Print
Samsung is in a position of dominance from a purely global standpoint, however in the US they are locked in fierce combat with Apple, continuously trading places as the number one smartphone maker. The Super Bowl is a prime (albeit expensive) opportunity to capture consumers attention, and Samsung choose to ditch its now legendary attack ads in favor of something a bit more mainstream.
The new commercial featuring Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd will run Samsung over $125,000 per second based on current estimates, but keep in mind that covers the airtime only. Production costs for the celebrity endorsements are above and beyond. That’s a ton of Galaxy phones, but clearly they have the money to spare.
Is it cash well spent? What do you think of the new ad? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Comments are closed on this article
vrmlbasic
February 05, 2013 at 1:25am
I thought this ad was insipid, tedious and tragically boring. I suppose I'm not the target audience as I didn't know who those 2 putative celebrities were by sight.
The end of the commercial states that the whole commercial was pointless. I agree. This ranks high on my "too long for no payoff" list of commercials, right next to that dodge truck farmer commercial.
MaximumMike
February 05, 2013 at 8:45am
I had no idea who they were either. But it was obvious that neither of them wanted to work with the other and that they both wanted to be the "Next Big Thing". Then to have them both upstaged by Lebron James at the end, both realizing that neither of them was the "Next Big Thing" - I found it hilarious. It was neither Samsung's best commercial, nor the Super Bowl's funniest, but I think Samsung's money was well spent. And the farmer commercial was awesome, btw. Just because you cannot appreciate the people who feed you every day, doesn't mean there aren't those of us who can.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
February 04, 2013 at 8:56am
We're so PC that this commercial is labeled an "attack ad?"
It's not an "attack," not in any sense of the word. Anyone seeing it as an "attack" needs a healthy application of Vagisil or Preparation-H and maybe a fucking bedtime story.
It was a somewhat funny commercial that mocked the legal system. I didn't read it as an attack on any particular company.
But then, I'm not that fucking sensitive.
eday_2010
February 05, 2013 at 11:58am
No, you're just to stupid to read the article properly and to understand what you're reading.
Obsidian
February 04, 2013 at 9:47am
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS - I think you had a reading comprehension fail brought on by your desire to attack political correctness. The title and the article clearly state Samsung took a BREAK from attack adds to bring us this much more comical attempt at a viral ad.
The first part of the advertizing was quite funny, the second half wasn't as inspired. It was a nice deviation from the negative campaigning against Apple even if there was a lot of funny negativity in the spot.
Engelsstaub
February 04, 2013 at 8:43am
Well, that was a refreshing break. (Now get back to those attack-ads. Shit is better than football.)
poee
February 04, 2013 at 3:59am
I liked the ad. It was clever and didn't assume an idiot audience, which is rare. It feels like Samsung is more interesting than Apple from a consumer perspective these days.
Meat_Juice
February 03, 2013 at 9:36pm
This should be in the business section of a newspaper, not MaxPC I should think..
TheMissingPiece
February 03, 2013 at 9:11pm
I actually didn't like this ad. I do enjoy Samsung's products, but this one was almost like a (non-funny) show with product placement. That's just my opinion, though.
