Response to Joseph's post on the 2013 super bowl commercials

I think it is worth it for companies to spend millions of dollars on commercials that air during the super bowl. The super bowl is one of the most watched events in the nation, so therefore if a company can afford to air one of their adds during it they should take advantage of the opportunity. Many people just watch the game for the commercials, and thus results in them receiving a great deal of coverage before and after the super bowl. No matter what, if a company is able to air a commercial during the game they are guaranteed to be talked about. Making the a good commercial that is well liked and influences potential customers is the tougher part.
I thought this years commercials were okay, even though none of them really stood out to me too much. The GoDaddy.com ad stood out I guess, but that was not in a good way. It was kind of hard to watch, or rather listen to be exact. The ones I remember the most were the Budweiser ad with the clydesdale and the one about the farmers for Dodge. Both of these attempted to appeal to the emotion of the viewers, which in my opinion is the best way to influence a crowd. People can be vulnerable emotionally too during the super bowl, with all the varying emotions during the course of the game.

What did some of the other ads from the super bowl attempt to appeal to besides emotion?

Is self regulation more or less effective then governmental regulatory agencies?

I believe that self regulation can be good for a business, because if it is done effectively than it shows that the company is responsible and accountable. A company will make a good name for itself and gain more trust from customers if it can set and maintain its own regulations. The federal regulations are the basic framework that can not be broken, and obeying them will be effective in the market. However, if the business creates their own guidelines within the federal regulations, I see that as being much more effective. Customers will appreciate companies that are not just meeting the standards of the government, but living up to their own as well. Also the regulations that a business sets up for itself can serve as protection too. If the regulations are within the federal regulations and the company is struggling to meet them, then at least if they end up breaking them they have not crossed the federal regulations. It may cause damage the companies image, but it would not put it in a tough spot with the government agencies. An image can always be repaired too; disobeying federal regulations would have  more of a legal effect and put the company in a position much worse.

Wouldn't a company feel more in control following it's own regulations, rather than the governments?