business

Super Bowl 60 Grins and Groans

Nader AshwayLeave a comment

Congratulations to the Seattle Seahawks on their dominating performance over the New England Patriots. And a special shout-out to Charlie Puth for a stunning performance of the national anthem. Wow! If only the advertising could reach such heights.

THEMES
While stuffing your ads full of celebrities is always a Super Bowl theme, this year didn’t deviate from that path. It was a bit much, and in most cases, did not really serve the spots very well.

AI seems to have pushed out automobile advertising. I counted six (seven if you count the Alexa offering with Chris Hemsworth?) spots that featured AI in some way, including ChatGPT’s nod to developers, and some new entrants to help with every day tasks, like creating apps.

Retro also showed up to the party, with Instacart taking the absolute cake with Ben Stiller and Benson Boone and their over-the-top competition for the spotlight. Very funny. Dunkin’ tried their hand at it, too, with less success, and Xfinity inserted themselves into the original Jurassic Park with a well-managed proposition that their services would have “just worked” and avoided some pretty big mishaps. Plus Coinbase rocked a retro-looking karaoke spot for…well, that’s unclear. More on that later.

Speaking of unclear, vagueness unfortunately turned out to be a theme too. A movie promo for Netflix that never mentioned the title. The Coinbase spot, just listing irrelevant lyrics, and poor Poppi soda, talking about “vibes” instead of probiotics.

Also, the Backstreet Boys was kind of a theme this year too (?) I’ll just leave that there. And did I mention that there were talking – make that SINGING – clumps of hair on bathroom floors and in shower drains? Ooof. Makes you miss the good old days of puppy-monkey-babies, doesn’t it?

HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Budweiser returned to form with a coming-of-age story of a Clydesdale foal and a clumsy eagle chick that both grow up to become symbols of Americana. They generally don’t miss the mark with these life-on-a-farm vignettes, and this year was no exception.

Google Gemini let us in on a quiet conversation between mother and child while looking for a new home, and using Gemini to visualize the space in new ways. Their banter is sweet and sensitive. And the platform shines because it’s proven right before your eyes. For years, Google has always managed to humanize their services (even paid search) with a deft and elegant touch. Well done.

HIMS and HERS probably made the most significant statement of the night, starting out by saying “rich people live longer.” And then doubling down with the line “the wealth gap is a health gap.” Then they hit it out of the park when they wrap the idea that personalized science is in reach for everyone, punctuated with the line, “Now that’s rich.” Wow – now THAT’S a statement, and a great way to get 99% of the country to at least pay attention. Gutsy move, and I think it paid off handsomely.

GRINS:
The best ads of the night all have something in common, which is that they take a simple concept (which is usually a basic, un-exciting value proposition) and inject it with drama in some way to make that boring-ish platform an exciting new way to understand the brand. All of these did that very well this year. Here are my top three:

Apartments.com/Homes.com starts with their basic selling proposition: “with millions of listings on our platforms, you’re going to find virtually any place you can live.” Then, they set up the way in to the concept: it would be easier to just find the places you CAN’T live. Then, hilarity ensues when they dramatize those “you can’t live here” locations: a tarmac at a busy international airport, a de-commissioned Soviet space station, the Mariana Trench, and so on. There’s a clear path here to successful advertising, which is to dramatize the benefit, or in this case, dramatize the opposite. Strong work here for sure.

Grubhub
Sometimes, the best ideas are the simplest ones. And no brand demonstrated that better than Grubhub. They took a bland boardroom idea about not passing on delivery fees to consumers and turned it into an elegant, funny, villainize-the-fees sendup. The brand joins us as partners against a common and bothersome enemy. (Smart.) It doesn’t hurt when George Clooney sits at the head of the table and says “we’ll eat the fees.” The reason I love this spot so much is for its SINGULARITY. One idea, clearly articulated, then exceptionally well-executed.  A winner in my book.

State Farm wins the night with their Super Bowl spot, spoofing “halfway there” insurance with Danny McBride and Keegan-Michael Key clearly explaining that you’d be “livin’ on a prayer” with their insurance to Hailee Steinfeld. The spot was great, but so were all the ancillary teasers that they did both online and on sneaky TV buys leading up to the game. Of course, a Jon Bon Jovi cameo at the end doesn’t hurt and Steinfeld seals the deal when she turns to a State Farm billboard and simply utters “I should have gone with State Farm.” Fun, over the top, deliciously comedic performances, (I’d love to see the outtakes for this) and a clear and simple proposition. They drive off into the sunset (that’s the victory) and the State Farm Guy says “stop livin’ on a prayer and get State Farm.” This is big-league-level Super Bowl advertising, well-executed, well-acted and well-delivered.

—

GROANS
Now, if taking your core value and dramatizing it in some way is a smart path for successful Super Bowl advertising, then the opposite is true when you either a.) don’t state your value proposition very clearly or b.) don’t explain why there’s value in choosing you. A lot of spots fell flat in this regard, including these.

Ritz crackers had the basic punch list of a Super Bowl spot: get a bunch of celebrities. Check. Put them on a beach and have a party. Check. But then…what? We’re “salty” and don’t want to go to the party? Sure, Jon Hamm delivers a couple of brand points when he says “they do have Ritz crackers, though…that salty buttery flavor…” And…that’s it. Oh, and then Scarlett Johansson shows up on a jet ski. Bowen Yang is almost always funny, but the script here just made him an unclear, even unlikable character. The problem here is that Ritz do not come out as the hero, nor do the characters turn out as the heroes once they decide to join the party. It’s like they positioned Ritz for “other people,” which is the exact opposite of a brand directive, don’t you think?

I don’t even know what Squarespace was trying to accomplish with their commercial. The ad seems to focus on the main character not being able to secure a vanity URL, and then being frustrated by that. (Also, why does she live in a castle on a remote island?) But that’s not the Squarespace proposition anyway. I didn’t understand this at all. Someone just got enamored of the idea of having Emma Stone and director Yorgos Lanthimos do their spot and then seemed to forget what people know and understand Squarespace to be. (A template-based website building platform.) Now…if the ad was designed to show that Squarespace now offers domain registrations, (do they do that now?) this was also the exact OPPOSITE way to describe that. (She can’t secure emmastone.com throughout the spot and smashes laptops in frustration.) Basically, Squarespace dropped like $10 million to do a very nice commercial plug for GoDaddy. Head-scratcher for sure. Side note: director Lanthimos also did the Grubhub “Feest” spot.

Coinbase
Sure. Everybody wants to steal some headlines for doing something downscale, and maybe even outrageous. Remember the floating QR code or Crowdstrike’s “western” theme in the  last couple of years? This was just weird. I’m not sure how “rock your body” lyrics relate to a cryptocurrency platform. Are you? Please explain it to me. Note to future Super Bowl advertisers: show this first in your strategy meetings and then explain to everyone, “we’re NOT doing this.”

So…what was your favorite? I’d love to hear.

Six for 2026: the marketing truths that actually matter this year.

Nader AshwayLeave a comment

Well, it’s a new year, and you know what that means. Gyms are overcrowded with people determined to stick to their beach-body resolutions, and bloggers everywhere are posting “2026 prediction” lists.

Predictions are dangerous because they’re a zero-sum game. You’re either dead-on, or dead wrong. So let’s not do that. Instead, let’s remember that marketing doesn’t change so much as it adapts to its environment: new tools, new methods, new channels. So this post isn’t about trends. It’s about truths –  the ones I think will be smacking all of us in the face in 2026.

Truth #1: GEO is re-shaping search.
If SEO was about ranking pages, then GEO is about shaping answers. Even though it’s still important, being “findable” is no longer the ultimate goal. In almost stunning and sudden fashion, prospects aren’t scanning the top 5-10 blue links on Google…they’re reading a synthesized and sophisticated response from a generative engine (like Gemini, most ubiquitously) and then moving on with their day.

The new challenge for search marketers is less about keyword management and campaign groups, and more about establishing authority and clarity through curated content. We have to answer the question: If an AI bot has to explain our brand, what would it say? And if your positioning is even a bit fuzzy, the machine will happily invent something equally nebulous for you. And you probably won’t like it.

This is not a technical or platform problem with Google Ads. It’s the new reality, and a challenge to upgrade our thinking and our writing.

Truth #2: AI will not solve your marketing problems.
Most AI-powered marketing today is simply the automation of work that probably shouldn’t exist in the first place. Re-hashed content, surface-level messaging, and ugh, those AI-generated videos and commercials that are shiny, but hollow.

Make sure you know who you are, what makes you different, and whom you want to care about those things. Because AI won’t make a bad strategy better, it’ll just help you deploy it faster. So hey, let’s be careful out there.

Truth #3: Brand still matters (and always will.)
From the time the idea was first introduced, (it was as far back as the late 1950s by a Harvard professor called Neil Borden,) the concept of brand is what helps companies distinguish themselves in loud and cluttered categories. Brand helps reduce cognitive risk for consumers…when they’re not sure what the comparison criteria are, they can fall back on the idea that “I know something about this company.” (That’s true even if what the consumer “knows” is what you’ve been telling them all along. Yay advertising!) Brand drives preference, and preference is a marketing force that can’t be easily usurped.

Truth #4: Offline marketing is not going away anytime soon.
Despite the popular thinking that social media is the only channel that matters, the physical world is still out here kicking ass. And while we all embrace digital channels for their efficacy, let’s remember that old engines will continue to run as long as you start them up every now and again, and keep the oil clean.

Direct mail still delivers reliable returns. Events still drive serious leads. Popups (stores, experiences, installations,) are still, well, pop-ular. When a brand shows up in some physical form, whether in a mailbox or face-to-face, it signals scale and even seriousness. In a world where the media cycle is based on the next post with a million views and influencer promo codes, offline marketing tells consumers you actually give a shit.

Truth #5: Selling the category is still sticky.
When consumers don’t quite understand the nuances in a given category, they default to less risky decisions, like buying on price or relying on referrals. But that might not favor YOUR brand.

Brands that educate consumers on the category help to reframe the entire decision process. (This is why category content is so popular.) When you do this, you tell consumers that your brand “gets it” and is there to guide in some way. And the best part? None of that feels “salesy.” Instead, it feels like help to the consumer, and your brand gets the halo effect.

Truth #6: The middle of the funnel is where decisions get made.
I rarely talk about funnels (except that one time, in this post) because consumers are not abstract concepts that “move” through a space. But as a conceptual framework, funnels help illustrate the consumer journey across the time variable.

Top of the funnel marketing is easy…it’s just about attention. Brands will do all kinds of dopey things to get attention, (remember when iHop said they were switching to a burger company?) and they still seem to work. Conversely, the bottom of the funnel is largely an outcome function, and almost always offer-driven.

But the middle? Ooof. That’s the hard part. It’s hard because it’s messy. Because it’s harder to measure. And because it demands work, mostly in the form of strong, informative and relevant content. It’s hard mostly because that’s where the leakage lives.

Content that helps educate consumers on the category (see Truth #5 above) and helps them decide at their own pace can do more long-term brand building (see Truth #3 above) than just “getting the click.” If your funnel goes from “hello” to “buy now,” you’re gonna struggle.

—

The job of marketing hasn’t changed, and it won’t change just because it’s 2026 and we have some shiny new tools at our disposal. It’s still about managing perception, reducing risk, and driving preference at the moment of choice. Face the truth(s) and make this the strongest year ever for your brand and your clients.

You want good* advertising? You won’t find it in the election media blitz.

Nader AshwayLeave a comment

Don’t you just love advertising in presidential election years? Aggressive, repetitive, and often un-creative ads in every commercial pod, whether you’re watching football, soap operas, or game shows. ‘Tis the season to be mud-slinging.

In the general election, The New York Times has reported that more than $500 million will be spent by the Harris and Trump campaigns, and that the Super PAC supporting Harris will pour $187 million into television and radio alone in the final 49 days. I’m not great at math, but that’s almost $4 million PER DAY from September 17th through November 5th. That’s not counting digital, social, texting, robo-calls, and whatever else each campaign’s AI-driven algorithms are cooking up.

But what about the ads themselves? Is there any tangible messaging going on beyond the “don’t vote for the other team, because they’re terrible” tropes? Sadly, not much.

The Trump campaign has struck gold with one spot called “They/Them” that’s running ad nauseam across cable networks, which focuses on a (decontextualized) message about Harris supporting gender reassignment in prisons, with the implication that American taxpayers are footing the bill. It ends with the line, “Kamala’s agenda is they/them. Not you.” However you feel about the issue and the message, (and the malevolent editing,) you gotta admit that’s a darn strong line to punctuate the spot. It’s creative and pithy, and rings a potent dog whistle for conservatives who bristle at all things trans.

Harris fires back with a spot focused on Trump and his anti-abortion influence, and his implicit ties to the mercurial Project 2025. The spot is called “Who He Is,” and is (again) focused on her opponent, and his previous (and likely future) inclinations as it relates to national policy.  The compelling aspect of this spot is that none of it is conjecture – Harris is highlighting actual changes that were affected during Trump’s actual presidency. It invites the viewer to draw their own conclusion (and the creative directors are betting on this,) that “if he did it before, he’ll do it again.”

So, what’s wrong with this advertising? Some would argue that the ads are fine, claim “that’s just what they do,” and that politics simply brings out the worst in strategists and creative directors. Hey, it’s a limited run, so attack, attack, attack, and it’s definitely rated R for rubbing just about everyone the wrong way.

But that isn’t the way most brands compete, is it? Most brands want to use the precious time they have with the consumer to connect to something positive, and special, and DIFFERENT about that brand. Most brands want to say good things (about themselves,) and let the consumer draw their preferences from there. Geico, as an almost on-par example, (they spend almost $3 million per day in advertising year-round,) doesn’t spend their time shitting on Allstate or State Farm. They use that time and all that money to drill simple, memorable messages into consumers’ minds: 15 minutes could save you 15% or more; so easy a Caveman could do it; etc.

Some strategists argue that you should NEVER mention your competition in your ads, because you’re essentially using YOUR media budget to promote THEM (to some degree.) Tell that to Coke v. Pepsi, or McDonald’s v. Burger King, or Apple v. PC. There are exceptions to every rule.

But marketing IS a conversation, and a campaign is an extended conversation that happens in short spurts over long periods of time. Brands use 15 or 30 or 60 seconds to get you to think something, believe something, and maybe even to do something over the course of several months or more. If they spend all their time talking about the other brands, what would you think about them? And more importantly, would you think about them at all?

That’s what’s disappointing about this unprecedented time in marketing history. The most money ever spent on presidential campaign advertising, and all we’re doing is rejecting the rules that all of us are taught about advertising, especially about being memorable, and about never misleading your audience.

I think we can do better. And I’m looking forward to November 6th, when we can go back to talking lizards, bunnies banging drums, and people getting their hands stuck inside potato chip containers. Ain’t advertising great?