SUPER BOWL AD SALES: In previewing ad sales on Super
Bowl XXXIV, the N.Y. TIMES' Stuart Elliott reports that of
the estimated 30 companies buying time, a "dozen or so" will
be "dot-com" companies. But Elliott writes that if the
performance of their pitches "is deemed sufficiently weak,
what was intended as a shrewd business move could backfire
badly. ... Not only might those dot-coms not be back for
Super Bowl XXXV, they might not be in business by then
either" (N.Y. TIMES, 11/29). The AP's Skip Wollenberg
reports that some Internet companies "are paying more to
advertise" on the Super Bowl than "they have generated in
revenue." Angeltips.com Marketing Dir Ethan Russman, whose
company is paying $2M for an ad with start-up money: "We
have not generated a dime yet" (AP/DALLAS MRN NEWS, 11/29).
NOTES: Wieden & Kennedy's two Nike ads featuring Tiger
Woods, "Hackey Sack" and "Driving Range," were both awarded
the top prize in their respective TV categories at this
year's Rosey Awards (OREGONIAN, 11/24). In Lexington, Mark
Story writes under the header, "Good Reasons I Hate Nike
(Except The Commercials)." Story: "Wherever in the sports
world the swoosh turns up, innocence soon disappears.
That's why I hate Nike. (But those Jason Williams/Randy Moss
'Dukes of Hazzard' commercials are too cool. Can't wait to
see the next one)" (KNIGHT RIDDER, 11/29)....In Charleston,
Mike Mooneyham reported that Coca-Cola, the U.S. Army and
the U.S. Air Force are among advertisers who have "withdrawn
their sponsorships on WWF telecasts as a result of an
intense lobbying campaign by the Parents Television Council"
(CHARLESTON POST & COURIER, 11/28). CNBC's Bill Griffeth
reported that WWF Chair Vince McMahon says the council is
using "'McCarthy smear tactics' and finds Coke's decision
discriminatory and hypocritical" ("Market Wrap," 11/26).
