Why?
It was to the point. All the other commercials tried to use humor or horses to somehow trick you into thinking that there product is better, cooler or cheaper. Vizio simply said made the point that if you're watching this commercial on a non-Vizio TV, you probably paid too much. I get the message. They sell high quality TVs at a reasonable rate, which is why they're the fastest growing television manufacturer in the world.
Visually different. No expensive actors, shoots or special animations. A simple all graphic spot that was actually pretty clever in pointing to the logo on your TV. Can you spell Scrappy?
A strong call to action. Simple. Go to vizio.com and enter to win their contest where they're giving away $1 million in TVs.
Mind you, I am a Vizio owner (a very happy one albeit, so I am slighly biased). But I love the confidence and simplicity of this commercial. I am sure it worked, and they'll continue to take away market share from everybody else in the television business.
[ratings]
Nice site. There
Hi Mario,
I have very high regard for your marketing IQ, and I'm wondering how you reconcile your pick of Vizio as the best Superbowl ad against the ratings in USA Today that had the Vizio ad as the worst-rated ad? I ask because I am genuinely interested in your reply. Thank you.
Jakki Mohr
Jakki, that's an excellent question.
If you asked me what superbowl spot was the most entertaining, it wouldn't be Vizio. If you asked me what spot was the best from a marketing perspective, it's Vizio. Here's why.
They didn't confuse me
Their message was clear. We make really good televisions and sell them for a really good price. Our competitors aren't as good as us and more expensive, which is why we're the fastest growing television brand in the market. The next time I am in the market for television, I will likely check them out.
They got a really good deal for the superbowl spot
Vizio is a company that stands for making a very quality product at a low price. The cost of a superbowl commercial can be enormous and generally does nothing to improve the quality of a product. Vizio figured out a way to get the exposure without having to spend as much as the rest of the bunch.
They bought the spot the Tuesday before the Superbowl on a remnant basis. I wouldn't be surprised if they paid 40% less than some of the other buyers. Vizio also produced the spot in a week, with almost no talent fees and very low production costs." Those are millions of dollars that can go back into product development.
A strong call to action
Vizio drove people to their website where they entered a contest to win $1 million in free TVs. I am not sure how many people entered, but everybody who did enter will be a future lead in their system.
Best is best, worst is second best
It's nice to have USA tell you that you have the highest rated spot in the superbowl. Lots of free PR. Guess who gets the second most PR? The worst superbowl spot.
USA Today's rating system is irrelevant
They have 288 volunteers in Portland, Oregon and McLean, Virginia rate their liking of different commercials via handheld meters. However, ultimately people vote with their wallets and I am pretty sure that if you live in Portland, Oregon (which is the beer snob capital of the world), liking a Budweiser spot won't get you to actually buy it the grocery store. To me Budweiser makes funny commercials, not good beer.
But I am very biased, looking at this from the perspective of a scrappy marketer who doesn't believe in multimillion dollar ad buys and television productions.
Mario, Very compelling response. I thank you. Practical marketing that generates results is what it should be all about!
Jakki
Thank you, Jakki. Seth Godin just wrote a post on the difference between a show and a story as it relates to the superbowl. Interesting stuff.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/...-a-show-and-a-story.html