FAMILY PLANNING: HELPS CHILDREN SURVIVE AND THRIVE

By Anne Zeiser

President and CEO, Azure Media

For most of us, a new baby coming into the family is ample reason for joy and celebration. But imagine a world where a new pregnancy means a Sophie’s Choice dilemma, having to choose which beloved child to feed, clothe, or provide medicine to.  

For 220 million women worldwide – who want, but do not have access to contraception         – that’s their biggest fear. Another child can put them at a “life-or-death” tipping point in which one or more of their children will die from lack of nutrition or medicine. This is not hyperbole, but a daily fact of life for millions of people worldwide.

Some 7.6 million children under the age of five died needlessly in 2010 from malnutrition and other preventable afflictions such as malaria, polio and diarrhea, reports Cathy Calvin, CEO of the United Nations Foundation. Providing young children with simple, proven interventions – food, vitamins, vaccines, mosquito nets, oral rehydration therapy, and antibiotics – dramatically increases their chances of survival. And because these crucial commodities are limited in areas riddled by drought, poverty, sub-par medical treatment, or corrupt governments, the lack of access to family planning can be a death sentence for many children and their mothers. Under such meager conditions, the women and girls giving birth also face astoundingly high mortality rates.

Ensuring that there are enough resources for a given population, especially in the hardest hit areas of sub Saharan Africa and South Asia, means those children who live to the critical age of five have a greater chance of ongoing access to nutrition and health care, not to mention education and employment. Family planning means children can first survive, and then can thrive.

The old adage, “Mothers are like glue. Even when you can’t see them, they’re holding the family together” is apropos. It speaks to how universally women are the heart of family and community health, education, and often economics. Empowering women – in both the developing and developed world – with the opportunity to choose sustainability is morally right, as well as environmentally and economically sound. 

To give more women worldwide that opportunity, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government (UK Aid) are hosting “The London Summit on Family Planning” on July 11, 2012.  Building on the work of the “UN Foundation's Universal Access Project” and “United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),” the summit will assemble and secure commitments from governments, civil society, and the private-sector to give 120 million women in developing countries access to voluntary, lifesaving family planning information and services by 2020. Their case for family planning hits both economic and humanitarian notes:

“Contraceptives are one of the best investments a country can make in its future. Each U.S. dollar spent on family planning can save governments up to 6 dollars on health, housing, water, and other public services. And yet, more than 200 million women and girls in developing countries who want to delay, space or avoid becoming pregnant are not using effective methods of contraception, resulting in over 75 million unintended pregnancies every year. This puts women and girls at serious risk of death or disability during pregnancy and childbirth...If the need for family planning were met, maternal mortality could be reduced by one-third and infant mortality by up to 20 percent. Not only does family planning save lives, but it builds healthier families, strengthens communities and stimulates economic growth.”

To get involved, you can pledge your support for women’s opportunity:

“I believe that every girl and woman deserves

the opportunity to determine her own future.”

And, to participate in the summit, watch live or follow the Family Planning discussion on Twitter at #FPChat about the #FPSummit with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, DFID, Nike, USAID, White Ribbon Alliance, etc. on Wednesday, July 11, from 8:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET.

Anne Zeiser worked with The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on PBS’s groundbreaking 2005 global health and child survival transmedia and impact project, Rx for Survival: A Global Health Challenge, with partners NPR, Time, Penguin books, CARE, Save The Children, UNICEF, The Global Health Council, GAVI, American Academy of Pediatrics, Girls Scouts of America, Rotary International, and more. 

HOTDOGS VS. BURGERS: WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU

By Anne Zeiser

President and CEO, Azure Media

As I did the math on how many people were coming to our cookout this week, I realized there was a big question yet to be answered, “Hotdogs or hamburgers?” I still needed to know who was in which camp to figure out how much of each Fourth of July grilled staple to get.

Dogs vs. burgers is an age-old question, not to mention battleground. Hotdogs have a cult-like following and have spawned a variety of destinations and quasi-bizarre tributes. For example, there’s the institution of Nathan’s on Coney Island, gut-busting hotdog eating contests (dominated by the Japanese), ballpark faves (mine’s Fenway Franks), wiener-inspired vehicles, and even a PBS special, “A Hotdog Program.” (To stay family-friendly, I’ll avoid allusions to former Congressman Weiner).

Hamburgers may be less quirky, but have their own pervasive following. Like the hotdog, the burger has European roots, but has been commandeered and turned into a distinctly American art form. Hamburgers first appeared in writing in a 1926 Delmonico’s menu and since, we’ve consumed them by the billions – from Big Macs to BBQ sizzlers. And we’ve brought them with us – from a McDonald’s on Gitmo, a Burger King in Afghanistan (until a general pulled the plug on all fast food), and a faux In-N-Out in Shanghai.

Where did my friends and family land on this important hotdogs vs. burgers question? I tried to guess, based on info I had about them already on equally polarizing conundrums. For example, my sister-in-law is squarely in the beaches court of the beaches vs. mountains matter. And, my neighbor is adamant about the superiority of dogs on the cats vs. dogs conflict. Seems there are a number more of these “either-or” gems to consider.

This lowbrow culinary question set off the social scientist in me. I pondered whether these preferences might bundle together into demographic (age, gender, etc.) or psychographic (personality or attitude) profiles. Do people who covet hotdogs keep it all in the genus family and prefer canines to felines? Do hamburger lovers vote with red or blue states?  What form of horsepower do they drive?

So, I decided to do a totally unscientific experiment that could only be possible in this social media era of immediate gratification. I built a Dogs vs. Burgers Survey Monkey poll and put it on Facebook, asking people the eight most pressing, personality-revealing questions of all time.  (Conducted over 18 hours; 44 responses as of this writing; 40.9% men, 59.1% women; 40.9% under 35 years old, 59.1% over 35. No third options accepted. The poll is still open, so click here to take it)

Here's what I learned. See where you stack up against these results:

1) Hotdogs vs. hamburgers
67.4% - Hamburgers
32.6% - Hotdogs

2) Cats vs. dogs
72.7% - Dogs
27.3% - Cats

3) Under vs. over (toilet paper roll)
75.0% - Over
25.0% - Under

4) Beach vs. mountains
65.9% - Beach
34.1% - Mountains

5) Ketchup vs. mustard
59.1% - Ketchup
40.9% - Mustard

6) Sports car vs. pickup
81.4% - Sports car
18.6% - Pickup

7) Paper vs. plastic
77.3% - Paper
22.7% - Plastic

8) Conservative vs. liberal
88.4% - Liberal
11.6% - Conservative

As a collective, these results said something about my friends and family. I’m surrounded by liberal women who wish they drove sports cars. Sounds about right to me. But the survey also revealed how predilections cleaved around gender and age. For example, men uniformly liked dogs over cats, but women were pretty split on the issue. The under 35 set preferred the beach over mountains (probably because they still have hot bods to flaunt). And both under 35-ers and women were more likely to choose paper over plastic.

What's more fascinating is how some of these preferences traveled together like traits on a gene. So I looked at them as bundled characteristics (what research geeks call cross-tabbing). For example, the men who chose mustard also chose paper at the grocery store, yet being liberal appeared to have less bearing on choosing paper than condiment choice. (Perhaps the environmental movement should enlist French’s or Grey Poupon in their efforts?)  

Most who put the toilet paper “under,” also preferred dogs (pets) and the mountains. Pickup lovers also preferred the mountains. Virtually all conservatives were hamburger lovers and the under 35-ers were three times more likely to choose hamburgers than hotdogs. Mustard eaters were more likely to be in the hotdog camp and the under 35 hotdog lovers were more likely to put their toilet paper “under.” The conservative profile is a burger – with mustard – eater who drives their sports car to the mountains!! (There’s a “SNL” skit in that visual).

Statistically, none of this holds water, but that won’t stop me (and you, if you choose) from drawing inappropriate conclusions about people you know from these tidbits of information.

Today, I plan to watch like a hawk as my guests choose their July 4th protein and condiments, revealing their political proclivities and the “truth” about their environmental consciousness. All the while avoiding heated debates about health care policy, climate change, or whether cats really hold grudges. I’m salivating at this voyeuristic opportunity – set in the microcosm of my own backyard – almost as much as I am for my burger on a bun, or will it be hotdog? And, to make my guests feel more at home, I’ll switch the toilet paper to “over” for the day (to my husband’s delight), because I’m one of those despised “under” minorities.

As we celebrate the birth of our fine country this Fourth of July I wonder, “What is it that makes us truly American?”  Is it Mom’s apple pie or America’s pastime?  I think it’s that in this country you can fully feel and vociferously express your opinion about these (and much more) pressing questions, and it’s A-OK.

NORA EPHRON: EVERY WOMAN'S WOMAN

By Anne Zeiser, President and CEO,
Azure Media

As I happened upon "You've Got Mail" on Bravo this weekend, I had no clue that in a few day’s time Nora Ephron would be gone, launching a tidal wave of sadness over millions of women worldwide. 


With my son planted on a video game, hubby puttering outside, and (male) pup curled at my feet, I reveled in the anticipation of snagging a few hours of girl time. Only Meg Ryan’s high-wasted pants revealed the late 90’s setting of this timeless romantic tale. While Ryan’s character, Kathleen Kelly fought unfailingly for the values imbued by her corner bookstore, it was the promise of love – in an unexpected package – that allowed her to explore the boundaries of ambiguity and compromise. Nestled on the couch, I realized I had come of age with Ephron’s female characters – with their rambling vulnerability, cut with flashes of spunky sarcasm. And, through them, Ephron had become an unwitting role model to millions of women.

Ephron knew better than most about the always-shocking chasm between what you expect and what you get. She witnessed it in her failed marriage, in the fits and starts of her early writing career, and in the sag of her neck. So, no surprise that my two-hour movie oasis was riddled with a son lamenting a mouse that didn’t sync with the computer, a husband who was parched by lawn work, and a dog that needed to pee. It’s just these little injustices of life that Ephron took on. Her weapons: the twin arrows of irony and celebration, which protected and guided her characters, and which showed the rest of us how to be whole, balanced women.

Ephron got women right over and over again – from Annie in “Sleepless In Seattle” and her loosely veiled self in “Heartburn,” to both J’s in “Julie & Julia.” But not just because she was a woman.  Plenty of women don't find that balance in the characters they write or in the lives they live. She got it right because she was brutally honest, yet eternally optimistic. And, because she used the metaphor of romance – the Holy Grail of archetypical storytelling – as her iterative teaching tool about life writ large.

So, when I got the New York Times alert on my iPhone last night about Ephron’s death I felt the immediate need to send the story to my best friend, Martie, a screenwriter and co-admirer of the sisters Ephron. Over the 4G network we mourned the font of creativity and wit that Ephron was. And, more deeply, we mourned Nora Ephron the role model. Not an angular feminist role model, but one smoothed by the tides of time and life experience.

Like Ephron, I’m product of a women’s – some might say feminist – education (Smith college and Dana Hall), believing I could do whatever I set my mind to. Early on, I understood the power of female friends and of bouncing my sonar off of other trusted women. Clearly, Ephron understood that too. 


No doubt she was a true and entertaining friend to some lucky women who shared her authentic female voice and healthy dose of self-mockery.  After meeting on “Silkwood,” Ephron and Meryl Steep continued to work together over the years.  Ephron was one of Arianna Huffington’s first bloggers on the Huffington Post and one of its greatest champions. I don’t know if Ephron ever met Julia Child, but her writing and directing “Julie & Julia” makes perfect sense. Julia was another accidental role model whose self-directed digs and reassurances about mistakes made, brought us joy – through the language of food.

Despite my female network, I began adulthood strident and absolute. Part of that sharpness was my not understanding the role of men in my journey. I found them alluring enough, yet saw them as obstacles and potential threats. Sometimes they were. Like when the star senior producer in our TV newsroom implied I’d get the promotion if I played nice with him or when a co-creative head presented my ideas as his. 


Still, Ephron showed me that there were great men to be found who were secure enough to support and encourage smart, funny women, just as Sally found her Harry in “When Harry Met Sally” and Nora found her Nicholas (Pileggi) (and colleagues like Rob Reiner). Along with demonstrating the strength of women and the paradoxes of life, she taught us about the sweetness of romantic love and vulnerability.  She let me bring men fully into my life, despite my rigid notions they’d hold me back. (It hasn’t escaped me that I now live in a household of four in which I’m the only female).

So the addendum to my truth became, “behind every good woman is another good women – and sometimes, a good man.”

I continue to struggle with the ambivalence of balancing a rich career – in TV journalism, documentary films, social change and marketing – with the many facets of my personal life – being a friend, sibling, wife, mother, cancer survivor, etc. (So has Anne-Marie Slaughter, revealed in The Atlantic’s “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” but that’s for another blog) 


This week, Ephron’s wisdom and death have provided even more perspective on that ongoing struggle. She’s telling me that the strongest woman isn't the most ambitious or unswerving, but rather the most creative and most willing to recalibrate her truths as life changes. She’s the woman who perseveres against all odds, who shares what she has with others, and is willing to laugh at herself and life along the way.  

She’s any of us, she’s all of us, she’s every woman’s woman.

In the end, I think Nora would want us to celebrate life – ours and hers. She summed it up in her 1996 Wellesley College commencement speech, “Above all, be the heroine of your life, not the victim.”

As we raise a glass of French wine to fete our heroine Nora Ephron, I’ll add in a thanks. Thank you for allowing me to “have what she’s having.”

SEATTLE TIMES ASKS, "DOES GATES FUNDING OF MEDIA TAINT OBJECTIVITY?"

PBS's Rx for Survival - A Global Health Challenge

By Anne Zeiser

The Seattle Times recently questioned whether the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's media partnerships taint their objectivity. The Foundation's global health partnerships with ABC, PBS, NYT, The Guardian, HuffPost are neither unethical, nor novel. They are about public education on an underacknowledged issue that affects us all -- global health.

Gates' first major global health media partnership, which set the stage for these future forays, was with PBS in 2005 on a multi-platform, multi-year global health project and impact campaign, Rx for Survival - A Global Health Challenge. PBS created a global health transmedia blitz with cross-platform editorial partnerships: an Emmy award-winning PBS documentary narrated by Brad Pitt; a special global health issue of Time magazine, an international Time Global Health Summit with world leaders, content in Time for Kids; 13 global health installments on NPR programs such as "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered"; and a companion book by Penguin Press, penned by Phil Hilts. 

And to translate audiences' awareness and understanding from the high-profile media elements into engagement and action, the project's social impact campaign, Rx for Child Survival had engagement initiatives for both the public (families, communities, students) and influencers (educators, press, public officials).  It forged impact partnerships with CARE, Save the Children, UNICEF, Rotary, Girl Scouts, the American Academy of Pediatrics, John's Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Global Health Council,  GAVI, and PBS's 350 local stations. The vast array of audience participation -- from a new Girl Scouts global health patch and faith-based month of prayer to a new undergraduate course in global health and a newsroom guide for reporting on global health --  raised institutional, community, and individual awareness; spawned dialogue and engagement; and gathered resources and support for global health and child survival.

Given the Seattle Times concern about Gates' coziness with media outlets, highlighting some of the comprehensive developmental research from Rx for Survival is worthwhile. A survey of media outlets across the country showed journalists were neither equipped -- because of the complexity of the subject, nor assigned global health stories by their editor bosses -- due to the perception that global health was not relevant to domestic audiences. Global health fell through the cracks of health care (Medicare and domestic issues) and foreign beats. There was only one global health reporter at any newspaper in the U.S., covered by John Donnelly at the Boston Globe. (That beat has since been eliminated). 

So Rx for Survival and the Gates Foundation understood that one of the myriad goals of this huge project was educating journalists on how to cover the complicated subject of global health and show its relevance to U.S. audiences. Tools included a Newsroom Guide (reprinted due to huge journalist demand) that helped them interpret WHO and other statistics, editorial board meetings with top media outlets on how global health affects Americans, and a National Press Foundation journalists' educational event, filmed and posted online by Kaiser as an ongoing resource for all journalists. (In addition, the project developed tools and curricula for educators and events on the Hill with Congress and the Global Health Caucus).

Shortly after Rx for Survival's launch, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono were named Time's people of the year, putting global health and poverty on the forefront of American's consciousness. Since then, some major global health victories have occurred due to heightened awareness of global health: 2008 saw tripled U.S. funding for AIDS, malaria and TB and the first year worldwide child deaths dipped below 10,000. With Rx for Survival, the Gates Foundation recognized the critical role of media in creating awareness and understanding -- the precursor to true engagement and action -- around an important issue. Their ongoing work in-country and with the media will only further those advances. 

(I managed the transmedia blitz and social impact campaign for Rx for Survival and many other similar projects for PBS/WGBH in my decade there. As founder of Azure Media, I develop high-profile transmedia projects that fuel social impact.) 

WARNER BROS.' EMMY WASTE

Warner Bros.' Waste Sprawled Across My Kitchen Floor

I usually use my social media platforms to tout good things, but I've got to call out this environmental and economic abomination: as a voting member of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences I get "For Your Consideration" DVDs to enable me to vote for the TV shows that I think deserve Emmys.  The packages vary in complexity and production values, but all are about housing and wrapping the DVDs - albeit with some convincing info. This yearly ritual is part of the inner workings of Hollywood.


In today's mail, I got a big box (with another box inside that one) from Warner Bros. with seven - one for each show - four-foot-tall posters, each with complicated DVD pockets and all bound together into a big unfolding calendar. Opened up, it was 7+ feet long. This was the most unwieldy, unusable and biggest waste of money, paper, postage, gas (transport), time and mindshare in recent Academy history. 


Which execs approved this during a widespread recession and in an era of taking responsibility for our environmental footprint? Big Bang, Harry's Law, The Mentalist, et al got noticed all right, but not how Warner Bros. wanted.  


If Hollywood's got that much money to burn, just send the DVDs and donate all the rest to Feeding America: Hunger-Relief Charity | FeedingAmerica.org or some other deserving cause. 

THE SUPER SOUL(-less) of ADVERTISING

Welcome to Super Bowl XLIV on CBS.

What makes this a destination TV event, besides the pigskin thing? It's that the marketing community has successfully created the aura of a cultural phenomenon – between downs – with the viewer enjoying front-row seats to what’s hip and different in advertising. I might grant you the hip, but rarely the different.

Most aspects of the entire event don't change much. A 30-second spot reaching some 100 million, mostly male, viewers costs 2.5 to 3 million dollars, about a half a million dollars down from last year’s prices. Being there still signals a brand's vibrancy...at least for now. This ritual of bated anticipation of funny, cool ads is simply viral marketing with the highest possible cost per thousand barrier to entry. While last night’s hopped- and nachoed-up viewers sought entertaining ads, instead they got a lot of uninspired, formulaic advertising, with but a few exceptions.

Generally, there are patterns in Super Bowl ads and I've clustered them in eight categories: Men Are From Mars, Men Are From Venus, Vroom Vroom, Dogs and Babies, Come on Get Happy, The Gadget, Get the Hell Out of My Biker Bar, and My Turn. Here are some examples from last night’s Big Game:

MEN ARE FROM MARS (THE 15-YEAR-OLD’S VERSION OF THE RED PLANET) – this plays out either as sex sells (the objectification of women) or boys doing dumb things.

· GoDaddy does it with a contrived twist, submitting a homophobic spot to CBS, knowing its rejection would build buzz and drive traffic to the spot’s online presence and awareness of different spots on the broadcast. The rejected spot was a former football player who turns into a flaming entrepreneur using GoDaddy. Instead we get a spate of sexy and mindless spots like a couple of guys logging on to GoDaddy (on a web TV set up) to test some domain names to be greeted by a super hot clip from Danica Patrick, and, they get a different clip for each domain name they enter. Talk about immediate gratification. Other spots had lots of sexy, but boring women talking about how hot that other spot was and how you can see it online. It will probably work, but I don’t have to like it.

· Bridgestone Tires was pretty noticeable, sponsoring the half-time show (more on that later). In the first spot a car-full-o-guys with a whale in the hatchback race to deliver it to the water. At the end of a pier, the young guy driver pulls a half-donut maneuver that launches the whale safely into his natural habitat. Speaks to the product’s benefits, yes, but a little too much of “guys doing stupid things.” In another spot, a male driver would rather give up his wife rather than his tires (misogyny rules).

· Doritos crash casket was one of these. A supposedly dead guy is in his casket full of Doritos during his funeral. He’s munching away watching the game on a small monitor inside of the casket. He bursts out of the casket in exuberance and his buddy saves him by going to the front of the church and singing a redemptive tune as if a miracle of rebirth just occurred. Huh?

· There are other examples from Game XLIV, but they’re so boring and soulless, they’re not worth dignifying.

MEN ARE FROM VENUS, WOMEN ARE FROM MARS – Shakespeare did this best in “Macbeth” and “Taming of the Shrew.” But in this year’s myriad iterations, the men are completely emasculated, whipped by the women in their lives. Must be some kind of commentary on the current state of American men.

· Dockers’ first Super Bowl entry shows men in their skivvy’s traipsing around in fields ready to transform into enlightened men wearing pants…big surprise, Dockers. (N. B. CareerBuilders.com first spot directly followed this Dove spot showing people in their underwear in the workplace redefining casual Fridays, completely killing the surprise factor. Shame on CBS for not orchestrating the flow better.)

· Dove realigns its focus from women to men, also giving us a male coming-of-age story. This time showing a man fully evolved into using grooming products.

· Snickers, which is my favorite in this category, simply puts the cutest woman on television, Betty White, at the Kennedy compound playing football with the guys. Once she gets her candy fix, she transforms into the male fighting machine she can be. Three things make this work: Betty, her impossibly perfect baby blue and white sweater, and the slo-mo camera footage that gives us more time to look at the first two reasons, Betty and her sweater.

· FloTV, a new entry (which I’d never heard of and is also in the Gadgets category) has an ad with a guy shopping reluctantly, but obediently with his gal. He yearningly sees bits and pieces of The Game as he moves around the mall. FloTV shows us how mobile TV can help you bring the game with you.

· Bud Light's entry features a guy leaving the house while his lady is just starting her book club (probably ready to discuss a Jane Austen novel). When he sees they’re serving Bud Light, he’s instantly “in,” discussing the virtues of romantic love or some such thing. Would have been funnier two years ago when “Jane Austen Book Club” was in the theaters.

· Dodge Charger’s repressed guy can’t make any of his own decisions about what he wants to do in life. “She who must be obeyed” is always off screen, but omniscient. She owns his every decision except….what car he drives. The Charger is “Man’s Last Stand.”

VROOM VROOM – horsepower equals virility.

Of this year’s auto brands in the Super Bowl, most are foreign. That may speak to Americans’ decreased trust in Detroit (even though foreign and American are all the same car companies these days). As expected, lots of spots this year.

· Hyundai owned this category in terms of coverage. It sponsored the half-hour “Hyundai Kickoff Show” and had a strong presence throughout the game. The auto maker tried to establish its gravitas by touting stability control features, the love and care of the making in an Alabama plant, and dependability in a spot looking 10 years hence, juxtaposing Brett Favre 2010 as Super Bowl winner with the reassurance of the brand’s known reliability. My favorite was the simple Sonata spot using a play on words on classical musicians’ sonatas, while showing a Sonata being artfully dipped in a vat of paint, finally resolving to a card about its better paint quality than Mercedes’. Surprising theme, except that I recently learned that paint color is one of the top three criteria (features) for people making car decisions.

· VW also tapped the paint color theme and married it with childhood car games in “PunchDub.” It showed people of all types and ages in various situations, hitting their companion and saying “yellow one” when they saw a VW. The last example in the string was Stevie Wonder saying, “red one” and an incredulous Tracy Morgan asking how he did that. This spot used a unifying cultural meme to show its 13 models, not to mention their paint colors. A sweet, thoughtful ad.

· Others deserving special merit were Audi’s spoof on the pressure of living a green life monitored by the “Green Police” and Kia Sorento’s sock monkey and other toys coming to life. The forgettable car ads were Ford Fusion, Mitsubishi Lancer, Acura, Lexus RX, Honda Accord, and mostly Toyota, given all they have going on, they ran old unmemorable old ones. Did they pull some newer or better ones that would make them stand out?

DOGS AND BABIES ALWAYS SELL – A nod to the chicks (literally and figuratively) and the softer side of men.

· Budweiser’s Clydesdales are back and well they should be. Their fuzzy white fetlocks are enough to make you swoon. This year’s episode of the massive equines begins with a foal and a young calf running together along a fence. Three years later, the two big, male beasts (lots of horsepower here) are reunited. The spot resolves to the tagline, "Nothing comes between friends, especially fences." Kind of schmaltzy, but I love horses, so it wins.

· Denny’s was another big one in this area, with a string of spots that worked best if you saw the first one. A voiceover announces to a gaggle (?) of chickens that the Grand Slam Breakfast is coming soon, intimating that egg production must go up. The chickens usher out a primordial scream, which inevitably makes the corners of your mouth turn up. The subsequent spots throughout the game continue the spoof, showing chickens from all walks of life, even male ones with ties (don’t they know only the girl ones lay the eggs?) hearing about the egg-laden Denny special and joining the screaming chorus. I liked them. Funny and memorable.

· Doritos had an ad with a man on a bench taunting a dog with an anti-bark collar to “speak” if he wanted a Dorito. The dog then turns the table on the guy, putting the collar on the human and victoriously grabbing the bag of Doritos. My 5-year-old loved this one.

· E*Trade had several ads with babies talking to us from high chairs and from an airplane about…different stuff. I think it was meant to make the analogy between keeping your dating options open and having a diversified portfolio? The kids were adorable and I watched every moment to see if their body language tracked with the moving mouths. But I got nothing from the ads about the product or a call to action (to go to the site). An example of where the trickery gets in the way of the brand and its message.

· Diamond Foods switched out the concept and had a bunch of humans acting like trained dolphins in a water show, jumping for the reward of Emerald Nuts and Pop-Secret popcorn. Call this one "Stupid Human Tricks."

COME ON GET HAPPY – Food, drink and the Super Bowl equals love.

· Doritos “House Rules” example has the cutest little boy ever eating Doritos as a man arrives to take his mom on a date. As she goes to the next room to finish getting ready the boy delivers the house rules to the suitor, “Keep your hands off my Mamma; keep your hands off my Doritos.”

· Coke’s arrival is actually noteworthy in the context of the cola wars. This is the first time the Atlanta-based purveyor of sugared water has advertised in the Super Bowl without rival Pepsi being present. Pepsi owned the category for most of its 23 years, only going head-to-head with Coca-Cola for the past few. As for Coke’s three spots, the most memorable was the Homer Simpson spot featuring a billionaire who lost it all and gets down to the real world level at a park, is offered a Coke by a regular “Joe” and by association, happiness – all in the joyful town of Springfield.

· Snicker’s Betty White ad could be here also.

· Budweiser had a number of entries in this arena. The first was the house made of beer cans (which was close to belonging in the Men are From Mars category). The best one was the human bridge made by residents of a town whose only egress is that bridge. They come together, lay themselves upon each other to get the Budweiser truck across the broken bridge into town. There was a spoof on “Lost,” an invasion of asteroids that can't stop the party, a direct lift from the “Whassup” spots from years ago, and a spot for Select 55 looked like an afterthought. Overall, Budweiser’s Super Bowl presence was uneven in quality. And, the message was all over the place.

THE GADGET – what’s the coolest technology I absolutely need to know about?

· Google wins this one hands down. It’s a beautiful little narrative love story set to music, beginning with a man entering “study abroad” into the search window, thereafter entering various searches that speak to the evolution of his relationship with a Parisian woman, and ending with “how to assemble a crib.” This ad owned me every single second, made me smile, and reminded me of how great Goggle is.

· FloTV gets a nod for a grown up spot called “My Generation” showing the influence of TV on our lives. It’s selling the medium first and the device second. (The other spot in Men Are From Venus sells the device.) This ad is a bit reminiscent of last year’s Pepsi spot, “Forever Young,” which I simply adored.

· Motorola's ad for a handheld device plays on America’s celebrity obsession and teases the viewer with the possibility of Megan Fox taking a photo of herself in a bathtub and sending it out into the net. The spot shows the wacky possibilities if she did, but doesn’t get too raunchy.

· Cars.com was almost in Vroom Vroom, but on second thought, it was really about the gadgetry of the site. This was a solid spot about the guy who over-excelled at everything from childhood into adulthood. But when it came to buying a car he as out of smarts. So he goes to Cars.com and is replete with knowledge and confidence.

· Intel’s was a cute spot about tech geeks at lunch in a cafeteria talking about how brilliant of an innovation Intel was in front of a little robot invention of theirs whose feelings are immediately hurt. Hard product to sell; cute way to “humanize” it.

GET THE HELL OUT OF MY BIKER BAR – this is the spot (or interview) that simply doesn’t belong.

· Focus on the Family’s pro-life PSA is a clever play on an old theme of putting people where they don’t belong…like Betty White in the middle of a scrimmage. But this one is a non sequitur simply by its presence more than by its creative content. The spot uses Heisman Trophy Tim Tebow’s mom to imply what would not have happened if she’d had an abortion. And it has a bit of humor with him tackling her at the end. It’s a pretty good spot. But the real problem is not the spot itself, but that CBS rejected the “Man Crush” spot for a gay dating service, yet not this one. In the past they’ve rejected ads from Moveon.org and United Church of Christ based on political and advocacy reasons. They have that right to reject spots, but should apply those standards fairly. They should either take them all, first-come first serve OR have fully transparent criteria for what passes muster.

· Katie Couric’s interview with President Obama during the pre show. Huh? What was that doing there? I guess CBS's news guys wanted a piece of the action. Lots of eyeballs on it for sure, but it was just wrong. Like the guy from AT & T’s coverage ads says when his headless image walks around hitting walls. Again, CBS having trouble with flow and contextualization.

MY TURN – the entertainment industry’s chance to sell themselves.

· The best here was the unexpected pairing of Letterman and Leno (who was appropriately self deprecating), along with Oprah playing referee while they watched the Super Bowl. It sold “Late Show With David Letterman” and was a huge endorsement for Leno. This looked like a slight of hand, but was the real deal. It caught my attention.

· Then there were CBS’s ubiquitous ads for CSI, NCIS Survivor and the CBS News franchise. They were business as usual, but I was struck by how much better CBS is doing with hit shows these days. Remember when NBC ruled the networks?

· Katie Couric’s interview with President Obama during the pre show (see above). Still wrong.

· The Bridgestone Half-time Show was a complete debacle. I’m not sure whether Bridgestone owns this or CBS, but I’m going to put it at CBS’s doorstep. The Who? Who picked The Who? This was the most uncool, grueling performance I’ve ever seen at a Super Bowl half-time. The 12 minute medley was like living their 40 drug-hazed years minute by minute. Why not play three iconic songs that suit their aging voices? And then there was the light show, meant to divert our attention from the awful performance. The one moment that showed a hint of talent was the harmonica ditty. There’s simply no comparison to last year’s Springsteen presentation.

· The feature film ads all looked the same to me – all dungeons and dragons. These movies are perfect for the 15-year-old Men Are From Mars viewers. Not one I’d go to, except “Alice in Wonderland,” but then they don’t expect me to come. Then there was the Scorsese film, “Shutter Island.” Looks like signature Scorsese. I’ll see it on DVD.

Fun as it was to watch all of this, what was truly noteworthy is how slowly the old advertising stalwart — the 30-second spot – has entered the 21^st century. The advertising industry has been notoriously slow in understanding the value of multi-platform media exposure and building participatory audiences.

This year finally, some 90% of Super Bowl advertisers are playing these spots before and after the SuperBowl and on another platform. Online, these spots garner some 100 million+ hits in the days after the Super Bowl. A few of these pre-game campaigns co-opt the “wisdom of the crowd” approach and encourage the audience to vote on what spots see the light of day (or night) during the Super Bowl. Last year’s game changer in this arena was the Doritos spot, created by two brothers from Batesville, Indiana, who won an online contest before the game. This year, Careerbuilder and Budweiser, among others, prompted viewers to go online during the game to vote on their favorite ads.

But there are significantly more opportunities for cross-channel or transmedia promotion than advertisers harness, not only online, but also to mobile devices. (What I call on air, online and on-the-go campaigns). Motorola Droid should have blown this one out of the bath water. They didn't. Neither did the movie spots. What about all of those beautiful online movie preview sites; they make those for what reason? From what I can tell, the best cross-channel integration and promotion was done by Google, E* Trade and Boost Mobile via it's "Shuffle" campaign.

It will be interesting to see what kind of audience engagement and interaction (logging online and to mobile devices, Tweeting, participating in chats and blogs etc.), burnishing of brand image, and ultimately purchasing the product or service these ads prompt. That’s the real measure of their success. Then you can truly determine the ROI of these multi-million dollar expenditures. Too often the ad agencies that create them care mostly about audience response to and awards for the creative itself.

In sum, in that arena there wasn’t too much breakthrough creativity in this year’s Super Bowl ads. Luckily, the parts of the TV event in between the commercials with the pigskin and endzone was pretty gripping.

N.B. What if an advertiser skipped an ad’s Super Bowl on-air broadcast debut entirely (saving a lot of money), but developed a major ad campaign launch online and on-the-go (mobile device) around Super Bowl time, leveraging the fervor of audience interest in new spots, and then broadcast the spots after the Big Game when the prices go down?