$20 Low Budget Superbowl Ad makes a Million Dollars
- Thread starter rockerrockstar
- Start date
Very cool. Nice to see someone won this year. And I did like that ad when I saw it air. So doubly good for him.
Although, after participating, watching entries online and then seeing the finalists on tv(last year), I have a sneaking suspicion that Doritos completely revamps the audio.
Although, after participating, watching entries online and then seeing the finalists on tv(last year), I have a sneaking suspicion that Doritos completely revamps the audio.
I think these sorts of competitions are an awesome new way for film-makers to get in the door and make some cash as well.
I mean, the advertising companies don't have to dish out big bucks, the briefs are generally pretty creative, and if you win, you get some nice kaching
I mean, the advertising companies don't have to dish out big bucks, the briefs are generally pretty creative, and if you win, you get some nice kaching
I actually sort of feel the opposite - these sorts of competitions are what would have been considered 'spec work' a few years ago, and that's not generally a good thing.
It's great that a few people benefit from them, but thousands more don't get anything while Doritos gets a ton of free promotion and marketing from all the people deploying their own resources to make commercials and promote them online. It's brilliant from the client's side, but a bad trend in general for the market of professional filmmaking. For instance - now that we know it only takes $20 to make a great superbowl commercial why would any company waste money on hiring a professional crew to produce one?
It's great that a few people benefit from them, but thousands more don't get anything while Doritos gets a ton of free promotion and marketing from all the people deploying their own resources to make commercials and promote them online. It's brilliant from the client's side, but a bad trend in general for the market of professional filmmaking. For instance - now that we know it only takes $20 to make a great superbowl commercial why would any company waste money on hiring a professional crew to produce one?
"now that we know it only takes $20 to make a great superbowl commercial why would any company waste money on hiring a professional crew to produce one? "
I'm sure the total cost to the brand was comparable to a traditional ad agency spot, probably more. Your ignoring the cost associated with GETing that commercial, not only a $mil in this prize, but other cash prizes, then there is the marketing campaign for the contest, the infrastructure to support it, lots of money was spent, it just went different directions.
so for $1,000,020 I can make a spot just as good!
In 5 years if its not 3D it it will not be pro.. so dont worrybout it.
I'm sure the total cost to the brand was comparable to a traditional ad agency spot, probably more. Your ignoring the cost associated with GETing that commercial, not only a $mil in this prize, but other cash prizes, then there is the marketing campaign for the contest, the infrastructure to support it, lots of money was spent, it just went different directions.
so for $1,000,020 I can make a spot just as good!
In 5 years if its not 3D it it will not be pro.. so dont worrybout it.
How about for $250? Because for that money they didn't get one commercial, they got 4,000 this year - although roughly 99.75% didn't even their $250. They also got 4,000 filmmakers to act as promotors for doritos - gaining exposure for the brand every time they posted their commercials to facebook, twitter, etc or asked their friends to go vote for them. Now they're getting a ton of additional value out of it because it's become a public interest story - i.e. what would the airtime be worth that they just got for free on CNN?
There's a variety of consumer 3D cameras available for under $1000 already. That commercial wouldn't have cost any more to shoot it in 3D this year, let alone in 5 years.
Last edited:
You don't pay an artist for his time, you pay him for his vision/creativity/etc...
They did get 4000 entries this year, but I saw a few in the running, and I'm guessing they got 3950 pieces of junk, 30 so-so and maybe 20 that were anywhere close to super bowl level.
There are a lot of companies doing poptent and similar competitions where you pay $10k and get a hundred options to choose from, but think about all the commercials on TV and all the poptent-esque competitions out there, it's the extreme minority. Less than 1%. Look at the superbowl even. Dorritos and Chevy (Camaro graduation commercial) had competitions, every other advertiser spending millions on their ads went with ad agencies and producers. Even chevy's other commercials were done traditionally (not a contest) . Again, I'm sure the companies don't see it that way. In a way, it's a risk. They're paying the cash no matter what they get, instead of working with a producer or ad agency (that in turn works with a producer) to craft exactly what they want.
Pro's and con's for advertiser and producer alike. That's why it's not the norm. At the rate they happen, I think they're great. Gives a lot of people a chance to do something big, makes the company look nice and friendly in the PR, resulting ads are usually pretty great!
That said, we didn't enter dorritos this year and probably won't next year because it's starting to be like winning the lottery. So many players, even if you have something great you have to win a popularity contest first, right? Poptent isn't as bad. Smaller prizes, less competition.
They did get 4000 entries this year, but I saw a few in the running, and I'm guessing they got 3950 pieces of junk, 30 so-so and maybe 20 that were anywhere close to super bowl level.
There are a lot of companies doing poptent and similar competitions where you pay $10k and get a hundred options to choose from, but think about all the commercials on TV and all the poptent-esque competitions out there, it's the extreme minority. Less than 1%. Look at the superbowl even. Dorritos and Chevy (Camaro graduation commercial) had competitions, every other advertiser spending millions on their ads went with ad agencies and producers. Even chevy's other commercials were done traditionally (not a contest) . Again, I'm sure the companies don't see it that way. In a way, it's a risk. They're paying the cash no matter what they get, instead of working with a producer or ad agency (that in turn works with a producer) to craft exactly what they want.
Pro's and con's for advertiser and producer alike. That's why it's not the norm. At the rate they happen, I think they're great. Gives a lot of people a chance to do something big, makes the company look nice and friendly in the PR, resulting ads are usually pretty great!
That said, we didn't enter dorritos this year and probably won't next year because it's starting to be like winning the lottery. So many players, even if you have something great you have to win a popularity contest first, right? Poptent isn't as bad. Smaller prizes, less competition.
From what I remember, the popularity contest doesn't come into play until you're selected as a finalist (and get the 25 big ones.) Although I'm sure it doesn't hurt if you get a lot of views and likes, technically speaking the judges look at every ad and pick the finalists based on what they like and want for the brand.
Nice to see a winner.
Meant to participate but was too busy with clients who paid me a fraction of the price
Meant to participate but was too busy with clients who paid me a fraction of the price
Nice to see a winner.
Meant to participate but was too busy with clients who paid me a fraction of the price
I think most would agree that a few hundred or so birds in the hand are worth more than a million in the over-hunted bush haha
Here is my thought on this. I think you may not really need to be a winner and be a winner. Maybe just by entering you don't win the contest but later get projects from Doritos because they like your ad even though it was not the winner of the contest.
That's pretty much the standard spec work pitch though - 'we can't pay much now, but if we like your work we've got lots more projects coming in the future". Seriously, go hit the craigslist gigs section and it's like people are following a script - seeing that kind of wording is a big red flag that the job is not really a job.
Anyone doing creative work as a career should really read this (substitute 'filmmaker' or 'videographer' for 'designer' of course):
http://www.no-spec.com/faq/
"Why is spec work unethical?
The designer in essence works free of charge and with an often falsely advertised, overinflated promise for future employment; or is given other insufficient forms of compensation. Usually these glorified prizes or “carrots” appear tantalizing for creative communicators just starting out, ending with encouraging examples like “good for your portfolio” or “gain recognition.” The reality is that they often yield little extra work, profit or referrals. Moreover they often must sign a contract unwittingly waiving their valuable creative rights and ownership of their work to the ones promoting this system. "
That pretty much sums up the Dorito's contest. The 'carrot' is just a lot bigger than usual, and the press when someone wins serves to make it seem even bigger. But that's because nobody wants to read a headline like "3,999 Filmmakers Make Free Commercials for Doritos this Year".
Anyone doing creative work as a career should really read this (substitute 'filmmaker' or 'videographer' for 'designer' of course):
http://www.no-spec.com/faq/
"Why is spec work unethical?
The designer in essence works free of charge and with an often falsely advertised, overinflated promise for future employment; or is given other insufficient forms of compensation. Usually these glorified prizes or “carrots” appear tantalizing for creative communicators just starting out, ending with encouraging examples like “good for your portfolio” or “gain recognition.” The reality is that they often yield little extra work, profit or referrals. Moreover they often must sign a contract unwittingly waiving their valuable creative rights and ownership of their work to the ones promoting this system. "
That pretty much sums up the Dorito's contest. The 'carrot' is just a lot bigger than usual, and the press when someone wins serves to make it seem even bigger. But that's because nobody wants to read a headline like "3,999 Filmmakers Make Free Commercials for Doritos this Year".
Last edited:
I think that's why I like poptent. Its spec, but the brand does NOT GET THE MILK WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE COW. Contractually creators are not allowed to post the work anywhere. In one sense this seems like a limit on the creator, when I asked, I got the COW=MILK analogy. If the brand doesn't pay for the spot, the brand gets NO benefit from the work of the creator. No "free" advertising from the creator posting on youtube etc. On more then one occasion poptent has "asked" me to come back to this board and REMOVE references and clips from my various spots. The only place you can legally see the spots is on the poptent website, and as far as that goes only a few of my spots are "publicly" viewable, my best work, in its final form has never been seen by you all.
That's interesting, I haven't looked too closely at the poptent setup, but it still sounds like a bad deal to me. Here's why - you put in the work, but you end up having no control or rights to the material and you didn't get paid. Now, the brand might also not get to use your material for free, but that's not much better. The client is still getting the milk without paying for the cow, it's just that they're pouring the milk out on the ground instead of drinking it so no one benefits. Over the years I've done several projects for clients that never saw the light of day for one reason or another - and in every case I've been paid for the work I put in. Just because they don't end up using it doesn't mean you shouldn't be compensated for your time.
It also sounds like poptent benefits from your work if they are the only place people can go to see it. And if only the best material submitted to poptent is ever visible online - as determined by the client's selections - then it creates a more favorable impression about the general quality of the work submitted as a whole. This benefits poptent by making the site seem like a more attractive choice to potential clients.
It also sounds like poptent benefits from your work if they are the only place people can go to see it. And if only the best material submitted to poptent is ever visible online - as determined by the client's selections - then it creates a more favorable impression about the general quality of the work submitted as a whole. This benefits poptent by making the site seem like a more attractive choice to potential clients.
Last edited: