Luxury brands Jaguar and Maserati both used commercials in Super Bowl 2014 to launch new cars. So how did they fare against each other?
Let me break down each commercial into what each brand did right and wrong. We’ll also look at the USA Today Ad Meter to see what Americans thought.
[divider]
Jaguar’s Rendezvous Super Bowl Commercial
This was the first time that Jaguar has run a Super Bowl ad and pulled together an expensive ad featuring British villains, a helicopter and of course, the Jaguar F-Type.
What Jaguar did right
First and foremost, the product was featured throughout the ad. Even if it wasn’t perfectly apparent until the end that it was a Jaguar ad, you were watching the F-Type throughout the commercial.
Second, the dialogue is obviously describing the car itself. The statements about precision, style, an eye for detail and a being obsessed by power all refer to the car. It was a clever way to be a product focused ad while not explicitly being a product focused ad.
What Jaguar did wrong
The one part that I’m left wondering about is who exactly are they targeting? Obviously wealthy people. But since they are talking about the car as the “new villain in town,” who is that? I’m guessing those that see themselves as rebels. Or possibly twenty-somethings who have rich parents. Either way, the target could be clearer.
Ad Meter Ranking
According to USA Today’s Ad Meter, this Jaguar’s Rendezvous ranked 24th among all the Super Bowl ads.
[divider]
Maserati’s Strike Super Bowl Commercial
What Maserati did right
Not much.
As Maserati is unknown by many Americans, this ad does create brand awareness. But if brand awareness is the purpose, then why advertise a specific car, the Ghibli? Why not teach consumers about the brand?
What Maserati did wrong
Lots.
The storyline, music, scripting and actress in the ad are all based off of the indie film Beasts of the Southern Wild, which is about the poorest of the poor. The village in the film is devastated by hurricane Katrina. And for some reason, Maserati thinks that devastation and poverty are the right way to represent a luxury brand.
Further, the imagery in the ad is generally of blue-collar laborers – the people who make the car. So when the ad talks about rising up, it’s apparently referring to rising over the lower class and crushing them. I don’t get it.
Last, the car is positioned as affordable luxury, again for these blue-collar laborers. How is $70,000 affordable? How does a fireman or fisherman afford a $70,000 car? In other words, all of the imagery in the ad did not target the consumer segment that can actual afford it.
I do recognize that luxury brands want lower to middle-income consumers to be aware of and aspire to have such luxury so that those that can actually afford feel privileged. But then why not show the brand before the last three seconds?
Ad Meter Ranking
According to USA Today’s Ad Meter, this Maserati’s Strike ranked 43rd among all the Super Bowl ads.
[divider]
So did Jaguar or Maserati use the Super Bowl more effectively?
Hopefully this post has illustrated why I think Jaguar ran the more effective ad. But just in case you are still on the fence, here’s a recap:
- Jaguar’s ad mixed product features within a creative storyline
- Jaguar leveraged recognizable actors who bring a certain type of brand equity with them
- Maserati is somehow equating poverty with affordable luxury (are you as insulted as I am?)
- Few people probably actually recognized that Maserati’s ad was based on a movie
- And Maserati waited too long to show the brand
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.