• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, February 10, 2012

Earlier this week, USA Today proclaimed that Average Joe and Jill America's favorite Super Bowl ad was the grandma who slingshot a baby across the yard to snatch a bag of Doritos from his annoying older brother. This was based on a USA Today/Facebook poll that collected online votes until Tuesday night. Apparently, the flying junk-food-loving tyke beat out the other 55 ads that cost collective advertisers upwards of $230 million in media time alone. The story also noted that "the purpose of most of the spots was to drive consumers to share the spots with friends, buzz about them and the brand and then try to find out more about the product."

Perhaps it was appropriate that a 34-year-old former special education teacher working mostly in his garage was the creator of the spot (for which he earned a million bucks). His goal was clearly to entertain and create buzz rather than move product off the shelf. In fact, it would be interesting to know whether Doritos got any kind of sales bump at all from the ad. It communicated none of the traditional branding-oriented product benefits of junk food, such as freshness, tanginess, affordability, (organic???) or getting laid because you brought some to the party. Although one could take away that little kids, infants and grandmas all like Doritos.

After the pre-release of so many spots -- especially those that sought to be short-form entertainment ideal for passing along in the YouTube era -- and the failed efforts to shock, amuse or provoke, one wonders if the Super Bowl is still a platform for selling products and services to a massive, global audience. I suspect that the man on the street cares little about a commercial's ability to incite a purchase, and more about its amusement value.

As usual, the press pundits at all the major dailies and ad trades presented THEIR take on whose commercials was "best." I guess there is merit in having the spots adjudged by folks who have seen tens of thousands of them in their careers, but I suspect that agencies and brands are now worried less about the pundits than how they will rank in popularity polls enabled by various forms of social media. Has anyone yet proved that being really popular in social media translates to sales?

This is, I think, a dangerous cultural trend -- one where commercials and other forms of art (we can argue that one another time) will be dumbed-down to appeal to the greatest number of people standing by to tweet or like at the touch of a button. Already one could argue that Hollywood has been totally co-opted by the urge to produce mass-market drivel at the expense of thought-provoking, mentally challenging films. The big three networks (sorry, Fox -- still not there yet) have learned the hard way that aiming for the lowest common denominator has only pushed important audience segments to premium cable channels.

Where would we be if book publishers (you remember books, don't you?) only went to press with yet more Harry Potter (cha-ching) and overlooked authors who write brilliantly, but attract far smaller audiences? Extend that paradigm throughout all forms of art, culture and even to manufacturing and education and you end up with the intellectual or design equivalent of a Walmart.

This is not to suggest that only the Great Monied Eastern Establishment "effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals" should be the only arbiters of taste in America. But I hope we don't lose perspective in the rush to be "liked."