In the old days, when the Super Bowls begat the Super Bowl ad game (and, alas, I was alive at this creation), the marketers’ competition was all about creative breakthrough.  In essence, the ads in the game were competing with each other for next day water cooler conversations.  In this regard, Apple’s 1984 ad remains the undefeated champion.  It was an ad that cleverly conveyed that Apple produced products for those who think different.  (It was also an ad that was impossible to decipher much beyond that.)

Now the ad game is scored differently.  Instead of water coolers, there are social networks; and instead of going for the gold of breakthrough, advertisers are trying to engage the market.  Potential ads are no longer assessed on their ability to get out a compelling message; but, rather, on their ability to get attention and/or people (not necessarily viewers) to do something with or about the ads.  Winning ads are judged by how many online views there are and how many comments are generated.  To do this, ads no longer stand alone.  Even those commercials developed specifically for the Super Bowl are conceived to be part of an integrated campaign with PR, contents, blog posts and promotions often accompanying the ad.

Is it better to spend more to try to stimulate all this earned marketing or to spend the extra time honing the message and execution of the paid advertising??  Only if all the focus is on the message, not merely the novelty or fun of consumers participating in the marketers’ game.