Admit it,  plenty of you watch the Superbowl solely for the commercials and not for the football. If that's true then you must have been disappointed last night because the football game was great for a change while most of the broadcast ads were boring at best and atrocious at worst.

For me, and for everyone I watched the game with last night, the Google Paris ad was by far the most elegant standing out amidst the clutter of the endless beer, Dorito, talking baby and people wearing underwear ads. I've read that some pundits are claiming that Google's ad didn't do anything to advance their brand or image because Google is already known for search - yet those same people seem to think the usual lame beer joke commercials are simply brilliant and very well done.

Maybe it's because Google didn't spend millions producing the commercial, unlike the agency who built a house out of Bud Light cans. Don't get me wrong, building a house with full Bud Light cans is a much better use of the product than actually drinking Bud Light. My guess is that the pundits in the advertising business aren't too happy with the slow and steady migration of dollars from high-cost broadcast television ads to much lower-cost and equally effective online ads (or possibly even more effective). I could be wrong, but I wouldn't expect Advertising Age to feature any paeans to Google anytime soon.

I'd say Google's in-house creative team did very well in their first Superbowl ad and can be proud of their work. Here's the Google Paris ad so you can see for yourself  how simple story telling using the actual product - search - can be very powerful.

You can read the rest here:

http://www.thommitchell.com/2010/02/08/superbowl-ad-breakdown/