| Media |

Crispin Porter + Bogusky is Responsible for Those Horrible Groupon Super Bowl Ads

Keep New Times Free
I Support
  • Local
  • Community
  • Journalism
  • logo

Support the independent voice of Miami and help keep the future of New Times free.

Ever since Burger King decided to dial down their advertising, it's been a while since local advertising hot house Crispin Porter + Bogusky has had an ad generate much controversy. But the firm, for better or worse, returned to eyebrow-raising form last night with ads for the deal website Groupon. The series of ads which poke fun at, of all things, the idea of charity seem to be the most hated ads aired during the Super Bowl.

Groupon rolled out a series of three commercials last night. Two aired during the game while a third aired during post-game coverage. The most controversial featured Academy Award winning actor Timothy Hutton espousing on the plight of the people of Tibet before hawking the idea of buying deals on dining out at Tibetan curry restaurants on Groupon. Similar ads with Cuba Gooding Jr. and Elizabeth Hurley poking fun at endangered whales and rain forest conservancy also aired.

The overall effect is "Yes, there's serious problems in the world, but who cares when yuppie Americans can save a few bucks on yuppie things? Yay buying things!"

Groupon offers daily deals in various cities across America on things like spa treatments and meals. Though the deals are only good if enough people buy it. The site already has a dedicated user base, but apparently was reaching for bigger exposure with a Super Bowl campaign. Crispin Porter + Bogusky delivered, but maybe not in the best way.

According to Boston.com's Brand Bowl 2011 the Groupon ad was the third most tweeted about during the game, but by far got the most negative reaction of any ad broadcast.

The website set up for the "Save the Money" campaign features links to donate to charities affiliated with the various issues parodied, which means perhaps their intentions weren't so bad. Yet, the URL for that specific idea or the idea of donating to the actual charities weren't mentioned at all in the ads.

What do you think? For a company trying to make its first big foray into traditional advertising and mass awareness did CP+B totally screw up by associating the brand with unnecessary controversy, or is this an "all press is good press" situation that at least got people talking about a website they may not have even been aware of before?

Follow Miami New Times on Facebook and Twitter @MiamiNewTimes.

Keep Miami New Times Free... Since we started Miami New Times, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Miami, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Miami with no paywalls.

We use cookies to collect and analyze information on site performance and usage, and to enhance and customize content and advertisements. By clicking 'X' or continuing to use the site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. To find out more, visit our cookies policy and our privacy policy.


Join the New Times community and help support independent local journalism in Miami.


Join the New Times community and help support independent local journalism in Miami.