Groupon spends big on Superbowl commercials, but ads anger many viewers | Hacker News Reader

Groupon spends big on Superbowl commercials, but ads anger many viewers

money.cnn.com

50 pointsanigbrowl86 comments

I believe if they would have made it a clear fact that they were directly supporting the groups which they were poking fun at, the ads would not have been so ill-received. You can donate to Greenpeace, The Tibet Fund, Rainforest Action Network and buildOn at Groupon's site and your donation will be matched (with the exception of Greenpeace, for which you receive Groupon credit): http://savethemoney.groupon.com/

It's a bit of a shame that the donation site wasn't promoted at all in the videos, it might have done wonders for the groups on the receiving end.

It had a great structure in theory, set people up to expect one thing then throw them into an entirely new frame of reference to make the product stand out.

There were two problems, one is that they ran it backwards from high moral ground to low. Secondly, they spent way too long describing Groupon is and what it does which allowed the audience time to recover from the shock and become disgusted. Half the commercial was setup, 3 seconds were punchline and 12 seconds were trying to explain the punchline. If it had been funny, all would have been forgiven.

Excellent analysis. Plus, where are you finding "fish curry" in Gyantse?! When I think of Tibet, I think of... fish? curry?

The ad fails on so many levels...

If you watched Andrew Mason's talk at Startup School '10, you'll understand the Groupon ads. These ads reflect the history of Groupon itself - Groupon grew out of ThePoint.com (which is still up) - a site dedicated to group activism, and it was going absolutely nowhere. The ads are dead-on - for all the talk about helping Tibet and saving endangered whales, we vote with our dollars in favor of ethnic food and fun excursions.

unfortunately, not every television ad viewer has heard of Andrew Mason being Groupon's CEO .. much less about his startup school talk and his philosophy and what not ..

there's not much sense in defending these ads, whatever the deeper thought may have been .. upon viewing them, they were crass, not humorous and definitely not in the right taste.

This is exactly why these are amazing. He took a group activism site that basically couldn't make anything and turned it into the fastest growing company in the history of the world. They turned down a $6 billion offer and paid for all these superbowl ads.

The real irony here is people's principles don't actually matter. People can't help themselves and will take saving $15 on a dinner millions of times over rather than offering it up to any of their principles or supposedly lofty morals. Mason discovered the real secret here which is it doesn't matter which moral road you're on people can't help themselves.

The reason people think these are crass is that they can't deal with the realization of their own moral corruption and hypocrisy. These commercials are a statement about the same people who are lambasting them. They got trolled and the more they rage the more they out themselves for the ruinous morally crippled savages that they truly are.

Well, that's one hell of a marketing strategy. I'm chalking this one up to poor sense of humor and put Groupon in the deadpool.

regardless of wether or not they're familiar with groupon or andrew, the irony remains:

"for all the talk about helping Tibet and saving endangered whales, we vote with our dollars in favor of ethnic food and fun excursions"

If Groupon wants to associate their own brand with this kind of image, fine, whatever, I can ignore them easily enough. But how would you feel as a business owner if you started getting boycotted because the idiotic company that manages your coupon campaigns went out of its way to offend your customer base?

GoDaddy gets away with stupid offensive commercials because companies that use them don't actually have to show an association with them to their own customers. It's kind of hard to run a secret Groupon campaign, though - your implicit approval of their image via your campaign dollars is right out in the open.

I don't think the company handling the campaign went out of their way to offend the customer base. It is must likely that they did exactly what Groupon told them to do. Groupon and their CEO are know for this kind of irreverent humor. It's the image they like to portray.

GoDaddy is also about as racy as an episode of Everybody Love's Raymond.

> Everybody Love's Raymond.

See http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

It seems right now that liking it is the minority view, so I'll throw up what I like about it real quick.

General advertising culture crassly manipulates desires in a way that I find insulting. This commercial purposely fucks that manipulation up. It's like a middle finger to the soulless beer commercials that I find tiresome, the "being told what to like" mentality.

This commercial also has a point, in an Emperor's Clothes sort of way. People are angry because they don't like feeling like their concern for whales, Tibet, or the cause du jour is insincere even if they aren't doing much to actually contribute.

If you're offended, step back and look at why. Is it because you don't like thinking about how absurd American culture is (in effect if not intent), importing Tibetan food for trendy twenty-somethings to enjoy, turning concern for rainforests into absurd Disneyland-style Rainforest Cafes. Because that's a _true_ analysis. If you're upset because a commercial is an _accurate portrayal of life_, then that's not entirely sensible.

On the other hand if you're upset because "They didn't do commercials right, they're supposed to follow a pattern/distort data/just be funny," I'm unimpressed with your orthodoxy.

The world is absurd. I like a company that is willing to spend millions of dollars to point that absurdity out using itself as an example. People aren't going to stop buying groupons because of this ad, and a successful ad campaign wouldn't save them from going bust like Pets.com (as is documented elsewhere).

In other words, _this ad meant nothing anyway,_ and it embraces that to actually be pretty funny and insightful.

In my opinion.

Except it's not an analysis, it's a sales pitch. If it were on a satire show, you'd have a point. But they are in fact inviting you to spend your money on discount coupons for shopping instead of sending it to a nonprofit.

My wife and I donate money to a variety of different causes we care about (not these specific ones, but that's beside the point). Besides the patronizing suggestion that people never actually put their money where their mouth is, the Tibet one also comes off as racist. She used to like Groupon, and tended to give them several hundred $ a month in business. Note my use of the past tense here.

I am using the artistic interpretive sense of the word 'analysis' here. The ideas presented in the commercial are a viewpoint.

It is an analysis that is a sales pitch because it says: we're so confident that we can tell you _exactly_ what the situation is, with an actually quite sad bitter self-awareness, and it won't make any difference.

"This is a stupid system [advertising and the crass mainstream] and I refuse to play. And I can tell you this to your face and you will still use me, because that's just how our world works."

>Besides the patronizing suggestion that people never actually put their money where their mouth is

That ain't a suggestion, that's the truth. And even if everyone were committing a significant proportion of their resources, it still wouldn't change the really bizarre affinity Americans have for taking causes and turning them into ways to make money. I believe I already mentioned the Rainforest Cafe.

I really don't think you're cynical enough, and just personally irritated because you actually donate.

Anyhow, Groupon doesn't care about customers like your wife/you. Groupon will continue to make money, for one thing; but not only that, Groupon doesn't need customers that are told what to do by advertisements. And if you're making a purchasing decision based on an advertisement, that's exactly what you are doing.

The goal of Groupon's advertisement was to not be an advertisement, but a stated fact. I hesitate to say it was an anti-commercial because it is still actually promoting its product, but it is definitely flipping off every other superbowl commercial for taking itself so damn seriously.

Finally, I'm assuming you know that Groupon is matching donations for the various causes. The way it's not making this clear actually makes me respect them more, because waving the size of your donation-dick (that's the second time I've used that phrase tonight, how old am I?) is just another form of crass advertisement.

I really don't think you're cynical enough, and just personally irritated because you actually donate.

Actually, we were irritated by the Tibet commercial because it came off as so racist. My in-laws are Asian so the whole family was hanging out together. It did not go down well at all - and my in-laws are neither hypersensitive nor lacking in humor.

The goal of Groupon's advertisement was to not be an advertisement, but a stated fact.

Sez you.

I hesitate to say it was an anti-commercial because it is still actually promoting its product, but it is definitely flipping off every other superbowl commercial for taking itself so damn seriously.

Riiiight. Because superbowl commercials are famous for being humorless public service announcements. As for Groupon matching donations (up to $100k each, I believe), big whoop. They spent $3m on their ad slots. This PR mess will cost them a lot more before it's done.

I don't know why you don't see the racism as a portrayal of casual American incidental racism. It is not (in my view) an endorsement of casual American racism.

Yes, sez me. the point was to provide my opinion.

It wasn't a humorless public service announcement, it was a bitter statement about the absurdity of American culture and the fact that the commercial itself would reflect in no way on its profitability. The PR mess will cost them nothing--at least, nothing important.

Probably the most tasteless commercial I've watched in recent time. Pretty disappointing what's become of the state of American marketing.

Honestly, I was shocked by it (as was the rest of my family). Yeah, lots of people are talking about Groupon, but it isn't making me want to use it. I do have to wonder if there is a demographic that Groupon targets ("just give me cheap crap") that views things differently ("what the hell is Tibbet [sic] anyway?").

This is what causes you to be disappointed in American marketing? And uh, how much did you donate to these causes last year exactly?

Being that insensitive to the sufferings of others and trivializing it to some coupon to a fish curry dinner -- well, I can't think of any ad that quite matches it. So yes, this is what causes me to be disappointed in American marketing. And, I try to donate in the capacity that I can (but I cannot always, as I'm a college student who lives on paycheck to paycheck). Thank you for presuming otherwise though.

It's not even insensitive though. It's fully aware of the fact that those issues are significant and deserving of attention. It's much more of a satire on the fact that most Americans express their "outrage" in Facebook posts and "moral outrage" posts on HN rather than taking action or donating. It's mocking the psuedo moral superiority and giving people want they really want in an abrasive, highly discussed manner.

It's good advertising and I don't find it nearly as insulting as everyone here seems to. At the worst, it simply paints a sad satire of American "disaster fatigue" culture.

Also, my snark at the end was not necessarily personally directed at you. I guess I'm just indulging in the sarcastic satire that I feel Groupon is borrowing from - it's easy to be outraged at the trivialization of something "tragic", but is it really hurting anyone or anything?

Well, hell. Why not do a 9/11 one?

"The world was shook to it's very foundation the day the World Trade Center buildings were attacked. Heroes fallen, a nation shook; some victims, flames against their back and smoke subsuming them, took a plunge...

... like the falling prices at Bleecker's Appliance on the corner of Warwick and Bushnell, where I just got a killer deal on a refrigerator through Groupon!"

Oh, right. Fresh wounds and all, right?

Heh, not really as if I can respond to this without sounding like a jerk and being downvoted incessantly. Oh well, I'll take a shot anyway: my response choices included mentioning that it was a decade ago, pointing out that I laugh (albeit how terrible it may or may not be of me) at this image: http://i.min.us/ibOZze.jpg, and how I think a personal or national tragedy is slightly different than some animals in the water far enough away that I don't actually think about them regularly.

I'd actually be more upset if they ran an ad mocking peoples' opposition to the war... or you know something substantial. I find that the continued SHOCK over 9/11 is really just another symptom of our addiction to "disaster porn" [1]. We in the US love a good disaster, especially if it's a banner under which to assert staunch nationalism (and with it pass the largest violation of Constitutional rights in the history of this country and invade two others), and continue to drum up emotion, support and excuses for ourselves and our government.

Yes it was terrible, yes people died. More people died in automobile accidents. Ask yourself why you're so worked up over 9/11. Was it graphic? Maybe, but that probably has to do with our constant reiteration of what a "tragedy" it was along with footage of the towers falling.

[1]: less "shockingly" known as Compassion Fatigue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue) (hm, this article isn't a very good discussion. I'm more familiar with it in the policy debate world where it has a bit more relevant meaning)

"I'd actually be more upset if they ran an ad mocking peoples' opposition to the war... or you know something substantial."

That's the problem. You think it was just about Whales and trees, but I guess you didn't realize how many more died in the Tibetan struggle for independence than 9/11? Then smash cut on Timothy Hutton getting a fish dinner?

I say, if they wanted shock, do the 9/11 thing. Or, even more topical, the egyptian revolution. Like Kenneth Cole did[1]. That worked out well for them!

[1] http://blog.seattlepi.com/zennieabraham/archives/238287.asp

>I don't find it nearly as insulting. I don't find these ads insulting at all, I find them distasteful.

The ads:

1. Whales: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP_yScodndg

2. Rainforest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z206ipPhuFQ

3. Tibet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFT2yjk0A

In the Tibet video, I think it's not even a Tibetan restaurant, mre like a a Mongolian one.

< is outraged > < joins Save the Whales facebook group > < satisfied, inserts handful of almonds into mouth >

They posted on their blog about their rationale behind this ad campaign: http://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/groupon-super-bowl-ads/

If their goal was to portray their company as something only used by shallow boring people they succeeded.

And if their goal is to get every shallow boring person in America to be their customers, then that's a potentially massive base.

Do shallow boring people think of themselves as being shallow and boring?

Just watched the three ads, my opinion on Groupon hasn't changed. (That is, I'm still indifferent to them.) People are upset too easily.

Dachau, the scene of rape, torture, human experimentation, and mass execution. Thousands were forced into a life of hard labor under miserable conditions, the others left to waste away to skin and bones...

... But not at Murray's Deli in the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where I just got a fabulous $5 off on a $10 corned beef hash on marble rye with a kosher dill pickle on the side.

Groupon!

Fishing for an invocation of Godwin's Law today, are we?

Nah. Here, I'll do one without impugning Jewish history:

“1960s. The Watts riots. The scene of chilling brutality and suffering. Dogs unleashed on unsuspecting black onlookers. Children firehosed and beaten with batons. Homes and properties set ablaze…

Just like the fiery pits at Neely’s Bar-B-Que, where I just saved $10 on a $20 fried chicken and baby back ribs with two large sides. Finger-lickin’ savings at Groupon!”

Then link to the United Negro College Fund on groupon.com.

How's that?

Any hate for this kind of ad is self-hate rather than the hate of Groupon. They feel bad that they want $5 off a delicious sandwich while others are being slowly tortured to death.

It's not Groupon's fault that our society sucks.

Even if these ads were offensive to me (which they aren't, ill advised for a mass audience though without the context of the blog post and the donations) it wouldn't effect my usage of groupon if I was a user.

Groupon is all about consumerism, buying things you don't really need because they are deal of the day etc.

So if Groupon already has the tech savvy, liberal mom and dad crowd in it's database, might a 'crass' ploy like this hit the remaining demographic? I'm thinking about the people who didn't go to college.

It seems crazy to target them, but really, if you already have the educated elite, and you're advertising on a football game...

Anyway, here is the official justification: http://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/groupon-super-bowl-ads/

Might give you some useful perspective before you start forming an opinion.

Coca-Cola also ran a Tibet-China ad, which was a lot more candid, which makes it even worse. I hate exploitation of the Tibet subject either way, but sneaking it in with nonsensical emotional branding is just rotten. At least Groupon started of as a charitable cause, but they're both champtions of consumerism now.

I wish somebody pivots the business model behind ThePoint, achieves amazing profits and goes on to use it's SuperBowl ad time to mock Groupon's metamorphosis :-P

I think it was a smart move. In a few months no one will know why they know who Groupon is, but they'll absolute recognize the name because they were all pissed about how "insensitive" the commercials were.

Plus it gives them a popular platfrom from which to Learn and Rise and be Cutely Contrite...see? We all now get to watch little Groupon grow up in public. Expect a press conference apology soon, they're not going to waste all this attention!

I'll absolutely remember them just like I knew about the sock puppet, Whoopi Goldberg, and the... one with the chesty women. Which one was that one again?

Hadn't seen the ads or read the coverage, but had seen headlines and tweets complaining. Had been thinking "How bad could they be?" so I just watched them . . oh crap who thought this was a good idea!

They made you watch! Looks like the ads were designed to create controversy and get people talking...

Contrary to popular slogans, there is in fact such a thing as bad publicity.

I don't think Groupon intended this reaction, I think their ad agency was stupid and Groupon had a blind spot because they knew what they meant to say. As opposed to the message they actually did communicate.

The weird thing is that they didn't even have to do anything edgy at all. They have a good product that people naturally want. All they had to do at this point was explain what they do.

Sure, but I am in the startup space and hear about Groupon every other day so I have a bit of selection bias. Also if it was to create controversy then it negates their response to the uproar.

Question here.

Why not place a solid call-to-action during the advertisement for people to visit their website and sign-up?

All they said was "visit Groupon.com".

All Groupon needs is your e-mail address and a zip code. It seems like they could have baited people with something and really grown their subscriber base?

Am I crazy for thinking that was a wasted opportunity, or does that not work well with such a massive audience?

Maybe the agency they hired only does branding and couldn't fathom the thought of getting direct responses?

Curious.

Isn't "Visit Groupon.com" a call to action? That's what it was called back in my day.

As for signing up, the website itself contains that call to action.

Yes, it's a CTA. Just a weak one in my opinion.

I think the biggest mistake is that the groupon.com page is plugging to watch Super Bowl commercial and sign up.

If you actually follow through to http://savethemoney.groupon.com/ one can find that there are some serious active campaigns to aid these movements. If you donate $15 to Greenpeace you get $15 in Groupon credit. They're making it way to easy to hate them through this and miss some huge opportunities to help others.

Totally agreed! It seems that someone forgot about context in which those ads are watched.

If you go to Groupon.com, the only thing you can do is sign up. One big fat call to action. If you get people to the site, then 90% of the battle is already won.

If Groupon were a brick and mortar, they would be known as a low-brow discount store.

They are certainly very successful but a lot of low-brow businesses are, that's nothing new.

For a lot of consumers it's all about price but many consumers (myself included) only want to spend money where they will receive great service and can identify with the company culture. I think Groupon risks losing customers that just don't appreciate their somewhat demented culture.

I tried Groupon, thinking I'd find out about some local businesses (I travel full-time, so I never have "favorite" places to eat or things to do, and always eager to try new things; I'm possibly the perfect audience for this kind of thing). The second day the deal of the day was for Bed, Bath and Beyond. Now, that is offensive. If I'd wanted to be spammed by multi-national big box retailers I'd...well, I'd never want to be spammed by multi-national big box retailers, so I don't know what I'd do. I guess I would have continued to subscribe to Groupon's service.

In short, I find Groupon offensively attuned to cash at the expense of their users. So, I guess I'm not too bothered by their super bowl blunders. Though, I doubt all that many people were really offended enough to turn down a good deal.

I don't think they see "people who like trying new things" as their target audience so much as "people who like saving money on things". Most people probably prefer a deal like that (or, say, the Living Social Amazon deal) to one for some random local business because more people have a desire to purchase things from Bed, Bath, and Beyond than to purchase from a given random local business.

That could be; and is, perhaps, why they have had such explosive success.

I was under the mistaken impression, based on reading interviews with the founders and seeing the founders speak, that they were interested in bringing interesting local businesses exposure. I may have also been fooled by the description of their product on the website: "Check your email, Facebook or Twitter feeds for daily deals on cool local businesses." It wouldn't have crossed my mind that anyone would ever consider Bed, Bath and Beyond to be a "cool" or "local" business...but, I'm old. WTF do I know about "cool" or "local" (or "business", for that matter, it would seem).

This is as good a reason as any to post an Onion classic: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mention...

  "I'm not an elitist," Green said. "It's just that I'd much
  rather sculpt or write in my journal or read Proust than sit
  there passively staring at some phosphorescent screen."

I merely feel the service is misrepresented. They claim it is a service for discovering "cool local businesses", and the founders frequently talk about providing a service to local businesses. Bed, Bath, and Beyond is not, by any definition I can imagine, cool or local.

Besides the fact they probably just ruined their China plans, poking fun at the situation will piss off both sides... one view point.. http://bit.ly/fKegsC

My second post in this thread:

It's obvious they're not giving any exposure to this blog post (http://www.groupon.com/blog/cities/groupon-super-bowl-ads/) or the microsite (http://savethemoney.groupon.com)

I can't say I'm offended at the content. I'm almost amazed at how poorly handled the follow-through of this campaign. They hired CP+B to create the ads. Why does it seem like no one thought this through?

Groupon was supposedly trying to expand in Red China before this. Maybe they've figured out that no foreign company is going to dominate this market in the PRC and, like Google, they're a little resentful.

Actually, I see a couple Groupon offers in my overseas city every day and there don't seem to be a lot of takers. A lot more of the offers seem to be salons and beauty shops compared to my USA city offers. The restaurant choices are good, though.

Makes me wonder about the international viability of the Groupon model.

I think their mistake is that they advertised to their existing customer base, who are familiar with Groupon's cheekiness, and who are also noted as being ravenous deal hunters.

Yes, their ad was in the same tone as their email copy. But the demographic is totally different.

Being easygoing and joking around can sound callous when people are just starting to get to know you.

They have got people talking about the ad. That is a good thing.

I remembered a mixergy interview with Andrew Mason, who said that Groupon's secret lies in their writing.

I duly subscribed to the list and unfortunately found it waffly and difficult to read. There is a thread on Quora about this.

I wondered if Groupon does any testing at all and Andrew doesn't claim to do so.

I think these ads are an extension of their smug copywriting. They'd have to do a lot better than this if they want to win hearts and minds.

I think they succeeded at getting people to talk about it[Marketing Objective Complete!]. If it makes it onto HackerNews I can only imagine how many times I'm going to have to hear about super bowl commercials in every other website I visit.

I think the height of super bowl ads was Herding Cat's. After that I don't think I could ever be entertained by super bowl commercials anymore.

I had nothing against Groupon(beyond being annoyed about hearing their name, ALL THE TIME!), until I saw this. Who approved this?!

That ad didn't fit with the spirit of groupon at all. God, what were they thinking?

Isn't this the exact coverage Groupon was expecting? I mean, every blog outlet has been predicting "ad backlash" before the commercials aired. Clearly Groupon wants the additional press time (whether positive or not)

Like PT Barnum and Whatsisname Ferris, they don't care what publicity they get, as long as their name is spelled correctly.

Whatshisname

Ferriss

Here's the youtube link. Check out how many downvotes it has. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFT2yjk0A

Groupon seems to have a real public relations problem.

Very forgettable ... at least with the LivingSocial ad I know to be on my guard to becoming a hipster-metrosexual with long wavy flowing hair...

Everything will be whitewashed when they announce a 100M donation to these organizations during prime time.

Once they do that, people may even get the humor.

Seems crazy that they would need a Superbowl commercial. Makes me think this is more about getting investors' attention than customers.

My GOD this is killing me. Apparently just because tech companies are advertising during the superbowl we MUST be in the midst of a tech bubble?

WTF?

Groupon is, by all appearances, STUPIDLY profitable. This isn't pets.com raising millions of dollars and blowing it on an ad and aeron chairs. These are solid companies using the biggest ad day of the year to further cement their status.

The Groupon ad was offensive, but it didn't indicate a bubble.

The car that reads your facebook statuses indicates a bubble.

Strawman. No one said anything about this ad being an indication of us being in the midst of a bubble.

I think the article was at least trying to _imply_ that the ads indicate that we are in the midst of a bubble. Otherwise, why would they repeatedly bring up the Super Bowl ads from the last bubble?

Free publicity granted.

Watched the commercial on Hulu. Hated it. Went straight to HN to see if I was the only one. It was the top news story. Guess I'm not.

I watched three of the four ads on their site. They weren't funny, just cheesy. And not Shatner cheesy, either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com