Wait...they play football at the Superbowl?

I’ve never been much of a sports enthusiast. I played little league and was in Junior Jazz for years, but that was really more my parents’ idea than mine. I’m much more content to read a book, listen to music or — prior to my university schedule — watch hours upon hours of television.
A longstanding tradition all over the country is to get together with friends and family on Superbowl Sunday and watch not only the game, but to keep an eye out for the best commercial during the broadcast.
One of the biggest promoters during the Superbowl for the past 23 consecutive years, Pepsi, has decided this year to abstain for advertising during the Superbowl. Coca-Cola will be running two spots during the game.
While the cost to run an ad this year has gone down significantly from the past (between $2.5 and $3 million as opposed to previous years reaching up to $12 million), Pepsi is instead relying on “viral marketing” for their newest campaign, “Pepsi Refresh.”
The campaign provides $20 million in grants toward six different projects ranging from education to food and shelter. Users submit applications through the newly established Web site, or virally, via Facebook or Twitter.
So why not take a portion of the $20 million to go toward an audience of 100 million? While beneficial, the campaign isn’t particularly “entertaining,” which is what makes or breaks the criteria for water cooler discussion of people’s favorite commercials.
Other expectations for this year’s ads weigh on companies that have carved out a niche for themselves in the past. Budweiser has built an empire of classic Superbowl commercials with the Clydesdales, talking frogs and ’99s “Wazzup!”
Whatever the outcome of the game, as per tradition, everybody’s going to have their own favorite commercial from the game, which is something of a tradition in and of itself.