The most-watched TV commercial on YouTube last year, with more than 49 million views, was “The Force,” an ad for the Volkswagen Passat that premiered during the 2011 Super Bowl.
For this year’s Super Bowl, Volkswagen is running a new ad, “The Bark Side.”
What do you think made the first ad so popular? What do the two ads have in common? Do you think the new ad will equal the popularity of the earlier one? What’s the message or the marketing strategy involved in either ad? Do you think either one is effective? During the 2012 Super Bowl, advertisers are paying up to $3.5 million for 30 seconds of air time. Is the new ad worth it?
For quite some time, the first ad did not mention what it was advertising. By doing this and using a recognizable figure, Darth Vader, I think this ad was able to spark the interest of its audience. It also built up nicely to an ending that was not predictable. I am sure many people watched the whole ad because they wanted to see what was going to happen at the end, which was somewhat surprising.
I do not think the new ad will be quite as successful as the first. If I did not see the first ad it would have taken me a longer time to link the dogs barking, to the Star Wars theme song. Whereas the first ad used a clear and distinct figure and the theme song, the second ad only used the song. While the song in the second ad is still recognizable, it may be harder to make out because of the dogs barking rather than straight music. I also am not sure how the dogs tie into the new VW vehicle.
Posted by: Carley Butcher | 01/24/2012 at 05:19 PM
Argh. I posted a comment earlier and it didn't show up.
What made the first advertisement so popular was definitely the Star Wars theme, especially with a cute little kid going around the house trying to use the force. Both of the ads used this theme, but I have some doubt on whether the second ad will do just as well as the first.
I'm not entirely sure what the message is for both ads. Relating it to Star Wars could mean VW is trying to appeal to sci-fi fans? or to look powerful with "The Force"? I'm not entirely sure. One good marketing strategy they're using, though, is simplicity. The first advertisement kept my attention because they didn't have an explicit product endorsement until the very end. It was also humorous. But the second ad seemed to drag on and I don't know what they're trying to say with the dogs. I feel they are all just gimmicks.
With the barking dogs and unclear direction/message, I don't think the ad is worth the $3.5 million slot.
Posted by: Aileen Aquino | 01/24/2012 at 05:32 PM
The first ad was cute and the audience could relate to the idea of knowing who Darth Vader is and what the kid was trying to do. Though both ads tried to stick with the same theme which I still don’t really understand what the dark side has to do with vehicles, but ok. I think the new ad is a flop. I think the dogs are cool, but the super bowl is where all the companies bring out all the cards. VW doesn’t stand a chance in breaking through the noise and it is not worth the $3.5 Million they are going to spend on it.
Posted by: Gordon Brink | 01/24/2012 at 05:50 PM
I think the first ad did a great job in relating to the consumer with the iconic character of Darth Vader. I'm sure that any Star Wars fan (as a child) has tried to use "the force" to move something. That aspect of the commercial definitely draws in the consumer to sit and watch. They also did a great job in utilizing the element of curiosity by bringing the car into play at the very end of the narrative. The "aww this is cute" emotion is at its high point when the question of "what is this ad about" is answered when the father turns the car on with his remote key. I think that was clever.
Just going along with the whole Darth Vader theme, I thought that I'd share a Japanese cellphone commercial that uses the character of Darth Vader as well. They take a different approach to it and it's interesting how they use the character. It doesn't have that much dialogue so I hope everyone is able to understand it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ7bY_I5eos&feature=related
"The Bark Side" commercial doesn't resonate with me. If I'm watching the Super Bowl I don't need a whole minute of dogs barking. It's funny to some extent but when it goes on for as long as a minute, then I'd change the channel because I'm unsure of what I'm supposed to be gaining out of this. They took a risk by not showing the car in this commercial. It leaves us with a sense of curiosity, but it doesn't call upon any action. The commercial leaves us with a sense of "what is better?", and based on the date "2.5.2012" I guess we're supposed to find out on that day. If they're going to be using this "bark side" commercial then they need to rethink their use of $3.5 million for a 30second spot on the Super Bowl.
Posted by: Shouhei Senno | 01/24/2012 at 11:34 PM
I don't think either of these are really doing anything especially clever or ground-breaking. These ads are and were popular because they picked things that have insane mass appeal. More than probably any other movie, or piece of pop culture, Star Wars is instantly recognizable. The first ad features Darth Vader, one of the most recognizable pieces of pop culture and the second ad features the Imperial March, the most recognizable song from the Star Wars trilogy. What really made the first ad and what will most likely make the new commercial just as successful is that they combine Star Wars with imaginative children, and puppies, two things that also have incredible mass appeal. They combine these popular ideas in a funny, childish way that can appeal to people of any age.
I am sure the new ad will be well recieved and loved. I am also sure that it will be very successful. I doubt it will be as successful as the first one, simply because people have seen this before with the first ad.
The message in these commercials is that VW understands you and that you want to be entertained. When you are watching the Superbowl you are not also trying to shop for a car. You are looking for ads that entertain you and keep you interested. If you want to get more info from the commercial than you can check out the website or what not. I think these ads are really great.
Posted by: Bob Martin | 01/25/2012 at 03:40 PM
It should be noted that the second video isn't a commercial, but a teaser for VW's actual commercial that will air during the Super Bowl, so I don't know if comparing the two is appropriate.
As far as the first ad goes, it works on many levels to portray a positive image associated with VW cars, and does so quite well. As Bob mentioned above me, Star Wars is one of the most recognized pieces of pop culture, and having a kid dressed up as one of the most iconic villains of all time creates a funny contrast for the viewer. I'm sure anyone can relate to the feeling of being a child and pretending you have super powers, be they force-derived or other. Showing the father using his VW car's capabilities to help his son have fun puts an interesting spin on the advertisement of the car. They're not saying anything about what it can do, other than start remotely, but showing a creative way the car can be used. It's entertaining and puts VW in a positive light.
Super Bowl ads have basically become an exercise in short-form comedy, with focus on a product often taking the backseat to making a memorable commercial. I'd be interested to see how VW's sales changed after this commercial aired.
Posted by: Jake McCune | 01/25/2012 at 09:55 PM
The first Volkswagen ad's memorable aspects are the Star War’s Darth Vader character; the child dressed as Darth Vader going around trying to make things move with “The Force” is cute but frankly, it didn’t stick with me or the group of people that I showed it to as a Volkswagen commercial. How they connect VW with Star Wars and “The Dark Force” when the production values of the commercial are far from dark and the car is a sedan; where is the force in a Volkswagen car?
The second volkswagon ad was less effective than the first ad. In fact, the dogs are cute and we get the theme song, but as was mentioned by a couple of people in previous chats; if you're not familiar with the first commercial, the second commercial will not make much sense. Moreover, the ad does not mention the product at all and it shows a dog dressed in what may be a costume of a Volkswagen(?)walk across the stage and bark. More importantly, the Volkswagen name doesn’t even show up until the end of the ad; if I didn't know better, I would've changed the channel.
I think 3.5 million is a waste. The ad will be mentioned by viewers either they will get it and say it’s cute or they won’t get it and say; what was that; it was a waste. The group preferred the M&M ad better.
Post By:
Giana Lampreda
Posted by: D | 01/25/2012 at 10:29 PM
I think the first Darth Vader ad was successful because of the relatable humor. The imagination of young children appeals to a mass audience, and Star Wars was a great reference. The product made sense with the storyline, and I think the commercial is a great way to entertain the audience.
The "Bark Side" commercial is less engaging. Its kind of cool, but its interesting to see how the product is not as incorporated with commercial. I don't think it will be as successful as last year's ad.
Posted by: Eden Haile | 01/25/2012 at 10:33 PM
I think that the first ad is going to be a lot more successful than the second one for a few reasons. First, I think that the second commercial is just riding the same wave that the first commercial made which already makes it not as effective. In my opinion there are only a few rare cases when the sequel to anything is as good or better than the first. Secondly, the audience must be familiar or even remember the first commercial which is never a guarantee especially with so many other commercials to compete with. Finally, I think that the content of the commercial isn't up to par with the first one. Yes, it's very funny and entertaining but the first one did three things that the second one failed to do. It actually showed a VW car, it showed the features of that car, and it had characters in the commercial that would actually use the car a.k.a. humans, therefore making it more relatable to the audience.
Posted by: Jedrik Viray | 01/25/2012 at 10:58 PM
It is no surprise that the first ad was so effective. It was cute and engaging which made it so effective. I was also relatable with the character being very familiar to most people.
The two were similar in that they had no dialogue and the music was the samein both, except harder to follow and recognize in the second. I do not feel that the second will be nearly as effective. It was boring and lost my attention, the music as the dogs barked was hard to follow, and it went away from the old theme completely. I don't quite understand why they would use the same theme song in the second one when it is a competely different theme highlighting dogs and the German make of the new VW.
Posted by: A Facebook User | 01/26/2012 at 06:46 PM
I personally think that the first ad was successful because they appealed to the emotions of their audience by relating their product to a universally-recognized topic (Star Wars) and combining that with the character of the young boy. It made audiences laugh and highlighted the numerous benefits Volkswagen could provide to their customers with their new vehicle design. On the other hand, the second ad completely strayed from that. Rather than coming out with new and fresh ideas, I believe that advertisers behind Volkswagen are simply relying on last year’s success in order to get them through this year’s SuperBowl ads. The second advertisement depicting the barking dogs also lacks in advertising their product and the possible benefits it could give to customers. I believe that the advertisers at VW are paying too much money for a commercial that is simply a repeat of last year’s ad.
Posted by: Jessica | 01/27/2012 at 10:38 AM
I think the first commercial was so popular because it appealed the inner child of everybody. It also shows the innocence of childhood when the little boy thought he actually turned the car on with his "powers". I think the dog ad for this year wont be as popular because it appeals to a much smaller audience. Only a certain niche group is interested in dogs barking along to the tune of star wars.
Posted by: Talajoor.wordpress.com | 01/30/2012 at 01:55 PM
I think that the first ad was substantially more popular because it consisted of elements that were not found in the second ad. For example, “The Force” commercial was immensely popular because it was family oriented, it was relatable and realistic, it was funny, adorable, it was a story that resonates with many viewers, and it was simple in its message (requiring little to no dialogue). I did not find the second ad to be even closely as popular or as effective as the first. It was almost too simple in having dogs in Star Wars costumes bark in a symphonic style that resembled the Darth Vador theme song. The only commonality between the two commercials was the Star Wars theme. But like any sequel to an awesome original, it’s never going to put up the same numbers as its first production. For as popular as “The Force” commercial was receiving over 49 million views on YouTube, I find that $3.5 million for 30 seconds of last year definitely made its worth. For this upcoming commercial… I highly doubt they will say it was worth it this this time around.
Posted by: Justin Mukai | 01/30/2012 at 06:14 PM
To be honest, I hadn't seen either ad before this assignment. The first one definitely appeals to the "inner-child" in everyone, like someone already stated. I do not think the second ad, however, will be as effective as the first. The first ad is more genuine, relatable, humorous, etc. The second ad is none of these things. Singing/barking dogs is in an overused category of personifing animals. The teaser ad is efinitely not worth 3.5 million dollars, but maybe the real ad will be.
Posted by: Jordan Keller | 01/30/2012 at 11:48 PM