Public’s favourite Super Bowl ad is mini Darth Vader
The most popular offering in yesterday’s Super Bowl advertising fest was VW’s mini Darth Vader spot, testing by Roy Morgan Research suggests.
The research company tested a sample of more than 200 consumers across the US shortly after yesterday’s Super Bowl.
While the Darth Vader ad – which has already had more than 17m views on YouTube – generated the most positive response, viewers reacted negatively to the dark humour of a “test baby” being fired against a wall for the travel brand HomeAway.com. And they were similarly unimpressed with the consumer-created Doritos ad featuring a man sucking another man’s fingers.
Michele Levine, CEO of Roy Morgan International, said: “The result for the Doritos ‘Best Part’ and HomeAway.com ‘De Tourism’ is not surprising given their dark and unusual humour. This, coupled with the drop from females when a negative comment is made in Cars.com, is consistent with other Reactor tests which show that viewers react more positively to positive themes.”
The Reactor can be viewed here.
Roy Morgan Research is also looking to chart the reactions of the Australian media and marketing industry to the ads. Click here to take part
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
Bet it’s a damn sight more than $20k when it launches here even with dollar parity…
User ID not verified.
Isn’t it interesting that ‘Little Darth Vadar’ was ‘small’ in the sense that there were no helicopters or flashy CGI or expensive talent … just a nice little bit of humanity.
I hope VW sell lots of whatever the car was.
User ID not verified.
Cheeeeese
User ID not verified.
1] It’s not the public’s favourite SuperBowl ad, it’s the ad Roy Morgan says is the the public’s favourite. There is a difference.
2] The slide bar is no different to the dial/worm etc. It’s nothing new and no more sophisticated than what Advertising Diagnostics were doing twenty years ago.
3] The Reactor’s ‘results’ have no basis in fact. They would not pass any legitimate scientific review. They wouldn’t even be invited to present to a legitimate scientific peer group review.
4] It’s just another flawed market research technique masquerading as science when in truth its no more scientific than an old fashioned group dicussion.
User ID not verified.