Who Really Won the Super Bowl? 174
BartlebyScrivener writes "In the latest development of the new field known as 'neuro marketing,' Marco Iacoboni and his group of researchers at the UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain responses in a group of subjects while they were watching this year's Super Bowl ads. The findings are reported at Edge: The Third Culture."
Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why Rupert Murdoch of course...
Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (Score:1)
Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who Really Won the SuperBowl... (Score:2)
Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:5, Informative)
SPOILER ALERT Here's the Google Video link to all the ads [google.com] so you can decide for yourself.
Personally, I thought the 'secret fridge' commercial was funny.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the two weeks since the SuperBowl, I have not purchased a Hummer, a Cadillac, a web doman from GoDaddy, ate at the Outback Steakhouse or flown on United Airlines.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:5, Funny)
I turned into a giant robot and had sex with godzilla.
Also, I used my company's FedEx account to send human body parts cross country.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
What the CRTC does is ALLOW the distributer some "channel substitution" during similar programs. When they say similar, they mean 90%+ content similar. It's a "right", not a law or an obligation.
Superbowl Ads, Harry Potter "interstitial interviews", and I'm pretty sure many others, have all been replaced by the Canadian channel having the program.
What I hate the most is when there's a channel substitution and they "forget"
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, they won.... You remember them. Case and point.
Infact, you probably still remember the budwiser commercial from 3 or even 5 years ago.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
That is very true. However, I use commercials as a list of who not to buy from. As I have said in postings in the past I don't watch many commercials. In fact, I go out of my way to avoid watching/listening/reading any commercial whether it be on tv, radio or in print.
That said, there are two companies in particular who advertise in my area who I will never, ever, even if they are the only two companies
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:3)
That every single other commercial sucked in a way that people from the 1950s would have been embarrassed to watch is, um, mostly coincidental.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
It's probably a poor ad in what it's trying to do, however, in that it doesn't really identify the brand that clearly. It's the "magic fridge" ad, not the "Bud fridge" ad.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
The refereeing wasn't as bad as a lot of people seem to think (not saying it was good in all cases, but some of the decisions people complain about were actually perfectly reasonable). The losing team lost fair and square - they had their chances through the game and they threw them away. The winning team took advantage of some of their chances, and they won. Sour grapes after the game aren't going to change that.
Of course, the real losers were those people who were looking forward to a good game, because t
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:3, Informative)
The Seattle 'big chance' plays were pretty much all called back on questionable penalties. And the Pitt big plays were given to them (the qb getting tackled on the 1 yard line and them calling it a TD comes to mind).
Geez, first time I've discussed sports on Sla
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Which of those questionable penalties would you say were actually bad calls? The blatant and unnecessary pushing off in the endzone directly in front of an official? No question about that one in my mind. The hold that prevented Hasselbeck from becoming extremely closely acquainted with the ground before he threw the ball? Seemed cut and dry to me. Would these calls always be made? Probably not, but you've got to be
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, if you watch the play, it's obvious that his arm crossed the goal plane (it's not a line, since it sticks up into space). He was no where near the 1 yard line. If the ball was short of the goal, it was short by less than an inch.
Part of the problem is that the refs were actually bending over backwards trying to *avoid* penalizing Seattle. For example, Locklear was called for two holds, but actually committed ten. Why
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
You must have watched a different game, or you're from PA. That 'bending over backwards' cost Seattle 2 TDs and 161 yards [go.com]. The game I saw Pittsburgh was outplayed in every category except officiating. Less yards, less first downs, less time of possesion, more turnovers. The great Stealer defense gave up almost 400 yards. The officiating kept the Steelers in the game, dispite them being outplaye
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
More: http://www.aigarius.com/2006/02/08/superballbowl.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1)
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Why is Pittsburg's 12th man wearing stripes? (Score:2)
I find the article interesting as much for the results as for the method. Like my opinion of the calling of the game, I had a differ
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
not to mention the fact that the viewers are watching sports...
Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do I get a prize if I guessed correctly?
As for measuring "neural response", that doesn't necessarily translate into revenue for advertisers. I'm sure I had a strong neural response when really crappy ads came on. I'm sure I also had a strong neural response to certain beer ads, but that's not going to get them any money since I drink beer only once or twice a year when tailgating.
There's far better ways for advertisers to measure the success of ad campaigns.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
The Steelers?
They were awarded the most points, but the Seahawks were the better team. Handing the Steelers 2 touchdowns was a bit much, don't you think?
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
No, the Steelers were not "handed" two touchdowns. Yes, there were marginal calls, but only one was truly bad (the chop block). The pushoff, as weak as it was, was still a pushoff and was called as such. The Roethlessberger TD did not have enough video evidence to overturn the call... besides, do you think the Steelers wouldn't have scored on 4th down anyways? The holding call was a tough one too, and I don't think the ref that called it had a good view, but just because fathead John
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
It sucked, but the worst thing was that it didn't suck uniformly. When one team gets all the crappy or borderline calls against them, it is a tainted game, no matter who you wanted to win.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
It sucked, but the worst thing was that it didn't suck uniformly. When one team gets all the crappy or borderline calls against them, it is a tainted game, no matter who you wanted to win.
Steelers got the calls because they forced the action. The push off in the end zone gave enough of an advantage to the receiver that he was able to create space and catch the ball. In other words, the good play of the defender created the incentive for the Seahawk to commit a penalty. He got caught because he was foo
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Ah, I am thrilled to see another member of the club! Although you should receive a few demerits for not including "Iron City Drinkin'" in your list...
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
Ah, I am thrilled to see another member of the club! Although you should receive a few demerits for not including "Iron City Drinkin'" in your list...
Couldn't decide between that and Rolling Rock (what Mahrn drinks now).
Go Stillers! 'n'at.
-jimbo
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:2)
I think they lost that contract. Which may partially explain why that brewery is one step ahead of the bankrupcy court.
Re:Who Really Won The SuperBowl? (Score:1)
When you talk about a blanket "neural response" it doesn't mean anythi
how about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about (Score:1)
Why not both? (Score:4, Insightful)
See, I don't see how there's necessarily a disconnect. So what if there's a threatening image that resonates with a part of the brain? That doesn't mean it can't be funny. Part of being human is having multiple reactions to the same stimulus. Ever ridden a roller coaster? Thrilling and scary at the same time, at least to me. I don't see this as being a disconnect; it's different portions of my self reacting in different ways.
That being said, the Burger King ad was awful.
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Informative)
I had a big jump in brain activity when I saw that, but it's because I was thinking, "Dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart, you idiots. >:("
Re:Why not both? (Score:2)
[KANSAS MODE ON]
Of course dinosaurs and humans lived contemporaneously. The dinosaurs all got wiped out in the Flood, though. We've got rocks which have both human and dinosaur footprints in them, and they aren't fake at all, and they proove it! Why do you liberal atheists hate America so much?
[KANSAS MODE OFF]
Re:Why not both? (Score:2)
I had a big jump in brain activity when I saw that, but it's because I was thinking, "Dinosaurs and humans lived millions of years apart, you idiots.
What makes you think that thought would cause a big jump in brain activity? If that jump occurred in the pedantry region of the brain I might be inclined to believe it, but otherwise I'd err on the side of brain activity being proportional to the sophistication of the process involved.
Re:Why not both? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, they are intimately connected. Remember Mel Brooks' famous explanation of the difference between tragedy and comedy:
If I stub my toe; that's tragedy.
If you fall down a manhole and die; that's comedy.
Perhaps the best joke expression of this the one that ends with the punchline:
I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun
Re:Why not both? (Score:2)
I fell when skiing in a steep slope the other day. I found it more entertaining than my friends seeing the accident. They were more concerned with my health. Personally I knew quite soon that I'd be ok. Obviously it isn't a definitive rule that i
Don't forget surreal humor. (Score:2)
A response to the first guy to respond to you brings up the study that I wanted to bring up that mentions that this is the kind of humor most appreciate by my fellow Americans and by Canadians, but there are other kinds of humor out there.
Humor that comes from reacting to very confusin
Re:Why not both? (Score:2)
Re:Why not both? (Score:2)
If this is the state of neuromarketing, then it's going to be a while before we have anything to fear from it.
Pop quiz (Score:5, Funny)
a) The Pittsburg Steelers
b) The Seattle Seahawks
c) Bud Light
d) CowboyNeal
Re:Pop quiz (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pop quiz (Score:2)
Re:Pop quiz (Score:2)
Re:Pop quiz (Score:2)
My inner Spelling Nazi would like to point out there is an "h" at the end of Pittsburgh.
C. "I have no fucking clue" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (Score:2)
Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (Score:2)
Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (Score:1)
Re:C. "I have no fucking clue" (Score:1)
Everyone knows SuperBowl is a bowling competition... even us non-Americans.
They're talking about advertisers (Score:2, Funny)
And I think I speak for all Slashdotters when I ask:
Download the ads (Score:1)
Budweiser (Score:2)
Maybe we should comission a study like this... (Score:1)
a) Pro-Microsoft ads on Slashdot suck
b) Ads on Slashdot suck
c) I didn't RTFA
d) Aren't they all ads?
whoopie (Score:1)
Of Course, There's The Other Option (Score:1)
Re:Of Course, There's The Other Option (Score:2)
Your amygdala is part of your limbic system. The most simple of your emotions come from here: FEar (fight or flight) and pleasure are all that I can think of. What ISN'T mentioned is if the higher-order brain areas are also activated - but I'd hypothesize that they are, since most people percieve it as funny. Your amygdala is still going to be activated - Just take a look at those fMRI photos, and look how small it is. O
Marketing (Score:2)
http://www.chomskytorrents.org/TorrentDetails.php? TorrentID=911 [chomskytorrents.org]
Freudian psychology has had more of an influence on advertisers then real science.
Do they prove brain activity=purchases (Score:2)
OTOH, the purpose of comercials on the super bowl and other self
ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
An ad could have left a big impact on a person, but done a very poor job of establishing/reinforcing its brand. It would have been more interesting to see an experiment trying to measure if the ads actually did what they were supposed to do.
Surreal (Score:2)
strange or bizarre.
http://www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/litnumsit
maybe I Should just turn off the computer and go for a walk
Look at the pretty lights (Score:3, Funny)
We have no detailed understanding of how the brain works, but look at the pretty lights! Some areas of the brain light up for Commericial A and others light up for Commercial B. Wow! What does it mean? Maybe it means that we can predict behavior based on gross neural activation/deactivation patterns... but maybe it doesn't.
Can we have some more funding now? And, say, I'm thirsty. Who's up for a beer?
Re:Look at the pretty lights (Score:2)
So the "winners" seemed to be the researchers' preconcieved notions, not what the people *said* when interviewed. The whole experiment must have been done by middle management....
Please explain... (Score:2)
Re:Please explain... (Score:2)
Happy to oblige. It's all Steve Jobs' fault.
Advertising during the Super Bowl was always pricey, since so many American eyeballs would end up following it (when their owners weren't getting beer or visiting the bathroom). But the mad advertising rush really didn't take off until January 1984, with Apple's "Big Brother" add, which aired once, and only once, during the first few minutes of the broadcast.
That commercial was (and still is) considered one of the best ad campaigns of all time, despite its one
In Germany, there were no commercials, ugh! (Score:2)
What I thought was kindof interesting, is that the broadcast of the game here was American commercial free. What they did was run spots promoting the carrying network instead, but no commercials.
Kindof too bad. The Superbowl commercials are usually pretty good.
Oh well!
Obviously it was the researchers (Score:2)
Clearly it was the researchers who won. They get a bunch of press over the some expensive advertisements paid for by other people. Very smart, those research people.
I'm not a fan of American football (as opposed to soccer, which the rest of the world calls football), but SuperBowl parties are generally worth attending. So my wife and I went to one. We walked in and asked, "So who do you think will win -- the Knicks or the Blue Jays?"
I've got my new .sig! (Score:2)
Fantastic!
The biggest winner of the Superbowl... (Score:2)
Who won? (Score:2)
I can tell you who doesn't care: me.
Is that still on? (Score:2)
Amygdala (Score:2)
Does slapstick humor require amygdala activation to be funny?
Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (Score:2)
Advertisers and marketeers are the scum of the Earth
Annoying. Yes. Bothersome. Yes. Scum of the Earth? They win out over child molesters, animal torturers, and Jim Jones [wikipedia.org]?
I know a few marketing folks, and most of them are decent human beings, just like you and me, trying to earn a buck. Plus, how do you propose to have commerce without advertising?
Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (Score:1)
Word of mouth is a perfectly good method. I've downloaded more than a few programs because people have recommended them to me. Firefox and Thunderbird. OpenOffice. Linux (not quite yet, too lazy to partition, but I'm getting there). mplayer [mplayerhq.hu].
Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (Score:1)
Why wouldn't they cut 30 min shows down to 20 mins and hour long shows down to 40 minutes?
2 or 3 shows an hour, no advertising.
It's dumb to expect longer shows. With more shows, they have more room for product placement. More product placement = more money.
Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (Score:2)
And you forgot to mention... you would have to pay for every tv show you watched, you would have to pay for most websites you visit, you would have to pay more for newspapers and magazines, etc etc.
And conversely, you might pay less for some products which spend a great deal of advertising money. For instance, beer & insurance might go down in price som
Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (Score:1)
Re:Advertisers: Scum of the Earth (Score:2)
Marketing people are generally scumbags, it doesn't matter if you like them or not. The problem isn't the concept of advertising, or advertising itself, the problem is the people that do this job.
Yes, scum of the Earth. (Score:2)
Well, you see, all those people are bad, but the bad things they do are to other people. Advertisers bother me.
OK, OK, we can compromise. They're all scum.
A World Without Push Advertising (Score:2)
So are many used car salesmen.
So are many telemarketers.
So are many spammers.
What you do to make that buck and how you drain small bits of strangers lives matters more to me than how you treat your friends. The argument of "just trying to make a buck" has never held any water with me since drug dealers, pimps, and lobbyists are all "just trying to make a buck."
Marketing is not an inherently e
You rattled off a list of ad-supported sources! (Score:2)
Word of mouth, review websites/magazines, and even general newsy outlets like papers and slashdot.
Magazines survive because of advertising in their pages. Take away ads, and be prepared to pay a lot more for the latest issue of your favorite mag.
Websites are either supported by subscription fees (rare) or by advertising.
Newspapers generate almost all of their revenue from advertising. Take a look at the classifieds, job ads, home listings, and inserts the next time you pick up the Sunday paper.
You
Re:Meanwhile at Network 23 (Score:1)