good? Wacky? Clever?
- Did the end of the ad drive another campaign action?
Worth Mentioning to Others:
Budweiser: Clydesdales "Brotherhood" - 9.3 million views on YouTube (budweiser)
Jeep: Whole Again with Oprah narration - 1.3 million views (thejeepchannel)
Skechers: Man vs Cheetah - 335k views (skechersperformance)
Audi: Prom - 9.2 million views (audiofamerica)
These ads had multichannel flair, presumably to drive the audience from TV to social media.
Oreo: Whisper Fight - 1.1 million views (oreo); Choose you side at Instagram (2200 followers before ad aired, post-Sunday almost 50k followers); would have a higher impact if the Instagram purl was advertised
Budweiser: Clydesdales "Brotherhood" - Name the baby Clydesdale (Hope and Stan), tweet name using #clydesdales @budweiser
Speed Stick:Unattended Laundry - 1.1 million views (speedstick); Tweet your #handleit moment
In the US, the right of publicity and the right to privacy are not the same issue; nor are they managed at the same statutory levels; state or federal.
"The right of publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion." --Cornell University, Legal Information Institute
The right to privacy, while inferred in the Constitution, is not explicitly stated and is narrowly defined in Amendments 1, 4 and 5. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) largely enforces the statutory right of privacy; and the increased occurrence of companies and individuals having privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of the work the FTC has done.
This is a gray area that Facebook, and other corporate or social networks deliberately trespass into again and again. Users have few options to respond in kind; two of which are that you don't sign-up for the service to begin with and in the event that you are an existing user, you can always cancel and delete your account. Is the average user going to lobby for FB (or any other social network provider) to change its policies or hire a lawyer to negotiate a bilateral policy with FB? Doubt it.
Instagram has changed its usage policy to take advantage of its treasure trove of photo content and enable its advertisers and 3rd party partners to use its user content without having to define licensing or copyright protections. This is a usage policy notion that gets lauded by the general public as a social media no-no and generally results in a mass exodus of users (and subsequently, user-generated content).
There are never any right or wrong ways to deliver such a message to an audience; there is only tact and diplomacy. Let's start with the basics. Instagram is a free-to-use photo customization and posting service; it allows users to take photos with any media device, upload them to be manipulated by Instagram's digital sepia process to mimic old Polaroid photos, and share with others (presumably, publicly) within social networks.
