It pretty much sums up Super Bowl XLVIII – which now, and forevermore, will be known as the worst game with the lamest advertising – that the best thing that happened to marketing last
night was Oreo’s decision not to tweet. (Except for letting everyone know, early on, that the …
Well said.
... are we playing some game of intramural tweeting here?
Yes.
i disagree... It would be funny because it would show that the Brands have a sense of humor. I thought Oreos "restraint" was wack/lame and kinda like that kid on the street that owns the basketball or kickball and if they don't win they take their ball in the house. Or it seemed a bit i dont know ... anti-advertising but they are a COOKIE company #comeonsun. :-)
Just doing something just because you can do it--i.e., tweet to another brand--kind of sums up where we are in the marketing world today.
And beyond that, I think we may finally be seeing the crumbling of the old, iconic brand model. Let this be the beginning of the decline of the Super Bowl as a national marketing event.
I'm not sure who the bigger loser was--the Broncos or this self-involved industry we work in.
You make some fair points, but I don't think a brand tweeting to another brand is necessarily a bad thing.
If a brand showed a touch personality on Twitter (wit, cleverness, self effacing, etc.) during the Super Bowl as part of the overall conversation, that was a win.
Because most of the tweets were dreadful (or worse).
Tide's Vines were great, and they became part of the conversation without paying the big bucks.
Cathy...
It's all bullshit anyway. Unfortunately, you Barbara and I are the only ones who realize that. But, we'll keep it a secret for now... OK?
Cheers/George "AdScam" Parker