Thursday, February 7, 2019

Is a Super Bowl Creative Brief different from a normal Creative Brief?

Now that the dust has settled on the Super Bowl of Advertising (what - there was also a football game? who knew?) the same question we ask every year, is being asked again. What does a Super Bowl ad brief look like and how is it different from the briefs we usually churn out?

One thing that has to be true is that if writing creative briefs is hard then writing great creative briefs is extremely difficult. Especially when you have 100 million pairs of eyeballs waiting for you.


The main problems in briefs are usually a lack of clarity of thought and an uninspiring proposition. These arise because sometimes the brief-writer isn't clear why they're really asking for this piece of communication, or what they really want to say, or who they really want to say it to. But, most of all they don't know why anyone should believe them.


So they write briefs that offer their creative teams, and their consumers', too many choices. 


Then they use the creative offering to whittle down to what they think they should say.


"Actually, that wasn't really what I had in mind... What I think we really should be saying, maybe, is ....."


Of course it's not always that bad. Some creative briefs are perfect.


But now imagine the pressure of the Super Bowl. Not only do we have to think about what to say and how to say it - we have to know that more than 100 million people are going to watch the outcome.


So, how does a Super Bowl Ad Brief differ from the Common Client Ad Brief?


Is there a different approach to writing the brief for communication that will be watched, and analysed, and talked about by millions?

And, with so many eyes on these ads, why is that some just don't hit the mark, some are bad, and some are amazing?

Many moons ago when I first started pondering this question, I picked up a quote from a Bloomberg's Business Week article entitled "Game on: Super Bowl ads are already playing online". It was from David Lubars, chairman and chief creative officer of BBDO North America,  who "advises keeping an ad simple and honest. “It should also be an easy, reductionist message,” says Lubars. “You’re getting a canvas that 120 million people will see. You have to go where nobody has gone before. The ad has to be single-minded, relevant, funny, and emotional. If it’s done right, $4 million (for a 30 - sec spot) is a bargain. I would say 90 percent of the people running ads are wasting their money.”



Now, the average cost is over $5 million. Interestingly,  that figure rose by 96 percent over the past ten years, while the average rate for other prime-time ads fell by 12 percent. Mark Riston still thinks it's good value. In fact he closes his article by saying "the only threat comes not from the demise of TV or advertising, but from the precarious state of the game itself. With an increasing amount of scandal attached to American football, and the tragic roll call of head injuries that afflict a growing proportion of the game’s players, it’s the game not the advertising that’s in danger."


But back to my question. Is the brief different?


The Common Client Ad Brief also claims to want to be original, single minded, relevant and emotionally engaging, right? So what's the big difference? Truthfully, having never seen a Super Bowl brief, I have no idea.

Maybe it's because the agencies recognise that this is THE brief and assign their best teams to work on it? But even that doesn't always deliver great work. Even if the Super Bowl Ad brief is perceived by the agencies to be much cooler and high-stakes with more chance of creative risk-taking than the average Common Client Brief, then why do some of the Super Bowl ads come out boring, done-before, irrelevant and imminently forgettable?


It seems that the enormous viewership might have something to do with it. Possibly a bit of stage fright and a trying-too-hard aspect? Or a client wanting to cover all their bases to justify the enormous spend?


I'm not going to ramble on about the ads we were served this year. The Microsoft Xbox one spoke to me, I kind of liked the audacity of the Burger King one except the construct was ruined by the person who said he'd actually asked for a McDonalds (why did you do that?)





I loved the Budd Lite/Game of Thrones mashup and I curiously liked the Ripley Scott mini movie for Turkish Airlines.




My two cents worth would be that there's too much playing to the masses and too much losing sight of the one person that actually counts - the person who may do something, buy something, think something, as a result of your ad. 


Here's what I like to imagine sets a Super Bowl brief apart form a Common Creative Brief:
  1. The client (and agency) are aiming for GREAT. You have a much better chance of getting there if you aim for it than if you don't.
  2. It's presumably agreed upfront that the ad has to be entertaining with exceptional production values (and the right budget) - great advice for the Common Brief to borrow from.
  3. The ad aims to be memorable, relevant and engaging. Tick, tick and tick.
  4. It simply has to be distinctive. And talk-able, and shareable. And that means some brave decisions need to be made in the approvals process.
  5. The message has to be totally singleminded.
  6. Time has been invested in mining a really strong insight about the consumers motivations or beliefs in the category.
  7. A powerful proposition and very clear brand positioning are the cornerstones.

Maybe we should treat each ad brief like a Super Bowl brief and see what happens to the work?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s if you need help with brief-writing, drop me a line on gillian@adtherapy.co.za to find out about our training and coaching options, or check out our new offering Brief Therapy.



No comments:

Post a Comment