Twenty-five years ago, technological startups made a fortune on the worst advertisements of the History Super Bowl
You had to see it to believe it, and 84 million people did it.
There, in the middle of the Super Bowl 34 by the new millennium – and in the company of the biggest advertisers in the world – was a place that proclaimed: “It is the worst advertisement of the Super Bowl.”
Few could discuss. Located at baguettes (played with errors), the 30 -second announcement for a startup called LifeMinders.com was little more than an advertisement handle on a yellow screen.
“We are information experts,” said the information -based information service. “But we don’t know that we have advertised.”
LifeMinders’ place It would be a star if it was not the fact that there were about twenty others who were also prosaic, vaporous and clichés in what has become from the Super Bowl Dot-Com.
Ugly advertisements are broadcast in the game of each year, of course, but it is difficult to imagine companies that are burning so flagrant advertising dollars today. That same year, E * trade (one of the rare dot-traders to survive and prosper) ended up Dancing chimpanzee announcement With the botter: “Well, we just wasted $ 2 million.”
According to an estimate, technological startups burned a total of $ 44 million for the time they bought. Has that helped them? Uh, no. In a few years, almost all startups have been devoured by large companies or simply bankrupt.
The technological marks that bet the farm – then lose it – understood:
• Netpliance.com. A television spot featuring a group of geeks with recorded glasses was supposed to sell this device easy to use for beginners on the Internet, but after an inverse stock division from 1 to 15 and a unsuccessful attempt to modify its commercial model, it disappeared in 2002.
• Computer.com. He explained IT to non -ordinary people with advertising with the ostensible family members of the founders. Office Depot ate it before the end of the year.
• Epidemic.com. In one way or another, a place with a toilet attendant The tilting of men was supposed to sell this idea of ​​the Kickback type. This is not the case.
• E-stamp.com. “Buy and print shipping costs when you wish!” a promised the announcement. Viewers did not share the fantasy, and Stamps.com picked it up in 2001.
• Pet. It is place Presented a sock of sock singing the chicago sweet rock ballad in 1976 “Baby, please don’t go”. It was not enough to resolve the competition and pets had disappeared by the end of the year.
What – if something – do these marketing crackups teach us now? In fact, in fact.
“The Super Bowl Dot-Com is an edifying story on the dangers of the prioritization of visibility on sustainable commercial strategy,” said media manager Michelle-Marie Heinemann, founder and publisher of Mom Old Fashioned magazine.
“These startups assumed that a massive exhibition would result in lasting success,” she continued, “but their failure underlines that marketing – regardless of the way in which the large -scale substitute – can replace a Solid value proposal, a viable business model or understanding your customer. “
Point points have also learned that arrogance can be even more expensive than 30 seconds in the big game.
“The era of the dot-com was full of confidence and about media,” said Scott Hamm Duenas, filmmaker and veteran of the entertainment industry. “Who translated by [startups] Throw caution in the wind and breathe large dollars on the advertisements of the Super Bowl without any experience in the promotional or television world. »»
An audience as large as the Super Bowl remains an incentive to date. But, added Duenas, the size is not all that matters.
“These companies worked by assuming that visibility was the key to success and that the Super Bowl with its massive audience was the perfect platform for hitting it large,” he said. “Unfortunately, terrible advertisements combined with massive excessive expenses were a disaster recipe.”
