Humour was huge, they played on a social norm(how you have to be quiet in a library) and was very satirical in nature. It played on the whole idea of being a “cookie” person or a “cream” person, which implied that the consumer in question had the opportunity to identify with the product, creating an either/or situation, rather than a yes/no. This points to choice and possibly lifestyle diversity, along with the formation of imagined communities, or “consumption communities” as Boorstin points out. It’s more of a micro community within the community of Oreo consumers. In the book they mention how the post modern consumer is “hyper aware” of the game itself, so humor and satire are used to obviously point out the game, while simultaneously creating social capital and value.(305) The value in and of itself stems from the advertising, creating a sliver/screenshot of a reality in which such a thing is possible, and while it’s ludicrous to think that regardless of what specifically happens in a library, that you’d have to whisper no matter what, it is a play on our societal values, which as hyper aware consumers, love to see brands and companies who “get it”. Not only do we agree to play the game, we feel like those big businesses “get us” and understand where we are coming from, thus further lowering our guards.

The way the Oreo team incorporated social media via Twitter by telling people to tweet which side they were on was engaging as well, but nothing compared to how they completely owned the SuperBowl during the blackout with this ad. They had a “15 person social media team” that was able to create ads and respond to anything that happened during the Super Bowl in “10 mins or less”(Wired Magazine). What’s equally amazing is all of the post-superbowl buzz they were getting from huge blogs like Tech Crunch, Mashable, and Buzz Feed. The momentum from last week is still being carried from that special 34 minute opportunity for them. Regardless of what any blog though, whether it was good or bad, praise or criticism, the fact that they were being talked about at all shows that all publicity is good publicity, since it keeps them on our minds. What’s interesting is the fact that who knows if more Oreos were even bought on the Super Bowl, which is the main purpose of advertising and why they do it. Unlike Godaddy, who claimed that after their shock value filled ad, that they had the highest number of sales that day in their company history, it’s highly unlikely that Oreo would even know, or even be able to measure exactly, the “effectiveness” of the ad. Sure it was funny and humorous and heck, I’ve watched it on Youtube at least 3 times, which is more than I could say for any ad, but I haven’t thought to buy any Oreos because of it. Despite the relatable nature of the ad, there is still a disconnect in advertising between exposure, and the actually conscious decision to buy. You can have dozens of Twitter followers and have people hashtagging, but when it comes down to it, Youtube views and tweets won’t get you more sales.