• by Don Seaman , Featured Contributor, February 4, 2011

Let's just get this out of the way now: this column started out with nothing to say.

I've been struggling for most of the week with something -- anything -- to say about the Super Bowl that was different.  I'm not even worried about new anymore, since I don't think that actually exists.  Of the 360 degrees possible, I think each and every angle of this circle has been covered.

After I'd read Frank Maggio's TV Board account of his personal brush with Super Bowl history, I was even more sure of this.  My most personal Super Bowl memories both included my home market NY Giants.  The first was their "wide right" victory over the Buffalo Bills, as the lone Giants fan in a house full of Buffalo Bills fans, including the girl I had just started dating weeks before.  My smug, non-retaliatory reaction probably had very little to do with our breakup.  The second was watching their upset win alone over the Patriots in February 2008, two months after my father died.  One of the last things he had watched was their December loss to the Redskins.  I still swear he had his hand on Tyree's helmet in the Super Bowl.

But I'm sure that each of the thousands of millions of people who have watched the Super Bowl over the years has similar stories to mine.  So again, I'm left with my quandary -- what else can be said?

Will this year's game set a new all-time viewership record?  Probably.  It features two venerable old franchises with more history than some countries.  The economy is said to be picking up, so there should be at least an ad or two that might get your attention during the game.  The pre-game ad hype is getting so over-the-top these days that it threatens to overshadow the game itself -- I've purposefully had to avoid "ad spoilers" this week.  At what point do they start having "media day" for sponsors?

So there is a bit of overkill when it comes to Super Bowl coverage these days.  But then I started to think of yet another TV Board topic from this week, as Bob DeSena mentioned the adage of "content is king."  In his piece, Bob pointed out that he'd watch important content (in his example, the Super Bowl) no matter what the delivery system -- versus generic alternate programming on the most technologically advanced delivery platform.

I agree with this -- content is king, and I believe it always will be.  But I don't think of the Super Bowl as content anymore.  It's context.

We're lucky this year, the Super Bowl matchup is one of two fairly interesting teams.  We have built-in storylines that contribute to its actually being a big game.  But how much harder would we have had to work for hype had teams with smaller stories gotten to this point?  The Baltimore Ravens had a great year, but they're not really a nationally compelling team.  The NFC West Champion Seattle Seahawks, they of the 7-9 record, had a realistic shot to be here. 

Would a game featuring those teams rather than the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers still command $3 million per :30?  It sure would.  But the content of that game would be substantially different.  No offense to those from Baltimore or Seattle, but would the game still be Super? 

Sure it would.  But only if you consider the game the context.  The teams have long become irrelevant outside of home markets, diehards, and Las Vegas oddsmakers.  They have become context.  The real content is in the ads.  It's the one event when people are probably less likely to fast-forward through the ads as they are through the "content."  And they will probably produce millions more video replays during the following few days than the actual game content. 

No one's skipping a Super Bowl ad.  Ever.

Apple's 1984 spot -- famously airing once -- has been on the list of "best ads ever" since it aired that same year and has been replayed thousands of times since, just not as paid advertising.  Mean Joe Greene is probably more synonymous with Coke than he is with the Pittsburgh Steelers. 

So why do we continue to ignore the fact that the commercials have become de facto content here?

More importantly, why can't there be more of a commitment to harness the power of this content during any other time of the year?  Yes, this is a unique audience situation that is unable to be duplicated at any other point of the year.  And sure, creating buzzworthy advertising content is expensive.  But so is lackluster content that is skipped. 

Our industry has done a remarkable job in creating a buzz that surrounds their content for one spectacular night in February.  We've proven that people will watch advertising, as long as it is strong enough to be programming content. 

More importantly, people talk about the brands long after their Super Bowl spot.  We do it only one night a year.  Why don't more brands nurture that dynamic throughout the year?  It's time for advertising to start driving the content, rather than reacting to it.   

The team that scores a touchdown on its first drive and tries to sit on the lead will probably lose.  If this is the Super Bowl of marketing, why do we sit on the lead when there are four quarters of the year to play? 

Let's go out and create some game-winning, DVR-defeating, content.  That's how Super Bowl winning brands become dynasties.