Why Budweiser's Old Ad Chief Is Wrong to Rip Anheuser's New Sept. 11 Spot
Mike Sheehan, CEO of ad agency Hill Holliday, is flat wrong to criticize Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD)'s decision to ever-so-slightly tweak his Sept. 11 tribute ad that ran in the Super Bowl 10 years ago and rerun it this year for the anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center.
As Sheehan admits in a petulant blog post about the new/old ad -- which shows the Budweiser Clydesdales bowing their heads at the gap in the New York skyline where the Twin Towers once stood -- he doesn't own the spot and doesn't know anything about the beer business.
Here's the original ad, by Sheehan's agency:
And here's the new one, in which A-B has digitally removed the snow and inserted an image of the half-built Freedom Tower than now rises from Ground Zero:
The average consumer would be hard-pressed to spot the difference. (Even if you remembered the original Super Bowl ad would you have remembered that it was snowing?) But the memory of his 9/11 ad, including its snow, should have remained undisturbed, Sheehan says:
... it still is often cited as one of the best Super Bowl spots of all time. Maybe it deserves that citation, maybe not."All time"? Really? Many New Yorkers, for whom the ad was made, might not have reached that conclusion due to the way the horses zig-zag improbably from Vermont to Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge and then -- after hopping on a PATH subway train, presumably -- arrive in Jersey City, N.J., to pay their respects. Hill Holliday is based in Boston.
As for the snow -- the original ad ran in winter; New York is currently enjoying sun-soaked, 80 degree days. Keeping the snow would simply have been odd.
"The tightrope of appropriateness"
The best part is when Sheehan says that "the hallmark of sending a meaningful personal message is that you only need to say it once," a point he makes twice in his post: "One of the most powerful dynamics of this particular commercial is that, despite its resonance, it ran only once." He also begins the post by saying the ad "walked the tightrope of appropriateness" but ends it saying the ad "adeptly threaded the needle of appropriateness."
What was that about saying something only once?
Now put yourself in A-B's position, as agency execs ought to do: It's the 10th anniversary of the attack, which happens to fall on the same day of the NFL's season opener. You have a tasteful, well-received spot that no one has seen for 10 years, and remains as relevant today as it was when it first aired. You can run it for a fraction of the creative fees that making a new ad would cost. Does it really make any sense to commission a new one?
Related:
- Why Madison Avenue Is Suddenly Ground Zero in the Culture Wars
- Budweiser Should Keep Quiet About Its Gay Soldier Ad
- Budweiser in Crisis: With Sales in Decline, Can New Ads Save This Brand?
