The Kellogg Super Bowl: Where The Ads Are More Riveting Than The Game

Roughly 30 minutes after students turn in their report cards, the ad rankings are revealed and the winning and losing ads are re-played. In the ensuing discussion, Kellogg students debate the fundamental strengths and flaws of various ads, always pointing back to specific ADPLAN elements for why they succeeded or failed.

For example, M&M’s was among the big winners at Kellogg’s 2013 Super Bowl Ad Review for their “Devour”  and “Anything For Love” commercials, which featured the Red M&M’s struggles to find “true” love. “Why did they do so well,” asks Rucker. “Branding is there through the whole spot. The characters are central. It’s playful. It fits brand equity. And it delivers a clear, distinct message.”

How Does The Panel Evaluate Ads? 

Using the ADPLAN framework, panelists focus on bread-and-butter issues like messaging and positioning over flash and entertainment. To earn marks, brands must succeed in each of the six elements:

Attention: In a cluttered environment, does the ad capture viewers’ imagination so they recall the spot, brand, and positioning?

Distinction: Is the ad distinct from direct competitors and other advertisers – or does the message get lost (or even confuse consumers)?

Positioning: Does the ad position the product so consumers understand what the brand represents and why it should be used over other products in the category?

Linkage: Do viewers connect the ad with the brand and its unique message and benefits – or do they forget some part of this equation in translation?

Amplification: How do viewers interpret the message according to their values and experiences – and do these individual responses create a favorable impression of the brand?

Net Equity: How does the ad build on a brand’s history, reputation, and viewer expectations? Does it strengthen and reinforce the brand?

While you’d expect plenty of debate, disagreements center mostly on the degree to which a brand performs favorably or unfavorably.  This stems from the ADPLAN itself, according to Rucker. The framework is designed to reduce bias, which results in a lower variance of opinion. While brands rarely earn an A, Rucker adds that most arguments stem not from best-to-worst, but whether a brand (for example) earned a B or a C.

In his experience, Calkins has seen more divergence in opinion. “Many spots will be polarizing. People are weighing different things higher or lower. And that’s why we have a panel.” Through the panel, students gain insights on which ADPLAN elements their peers used to determine if a brand excelled or fell short. “You can’t just take one person’s point of view.”

Experiential Learning In Action

What do students gain from the Super Bowl Advertising Review? For starters, it is a perfect example of how Kellogg connects theory and practice. According to Calkins, the review “picks up on the concepts we teach in the advertising class,” particularly the ADPLAN framework. “In doing that, it also helps them understand what marketers are doing in the world today.”

In particular, the event helps students apply these lessons to other courses and industries. Stephanie Cadieux, an MBA student who is helping to organize this year’s review, appreciates that the ads expose her to a variety of industries and companies. Through working with the Review and the ADPLAN framework, she evaluates advertising through “what makes sense for these companies and the context they’re in.”

Second, the Review is experiential learning in action by its high stakes nature. To Rucker, the television spots are “game time” for advertisers. With millions of dollars at stake with each ad, brands have little room for error. As a result, the review is more than an academic exercise. There are real life consequences when commercials are offensive, off brand, or confusing.  And Kellogg students have a front row seat to creative history being made – good and bad.