Slashdot Mirror
Who Really Won the Super Bowl?
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."
Considering the quantity of empty calories and assorted forms of alcohol consumed during normal SuperBowl viewing, I'm amazed they find any brain activity at all.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
SPOILER ALERTHere's the Google Video link to all the ads so you can decide for yourself.
Personally, I thought the 'secret fridge' commercial was funny.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The Steelers?
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.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
.. I would like to see the neural response of slashdotters while reading this article, and see if the UCLA team really got their message through :)
There is a big jump in amygdala activity when the dinosaur crushes the caveman, as shown below. The scene looks funny and has been described as funny by lots of people, but your amygdala still perceives it as threatening, another example of disconnect between verbal reports on ads and brain activity while viewing the ads.
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.
For me, ALL the advertisers have lost.
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.
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
The winner of the 2006 SuperBowl was:
a) The Pittsburg Steelers
b) The Seattle Seahawks
c) Bud Light
d) CowboyNeal
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Wait wait, how did he win? The Super Bowl was broadcast on ABC this year. Shouldn't that be "Disney Corp"?
No sig for you!!
I couldn't tell you who won if my life depended on it, because I don't even know who was playing. I do know that it was played in Detroit, because I live in Michigan, and the local news media (even in other parts of the state) couldn't stop talking about that fact. I don't recall anyone mentioning the Lions, so I assume it was a couple other teams, but I don't follow basketball, so I couldn't name any off the top of my head.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Since over half of us Slashdotters don't RTFA, keep in mind they're talking about who won in ADVERTISING.
...what's a Super Bowl?
And I think I speak for all Slashdotters when I ask:
I thought that it was the referee's family from the vegas payoffs.
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 Slashdot. :)
In the two weeks since the SuperBowl, I have not purchased a Hummer
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.
I just assume everything I see on TV is stupid. That way, everything makes sense.
As long as you didn't purchase a Land Rover, a Mercedes, a web domain from RegistryFly, eaten at Applebee's, or flown on American Airlines, then they haven't lost; they just didn't win. Yet.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"For me, ALL the advertisers have lost. 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."
Nope, they won.... You remember them. Case and point.
Infact, you probably still remember the budwiser commercial from 3 or even 5 years ago.
This experiment measured reactions in people's brains as they viewed Super Bowl ads. What it didn't measure, however, was to what extent, if any, the ads changed people's recognition or feeling about the brands they were supposed to be selling.
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.
-- dR.fuZZo
The fact that you just named all those BRAND names off the top of your head just told me they did a great job. They're not trying to sell their product to you, they're trying to brand their name/product/etc.
Allow me to summarize this article for you all:
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?
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
"the qb getting tackled on the 1 yard line and them calling it a TD comes to mind"
i ngs/every-play-counts/3640/
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 was he only called twice? Because most of his holds didn't affect the play, so they warned him instead. Seattle happened to get a big play on one of the times they called him for holding, but at the time of the call that wasn't known. Further, if he hadn't pulled Haggans down from behind, Haggans would have sacked Hasselback before the pass, which would have negated the big play anyway.
There was a pretty complete discussion of this at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/02/09/rambl
The refs really didn't call this game any differently than they call any other game. They don't like calling holding, as it happens on most plays and can devastate an offense when called on third down. They warned Locklear on the third downs (except for the first one) and evened up by calling him on first down.
No way. The fedex caveman commercial and the magic fridge commercial were both awesome.
That every single other commercial sucked in a way that people from the 1950s would have been embarrassed to watch is, um, mostly coincidental.
StoneCypher is Full of BS