Super Bowl XLVII has come and gone. While everything that happened during the game is still being talked about, what happened during the game is still being talked about, what took place inbetween is also getting just as much attention. Drew has also written an article in his marketing blog on what he thought we two of the best ads from this year’s Super Bowl and the biggest problem they seem to have in common: both spots had quite the emotion impact on the audience but did little to affect their purchasing decisions. For the companies that can afford it (now costing up to $4 million for a 30 second ad), the annual Super Bowl has been the most sought after TV advertising slot in North America, as the most recent broadcast drew in over 100 million viewers in the United States. Not to mention it has also become an irreplaceable source of entertainment between stoppages. But an entertaining ad does not necessarily lead to a transaction, and in Drew’s case, these ads have not affected his shopping plan at all. While Drew argues that an emotional ad whose message has little relevance to the brand/product being advertising does nothing to reach into the audience’s wallet I would suggest that Drew simply isn’t a part of the intended target segment. Having spend millions of dollars on producing and placing the advertisement, the companies most likely have identified their target segment. Even if the ads aren’t tailored toward a specific market segment, the awareness that the ads create through shock value, emotional response, or comedic effect places the brand in the consumer’s retrieval set, and quite possibly the evoked set if the response is positive. When the times comes and the need rises, consumers will be more likely to purchase from the brand that triggered a emotional response.