fbpx
Have a question? Call us now
214.414.3035
 In Blog Archives, Digital Marketing, paid media buying & management, Traditional Marketing and Advertising, video branded entertainment

As our eyes browse our Facebook news feeds or the latest headlines on Twitter, it’s hard not to notice or be drawn to “banned” ads, especially the ones meant to air during the Super Bowl. Recently, Scarlett Johansson’s banned SodaStream ad is grabbing everyone’s attention – in a good way actually. Despite this ad not being “fit” for TV, its ban has only made it more appealing to online consumers and therefore generated the buzz the ad meant to have in the first place, without it ever being aired on TV.

I’ll admit whenever I first hear about Super Bowl ads being banned, I think it’s a shame the advertiser didn’t grab the coveted spot during one of the most-watched sporting events on TV. Now I’m rethinking my position. Could it be that producing a controversial ad and having it banned is just a cheap way for businesses to get exposure? If that’s the angle, it’s actually working.

The story with Johansson’s ad for the Israeli company SodaStream is that it was rejected because it calls out SodaStream’s direct competitors by name. At the end of the 33-second spot, Johansson says, “Sorry, Coke and Pepsi.” Fox requested that SodaStream omit the last line, presumably because Pepsi is a sponsor of the Super Bowl’s halftime show. SodaStream complied and the edited ad will air on Sunday night.

Yet to SodaStream’s benefit, the uncensored version of the commercial has been viewed 5 nearly million times in three days on YouTube. So was the ban of the original ad SodaStream’s loss or gain? You tell us! Leave us your thoughts on Facebook –> facebook.com/agencyentourage

Enhanced by Zemanta

Start typing and press Enter to search

Google Analytics Alternative