ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Super Bowl Commercials

Dr. von Yinzer

Chancellor
Gold Member
Feb 4, 2010
22,478
27,461
113
For the past several days now I have been watching news piece after news piece after news piece about the upcoming Super Bowl and all the exciting new commercials that are sure to be a part of it.

That got me to thinking, is there anything in popular culture more overrated than Super Bowl commercials?

Anything?

It seems to me like every single year, the day after the Super Bowl everyone complains that "there were no good commercials this year." And then we repeat the charade again the next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.

I am a bad judge of this thing anyway as I use commercials to talk with friends, grab some snacks, use the restroom, etc.
 
For the past several days now I have been watching news piece after news piece after news piece about the upcoming Super Bowl and all the exciting new commercials that are sure to be a part of it.

That got me to thinking, is there anything in popular culture more overrated than Super Bowl commercials?

Anything?

It seems to me like every single year, the day after the Super Bowl everyone complains that "there were no good commercials this year." And then we repeat the charade again the next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.

I am a bad judge of this thing anyway as I use commercials to talk with friends, grab some snacks, use the restroom, etc.
Heard on NPR last week, Super Bowl Commercials have increase 75% from 1970 now at $5 Million for 30 Seconds and $1 million to produce. The Commercials are about the 7 C's, Comedy, Critters, Cute, Couples, Corporate etc etc.

The Experts on the Show claim if you are a New Company wanting recognition and introduction that is where to advertise. They said if you are an established Company for example, Ford this year is skipping the SB Commercials and Ford is putting its money in Social Media. Other Auto Companies think otherwise?

They went to say Pepsi and Budwesier are asked if the costs of Super Bowl Advertising is worth it at every Shareholders Meeting, and they answer, they really don't know, but sales keep going up, so they keep doing it? So, Consumer Consumption usually follow SB buying.


They also said in one year a while back, the Networks & NFL allow and announced a Bathroom Break with a blank screen for 30 seconds, but has not approved it anymore? Money is too big?

Sneak Peak Link On 50 Commercials:
https://www.thrillist.com/entertain...mmercials-complete-guide-to-2016-big-game-ads


Just passing what I heard on NPR, on the subject!
 
Last edited:
For the past several days now I have been watching news piece after news piece after news piece about the upcoming Super Bowl and all the exciting new commercials that are sure to be a part of it.

That got me to thinking, is there anything in popular culture more overrated than Super Bowl commercials?

Anything?

It seems to me like every single year, the day after the Super Bowl everyone complains that "there were no good commercials this year." And then we repeat the charade again the next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.

I am a bad judge of this thing anyway as I use commercials to talk with friends, grab some snacks, use the restroom, etc.

Well I totally agree with you on the stupidity of this it IS NOT overrated. In fact I can say it's the only time anymore in this days of tivo and Netflix that people actually watch the commercial. So it can be said it's the only television ads anymore that are worth their money
 
All the corny tear jerking ones from last year only succeeded in making me roll my eyes. The Apple 1984 ad is the standard bearer of course but that America the Beautiful Coca Cola ad sung in several different languages was great. I believe it was 2 yrs ago.
 
The commercials and the ridiculous half time shows are a complete waste of time. The only benefit is as Dr. Von mentioned it frees up time to do other stuff like socialize, drink, and eat something.

Unfortunately the Stuperbowl has become a show / sideshow rather than the best football game of the year!

Nothing that you can do about the commercials money talks, companies by space, so be it but halftime should be a normal football halftime including game analysis.

Plus you have to endure the week long analysis of the Stuperbowl commercials.

If you want to see a band go to a concert!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vietvet1
Well, frankly, you watched the commercials to even know they were sappy, that is the only reason it is a big deal, you and 100 million people will watch the commercials live. I dont like anything about the entire spectacle myself. But honestly, in the grand scheme, the commercials are much more important to many more people's jobs than the game itself is. I tape it and fast forward it an hour late.
 
1 or 2 good commercials one time a year is not worth the constant commercial breaks. I'd put them in the category of most overrated anything in this country.
 
This is what frustrates me. Everyone complains about everything. Commercials, announcers, the game, everything. Guess what stop watching! And don't tell anyone you do because no one gives a shit.
 
Doritos spot was a bit weird.
The Dorito's bit was very funny IMHO. The other one (Honda?) with the sheep singing Queen was good also. We also really liked the pregame Hyundai commercial with Kevin Hart.
 
I caught a little of the halftime show and I thought it was pretty good - at least as far as halftime shows go.

At least they aren't trotting out septuagenarian rock stars anymore. That had gotten completely ridiculous and had become embarrassingly out of touch.

"Ladies and gentlemen we give you Herman's Hermits with a guest appearance by Loggins and Messina."

That would be like having the opportunity to hire any comedian in the world for a major event and instead of choosing to hire someone like Jerry Seinfeld or Chris Rock or Louis CK or someone like that, instead hiring Jerry Lewis or the cast of Laugh-In.

It would be absolutely ridiculous, just like it was when they were doing it with music for several Super Bowl's in a row.

Whether you like Coldplay or Beyoncé or Bruno Mars, at least they are currently relevant artists. Personally, I'm not really into any of those folks' music but they at least makes sense for an event like that.
 
The commercials and the ridiculous half time shows are a complete waste of time. The only benefit is as Dr. Von mentioned it frees up time to do other stuff like socialize, drink, and eat something.

Unfortunately the Stuperbowl has become a show / sideshow rather than the best football game of the year!

Nothing that you can do about the commercials money talks, companies by space, so be it but halftime should be a normal football halftime including game analysis.

Plus you have to endure the week long analysis of the Stuperbowl commercials.

If you want to see a band go to a concert!


I kinda like the commercials. The halftime show gives me more time to drink and socialize.

I lived through that awful string of Super Bowls during the 80s through the mid-90s. There couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 of those that were really exciting, tight games. Going back to Denver/Green Bay in '98, its mostly lived up to the hype. That said, tonight's game was pure slop.
 
For the past several days now I have been watching news piece after news piece after news piece about the upcoming Super Bowl and all the exciting new commercials that are sure to be a part of it.

That got me to thinking, is there anything in popular culture more overrated than Super Bowl commercials?

Anything?

It seems to me like every single year, the day after the Super Bowl everyone complains that "there were no good commercials this year." And then we repeat the charade again the next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.

I am a bad judge of this thing anyway as I use commercials to talk with friends, grab some snacks, use the restroom, etc.

Coldplay?
 
For the past several days now I have been watching news piece after news piece after news piece about the upcoming Super Bowl and all the exciting new commercials that are sure to be a part of it.

That got me to thinking, is there anything in popular culture more overrated than Super Bowl commercials?

Anything?

It seems to me like every single year, the day after the Super Bowl everyone complains that "there were no good commercials this year." And then we repeat the charade again the next year. And the year after that. And the year after that.

I am a bad judge of this thing anyway as I use commercials to talk with friends, grab some snacks, use the restroom, etc.
I thought they pretty much sucked
 
It is amazing the money spent on these commercials and the ones that come out as funny/clever/interesting so that you actually remember the product or service.
 
I was watching the doritos commercial, the one with the dad eating chips during ultrasound and I started laughing, thinking the dad was gonna hand his unborn son a chip by putting the chip under... well you know where.. That would have been hilarious.

The futuristic avocado commercial would have been funny but anytime I hear about produce from mexico, the fact that they use human feces that have caused several hepatitis outbreaks within this country, well that kind of ruins it for me..

The image of WIlliam Defoe dressed up as Marilyn Monroe was funny for a second
 
Last edited:
I kinda like the commercials. The halftime show gives me more time to drink and socialize.

I lived through that awful string of Super Bowls during the 80s through the mid-90s. There couldn't have been more than 2 or 3 of those that were really exciting, tight games. Going back to Denver/Green Bay in '98, its mostly lived up to the hype. That said, tonight's game was pure slop.
It was awful. IMO it was the worst Super Bowl ever. Kinda wanted Carolina to win, but happy for Peyton Manning. Bottom line though... there were really no exciting moments. Denver's offense was pathetic, they tried giving away the game more than a handful of times. Carolina was just so awful yesterday they couldn't capitalize. Should be a great ending to Peyton's career, he just has nothing left in the tank to even think of coming back next season.
 
I caught a little of the halftime show and I thought it was pretty good - at least as far as halftime shows go.

At least they aren't trotting out septuagenarian rock stars anymore. That had gotten completely ridiculous and had become embarrassingly out of touch.

"Ladies and gentlemen we give you Herman's Hermits with a guest appearance by Loggins and Messina."

That would be like having the opportunity to hire any comedian in the world for a major event and instead of choosing to hire someone like Jerry Seinfeld or Chris Rock or Louis CK or someone like that, instead hiring Jerry Lewis or the cast of Laugh-In.

It would be absolutely ridiculous, just like it was when they were doing it with music for several Super Bowl's in a row.

Whether you like Coldplay or Beyoncé or Bruno Mars, at least they are currently relevant artists. Personally, I'm not really into any of those folks' music but they at least makes sense for an event like that.

geez, and I was psyched to go see Chicago\Earth Wind and Fire next month. Did not know how embarrassingly out of touch I was. I wonder if anyone will remember what a Coldplay or a Bruno Marrs was 40 years from now....
 
geez, and I was psyched to go see Chicago\Earth Wind and Fire next month. Did not know how embarrassingly out of touch I was. I wonder if anyone will remember what a Coldplay or a Bruno Marrs was 40 years from now....

I agree with you entirely - so I fear you missed my point.

Look, we are all prisoners of our own youth. That's why we all believe that "the best music ever made" was created during our own impressionable years (12-25). We also tend to think that the best television shows and movies were made "back in our day." Everything made after that is inferior to varying degrees.

Guess what? Your parents felt the same way about Chicago and Earth, Wind and Fire when you were young. It didn't compare to Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett's classier music of yore.

Therefore, if someone of a certain age wants to see bands from their youth, that's great! That's how it should work!

It's just that bands like the Who for example, which was the halftime show a few years back, are no longer culturally relevant to people who did not grow up in the era in which they were regularly producing popular music. As such, it makes no sense to force millions of young people to listen to them whenever those acts mean nothing to almost all of those younger fans.

And I say that as a guy who actually LIKES the Who - or liked them when they were in their prime! Also, I am not a fan of any of the acts that performed last night. They just don't do anything for me. However, this isn't about me or my preferences, it's about satisfying the majority of your audience and you do that by having acts perform which are popular to today's generation, not a bunch of arms folded senior citizens who are going to hate everything that doesn't come from their era anyway.

We had a long run there where all of the acts were simply old men (and some women) who were WAY past their respective primes and they performed like it. That would be fine for a concert where the audience is more targeted (and older) or on PBS or something like that. However, that is absolutely not the right approach for the Super Bowl, which has a much more generalized audience.

The Baby Boomers have dominated the cultural landscape for too long as it is. It is time to step aside and let the young people have their day just like you had yours for decades upon decades.

It would have been ridiculous for say, Bing Crosby to perform at the 1982 Super Bowl because he was 30-40 years past his prime and was no longer culturally relevant. Similarly, it would be absurd if Beyonce and Bruno Mars and Coldplay were to perform at halftime of Super Bowl 80.

In fact it would be embarrassingly out of touch, just as it has been for years when old former star after old former star was struggling though a performance on the highest rated television show in the country each year. That type of event now belongs to a younger crowd - or at least it should. .
 
I like the deformed guy doing the Budweiser commercial psa for fetal alcohol syndrome.
Sounds hilarious.. How bout the English broad telling everyone not to drink and drive, despite 1/2 our country doing just that one hour later..
 
Yeah, I thought that commercial was weird too. It was just way too heavy handed and it missed its mark by a good bit. That spot didn't work at all, IMHO.
 
Sounds hilarious.. How bout the English broad telling everyone not to drink and drive, despite 1/2 our country doing just that one hour later..

It was a dumb commercial, but are we really acting like Hellen Mirren is just some "English broad?"

I was bored during the game and more bored during the commercials. Bey and Bruno Mars were good, but I could have done without Coldplay.
 
I agree with you entirely - so I fear you missed my point.

Look, we are all prisoners of our own youth. That's why we all believe that "the best music ever made" was created during our own impressionable years (12-25). We also tend to think that the best television shows and movies were made "back in our day." Everything made after that is inferior to varying degrees.

Guess what? Your parents felt the same way about Chicago and Earth, Wind and Fire when you were young. It didn't compare to Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett's classier music of yore.

Therefore, if someone of a certain age wants to see bands from their youth, that's great! That's how it should work!

It's just that bands like the Who for example, which was the halftime show a few years back, are no longer culturally relevant to people who did not grow up in the era in which they were regularly producing popular music. As such, it makes no sense to force millions of young people to listen to them whenever those acts mean nothing to almost all of those younger fans.

And I say that as a guy who actually LIKES the Who - or liked them when they were in their prime! Also, I am not a fan of any of the acts that performed last night. They just don't do anything for me. However, this isn't about me or my preferences, it's about satisfying the majority of your audience and you do that by having acts perform which are popular to today's generation, not a bunch of arms folded senior citizens who are going to hate everything that doesn't come from their era anyway.

We had a long run there where all of the acts were simply old men (and some women) who were WAY past their respective primes and they performed like it. That would be fine for a concert where the audience is more targeted (and older) or on PBS or something like that. However, that is absolutely not the right approach for the Super Bowl, which has a much more generalized audience.

The Baby Boomers have dominated the cultural landscape for too long as it is. It is time to step aside and let the young people have their day just like you had yours for decades upon decades.

It would have been ridiculous for say, Bing Crosby to perform at the 1982 Super Bowl because he was 30-40 years past his prime and was no longer culturally relevant. Similarly, it would be absurd if Beyonce and Bruno Mars and Coldplay were to perform at halftime of Super Bowl 80.

In fact it would be embarrassingly out of touch, just as it has been for years when old former star after old former star was struggling though a performance on the highest rated television show in the country each year. That type of event now belongs to a younger crowd - or at least it should. .


tend not to agree on some level.....I love and appreciate Frank Sinatra music. yes I hated it as a kid but grew in that sense. Love Motown and rock in the 60's which was before my time. I can sing word for word most of those old tunes that came out before I was even born. I get what you are saying about the energy level and halftime shows, however, I think the music today, for the most part sucks. Not a generational thing, it just does. The largest and most profitable tours today are all old timers for the most part. 40 years ago that would never have been the case. Your Bing Crosby analogy kind of falls flat in that in 1980 you could have had 30 or 40 relevant and memorable current acts perform to take his place. Fleetwood Mac, Boston, James Taylor, Stevie Wonder, The Rolling Stones and on and on and on. Today, the kids have something called Coldplay while the biggest tours today still consist of the Stones, AC/DC, Springsteen etc who, coincidentally had the biggest tours right around that 1980 super bowl date range...Bottom line is that there is no replacement for old good music with new good music for the most part...
 
tend not to agree on some level.....I love and appreciate Frank Sinatra music. yes I hated it as a kid but grew in that sense. Love Motown and rock in the 60's which was before my time. I can sing word for word most of those old tunes that came out before I was even born. I get what you are saying about the energy level and halftime shows, however, I think the music today, for the most part sucks. Not a generational thing, it just does. The largest and most profitable tours today are all old timers for the most part. 40 years ago that would never have been the case. Your Bing Crosby analogy kind of falls flat in that in 1980 you could have had 30 or 40 relevant and memorable current acts perform to take his place. Fleetwood Mac, Boston, James Taylor, Stevie Wonder, The Rolling Stones and on and on and on. Today, the kids have something called Coldplay while the biggest tours today still consist of the Stones, AC/DC, Springsteen etc who, coincidentally had the biggest tours right around that 1980 super bowl date range...Bottom line is that there is no replacement for old good music with new good music for the most part...

You think today's music sucks. That is a generational statement, not a widely accepted fact. And by what metric are you judging the biggest tours? By attendance? Because a two second google search and a visit to wikipedia tells me that One Direction, Taylor Swift, Bieber, and Katy Perry have had far more successful tours the last few years that the Stones or Springsteen.

You may want to discount the generational factor, but your post here comes off 100% as an out of touch old person.

And FWIW: I'm a fan of a lot of classic rock, a lot of longtime jazz artists, and other groups from the 60s-90s. But give me Kanye and Kendrick over the Stones and Boston please and thank you.
 
You think today's music sucks. That is a generational statement, not a widely accepted fact. And by what metric are you judging the biggest tours? By attendance? Because a two second google search and a visit to wikipedia tells me that One Direction, Taylor Swift, Bieber, and Katy Perry have had far more successful tours the last few years that the Stones or Springsteen.

You may want to discount the generational factor, but your post here comes off 100% as an out of touch old person.

And FWIW: I'm a fan of a lot of classic rock, a lot of longtime jazz artists, and other groups from the 60s-90s. But give me Kanye and Kendrick over the Stones and Boston please and thank you.
It definitely is a generation thing.. Tough to consider a lot of these successful pop artists as musicians though, they are more "entertainers." Lip synching on stage with dancers is entertainment, not exactly music.. I am too young to truly remember the classic bands in their prime but to old to want to listen to Katy Perry unless she is wearing nothing but a bra.. The traditional rock band is a dying notion though.
 
It definitely is a generation thing.. Tough to consider a lot of these successful pop artists as musicians though, they are more "entertainers." Lip synching on stage with dancers is entertainment, not exactly music.. I am too young to truly remember the classic bands in their prime but to old to want to listen to Katy Perry unless she is wearing nothing but a bra.. The traditional rock band is a dying notion though.

I 100% get the "musician" vs "entertainer" thing, and the fact that so many of these artists lip sync live definitely needs to be taken into consideration. I thought this way for a long time, but I think it's unfair to the musicians. Just because the nature of music and the production of music is different for Kanye than it is for Coldplay doesn't mean one or the other isn't a musician.

I commented to once that I found it hard to consider Skrillex or Diplo musicians because they played around on a keyboard and put together a bunch of samples. But I was (rightly) rebuked and reminded that music is always changing and it still takes talent and musical acumen to do what Jack U does.
 
tend not to agree on some level.....I love and appreciate Frank Sinatra music. yes I hated it as a kid but grew in that sense. Love Motown and rock in the 60's which was before my time. I can sing word for word most of those old tunes that came out before I was even born. I get what you are saying about the energy level and halftime shows, however, I think the music today, for the most part sucks. Not a generational thing, it just does. The largest and most profitable tours today are all old timers for the most part. 40 years ago that would never have been the case. Your Bing Crosby analogy kind of falls flat in that in 1980 you could have had 30 or 40 relevant and memorable current acts perform to take his place. Fleetwood Mac, Boston, James Taylor, Stevie Wonder, The Rolling Stones and on and on and on. Today, the kids have something called Coldplay while the biggest tours today still consist of the Stones, AC/DC, Springsteen etc who, coincidentally had the biggest tours right around that 1980 super bowl date range...Bottom line is that there is no replacement for old good music with new good music for the most part...

Yeah, I still strongly disagree.

It's not a quality thing, it's a population thing. Music, and indeed all art, is by its very nature subjective so to try and say this generation of music sucks and that generation of music is the tits is just really wobbly logic that makes no real sense.

The Baby Boomers have the most people so of course they are going to dominate the airwaves, television landscape, movie choices, etc. Why else do you think we're still seeing a bunch of movies made about Vietnam and other things that have no relevance to today's young people?

Why do you think WDVE is still Pittsburgh's top rated radio station? Is it because the music it plays is objectively better than the music everyone else plays or is it because it appeals to the region's largest demographic - white Baby Boomers?

As for the biggest tours, again that is nostalgia run amok. Are you really telling me that the 70 and 80 year old Rolling Stones are better artists than Coldplay in their primes? There's no chance that's true. Look, I prefer the Stones' music to Coldplay's too but Mick Jagger is an old man and people are listening to his/their music with very forgiving ears; much more forgiving ears than they are lending Coldplay or Beyonce or Bruno Mars.

This isn't about any particular acts. I don't care about any of the acts that performed last night. None of them are my bag. I'm just making the point that there are plenty of relevant current acts that would do just fine in the Super Bowl and relying on a bunch of has-beens to appeal to a dying generation is a very shortsighted strategy.
 
tend not to agree on some level.....I love and appreciate Frank Sinatra music. yes I hated it as a kid but grew in that sense. Love Motown and rock in the 60's which was before my time. I can sing word for word most of those old tunes that came out before I was even born. I get what you are saying about the energy level and halftime shows, however, I think the music today, for the most part sucks. Not a generational thing, it just does. The largest and most profitable tours today are all old timers for the most part. 40 years ago that would never have been the case. Your Bing Crosby analogy kind of falls flat in that in 1980 you could have had 30 or 40 relevant and memorable current acts perform to take his place. Fleetwood Mac, Boston, James Taylor, Stevie Wonder, The Rolling Stones and on and on and on. Today, the kids have something called Coldplay while the biggest tours today still consist of the Stones, AC/DC, Springsteen etc who, coincidentally had the biggest tours right around that 1980 super bowl date range...Bottom line is that there is no replacement for old good music with new good music for the most part...

One final thought on that. The music industry changed so much between the 60s and 70s to today that comparing quality based on popularity truly is apples to oranges. Nothing today will ever be as popular as what the most popular music was back in the day because it is sold and packaged completely differently in the first place.

There was no hip hop in 1968 and there was no rap either. There was no alternative music. Never mind the various subsets within those genres and the many other genres I haven't named. There was basically white music (rock and roll) and black music (Motown). That is how things were sold. Well, of course they are going to amass great numbers - that's how the system was designed to work in the first place. Today's system is completely different - also by design.

It's really like comparing television shows of today to television shows of the 60s and 70s. Those shows had WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY higher ratings than today's shows. However, as with music, it was more a byproduct of the industry than any sort of meaningful gauge of each's respective quality.

With all the cable channels now available, not to mention the emergence of the Internet and all that entails, a show like Breaking Bad is never going to draw the numbers that a show like Hawaii Five-O or even the Brady Bunch did back in the day. However, are you really telling me that those are better television shows because the ratings tell us they were better shows?

No chance. People complain about television today but the truth is between all these cable stations and premium stations and streaming services, etc., TV today is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than it has ever been it's not even close.

However, even today, FAR more people know who Marcia Brady is than who Walter White/Heisenberg is. However, that ultimately means nothing with regard to the relative quality of each program. It is the exact same with music, IMHO.
 
You think today's music sucks. That is a generational statement, not a widely accepted fact. And by what metric are you judging the biggest tours? By attendance? Because a two second google search and a visit to wikipedia tells me that One Direction, Taylor Swift, Bieber, and Katy Perry have had far more successful tours the last few years that the Stones or Springsteen.

You may want to discount the generational factor, but your post here comes off 100% as an out of touch old person.

And FWIW: I'm a fan of a lot of classic rock, a lot of longtime jazz artists, and other groups from the 60s-90s. But give me Kanye and Kendrick over the Stones and Boston please and thank you.

See, it's a generational thing. It has nothing to do with quality, only aged-based preferences. I will guarantee you that 30 years from now, Ski will be complaining about his kids' awful music and complain that it doesn't hold a candle to the artists of his day - legends like Kanye West and Kendrick Lamar, not punks like (fill in the blanks). That's just how the whole deal is designed to work. People have to eat, yo.
 
You think today's music sucks. That is a generational statement, not a widely accepted fact. And by what metric are you judging the biggest tours? By attendance? Because a two second google search and a visit to wikipedia tells me that One Direction, Taylor Swift, Bieber, and Katy Perry have had far more successful tours the last few years that the Stones or Springsteen.

You may want to discount the generational factor, but your post here comes off 100% as an out of touch old person.

And FWIW: I'm a fan of a lot of classic rock, a lot of longtime jazz artists, and other groups from the 60s-90s. But give me Kanye and Kendrick over the Stones and Boston please and thank you.
I did....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_concert_tours

Difference being no one will be going to (or even remembering) Taylor Swift, Bieber and One Direction Twenty years from now....

One Direction + Taylor Swift + Justin Timberlake almost gets you to U2 in attendance....
 
I did....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_concert_tours

Difference being no one will be going to (or even remembering) Taylor Swift, Bieber and One Direction Twenty years from now....

One Direction + Taylor Swift + Justin Timberlake almost gets you to U2 in attendance....

No one will remember these people based on what, exactly? Do you have any evidence beyond your old man opinion?

You know what group formed over 20 years ago in 1995? NSYNC. You know, with Justin Timberlake. I seem to recall him still being popular and making music...
 
I thought the Walken Kia commercial was decent, but that was it. Superbowl commercials being good jumped the shark long ago, probably at least 10-15 years ago.
 
Other people have touched on it, but it really is all about people actually watching it live and catching the commercials. Everyone that cares to watch the game is watching it live, unless they can't or are absolute shut-ins without any friends. That is pretty damn valuable.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT