Poll: Which Was the Best Super Bowl Commercial This Year?

Social media networks were set aflutter with the hint that Matthew Broderick may be reprising his Ferris Bueller role in a Super Bowl ad on Feb. 5. “How can I handle work on a day like today?” he says in the opening frame.

With just a few days before the big game, commercials are a hot topic, along with whether Eli Manning or Tom Brady will be the hero of Super Bowl XVLI. According to businessinsider.com, 2012 will go down as a banner year for the event. The top price NBC got for an ad is $4 million, and on average, the network sold 30-second spots for $3.5 million each.

Just about everyone has a favorite Super Bowl commercial. Betty White would never have been introduced to Facebook or the “Saturday Night Live” audience were it not for her 2010 Super Bowl ad, the most popular one that year.

And, few fans have forgotten Cindy Crawford’s 1992 Super Bowl ad.

Two Super Bowls ago, AOL TV (now HUFFPOST TV) compiled a list of 10 memorable Super Bowl commercials, including Apple's 1984 introduction of the Macintosh, the Budweiser frogs, Mean Joe Greene drinking a Coke and offerings from Monster.com and from Xerox.

Now that the game is over, tell us which was your favorite this year? 

Thomas Lee Coates February 06, 2012 at 07:59 AM
All commercials are brutal and that's why I love the TiVo and the jump ahead button.
Tim February 06, 2012 at 08:03 AM
Not without a real quarterback lmao.
John Balentine February 06, 2012 at 03:45 PM
My favorite was the yogurt commercial where the woman head butted the guy
Creek Diva February 06, 2012 at 05:23 PM
The half-time show was terrible. I have very little respect for artists who lip-synch. I thought the Audi commercial where the cheeta chased the human was great! The M&M spot cracked my 9 year-old up. Top shelf Bud Light, ewwww that made my stomach churn and burn!
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) February 06, 2012 at 05:23 PM
John, I really liked that one too! http://www.youtube.com/oikosyogurt?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=oikos&utm_campaign=pre_brand_oikos_super%2Bbowl_core&buf=99999999
Terry Parris Jr. February 06, 2012 at 05:49 PM
I was disappointed in the Bueller commercial. The teaser was excellent... but I feel the commercial fell flat.
Anneke9 February 06, 2012 at 06:04 PM
I liked the Clint Eastwood Half-time in America commercial, as well as the Doritos dog. I was also impressed with the Fiat commercial with the hot girl speaking Italian to the nerdy guy. Didn't know Fiat still sold cars in the US.
NewBomb Turk February 06, 2012 at 06:35 PM
My wife said the David Beckham add-BY FAR.
Terry Parris Jr. February 06, 2012 at 06:38 PM
I think everyone's wife said that.
NewBomb Turk February 06, 2012 at 06:44 PM
I think you are right.
Terry Parris Jr. February 06, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Being from Detroit, I gotta go with Chrysler and Eastwood.
Rob Sorensen February 06, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Eastwood message, cuz it's Eastwood, but the Coke ads have become classic, tasteful and playful, appealing to the calm sensibilities. All the others seem to appeal to anxieties at various levels. Kudos to the creative intensions.
ordinary joe February 06, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Chrysler and Eastwood was the BEST Super Bowl advertisement followed by the one for HONDA CRV!!
Chris Crow February 06, 2012 at 10:18 PM
The Doritos commercial(s) doesn't even get a nod by Patch? That's messed up. I thought the Doritos commercial with the missing cat and the dog sliding that Doritos bag across to the guy with a note saying "Don't say Nuthin!" was very funny and creative.
Tim February 06, 2012 at 10:32 PM
I love how our taxpayer dollars bail out GM and Chrysler and they have millions to spend on Super Bowl ads.... and while they may have "paid back" their loans, that's only because the US Government still hold a substantial stock interest in both companies. "GM stock would have to sell for $53 per share for the Treasury to break even on the 500 million shares it holds. GM Co. shares closed at $26.18 Friday." - UPI.com And while the one ad may rip Ford, the bottom line is that the Ford F-150 outsells GM, Chrysler, Toyota, and Nissan's top truck models... not to mention, Ford never took a bailout.
Terry Parris Jr. February 06, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Tim: What about the 1 million jobs the bailout saved? (Also reported in that story.) What happens if Bush and then Obama don't intervene in those companies?
Tim February 06, 2012 at 11:12 PM
First off, they didn't "save" 1 million jobs. George Bush made a big mistake with the bailouts. When Delta Air Lines (and many other airlines) filed for bankruptcy (and didn't get bailouts) did they go under and lay off all of their employees? Answer, No. There is a legal process for which GM and Chrysler could have and should have followed that would have allowed them to renegotiate with their creditors and emerge as profitable businesses again as Delta did. Mr. Bush (and Obama apparently as well) decided to save the union bosses instead because all the union contracts would have been renegotiated as well and we can't have that can we?
Terry Parris Jr. February 06, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Tim: I'm curious, why do you believe the one quote in the story but not the other? "The $12.5 billion spent to save Chrysler cost taxpayers $1.3 billion and both bailouts saved about 1 million good-paying jobs at the auto companies and parts suppliers. GM stock would have to sell for $53 per share for the Treasury to break even on the 500 million shares it holds. GM Co. shares closed at $26.18 Friday." Also, is saying "save" is the wrong word? In your opinion, did Bush/Obama/Government save anything?
Tim February 07, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Because it's impossible to say how many jobs it "saved" because the law was not followed and the bankruptcy process did not play out. Again, I'd suggest looking at Delta Air Lines as a company that followed the rules and didn't fire all their employees when they went bankrupt. The information of the stock price of GM and what it would take to break even is hard fact and not an unprovable opinion like the quote you provide. Bush and Obama IMO didn't save anything in the best interest of the nation at large. They both were deficit spenders out of control and another 1.2 trillion in the red this year puts us on a path to becoming Greece. It is not sustainable and I see no effort from either party to fix it. I have a fundamental disagreement in that I don't believe the US government should be bailing out ANY private company, Wall St, or Main St..... but take a poll. I'm willing to bet (at least nationally) more people agree with me on that. Didn't OWS begin to protest bailouts? Why are some bailouts OK and others not? Who decides? Obama? Some unelected bureaucrat?
Terry Parris Jr. February 07, 2012 at 12:39 AM
It's hard to say how many jobs may have been "saved." I agree with you. It was just interesting to me to quote one piece of the story but not take any stock in the other. And I was curious. Thanks for clearing it up!
Thomas Lee Coates February 07, 2012 at 01:16 AM
How do you unfollow a comment thread? I don't need all this anti-American baloney from some guy named Tim. If you don't think that saving GM & Chrysler didn't keep all the rust belt states (MI, OH, PA, etc.) from going into a much deeper recession, you are crazy. If you check the unemployment rates for those states, you'll find they have been improving over the past couple of years. There is no way to prove that letting GM go through bankruptcy would have helped or hurt the economy. President Obama didn't give GM money without conditions.
Leah Hall February 07, 2012 at 01:21 AM
Oh, the pain! I feel for you, Thomas. :( You failed to uncheck the "send be email updates" button at the bottom of the page.
Tim February 07, 2012 at 01:28 AM
And I don't need to be called "anti-American" by some balled headed stooge. My point is that the law wasn't followed and the creditors that would have been first in line were screwed and the unions rewarded. Btw, did President Obama give Solyndra money without conditions? Did it matter? Were the taxpayers screwed? I'm not trying to be partisan. After all, the bailouts began under Bush, BUT the Bush Admin repeatedly denied Solyndra loans yet here we are.
ordinary joe February 07, 2012 at 05:10 AM
You are 100% right Thomas. The Detroit recovery is the GRETAEST American story taht all Americans should be proud of. Only the Obama-haters and the freaking Ditto-heads don't like it because they know what is coming!!!
Brash Brazen February 07, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Sadly,Tim's misinformed & laughable rants will reach the boiling point when Obama's re-election over his flawed & hapless adversaries leads to the Democrats retaking both the House & Senate come November. It's the very same talking points & rhetoric that are boosting Obama in the polls & adding significantly to the climbing negative opinion numbers of both Gingrich & Romney. The Republicans are so disorganized & confused that they're blaming fellow Republican Clint Eastwood (who said as recently as last November that car manufacturers shouldn't have received bailouts) of making a pro-Obama car commercial touting Detroit automakers & autoworkers ! They've lost their minds which doesn't bode well for Tim as he'll have to continue his futile search for his own by himself.
Noelle February 07, 2012 at 06:40 PM
Seriously? She was absolutely awful. Never will be a fan of fake singing. And the cheerleading...come on! Rockin it is not even close!
Tim February 07, 2012 at 07:03 PM
Laughable rant huh? Laughable rant like I see posted by you of every anti-pot club article on the Patch? The one thing I agree with you on a majority of Californians do not as was shown by the rejection of a ballot measure thay would have legalized pot. My point is that its not always easy to be in the minority opinion which I am in CA. However, as weak as the republican field is, Obamas reelction is far from a lock and he will have a tough time in the swing states with continued high unemployment and if Israel attacks Iran this spring all bets are off in November.
Leah Hall February 08, 2012 at 01:36 AM
"People have to understand that what he was doing was saying to America 'Get yourselves together - all of you - and make this a second half.' It's not a political thing.'" -Leonard Hirshan, Clint Eastwood's manager Clint! Clint! Clint! :)
Anneke9 February 08, 2012 at 03:19 AM
As a conservative, and knowing Clint's politics the way I do, it never occurred to me that this commercial was political. Shame on opportunist GOP pundits who saw this as an opportunity to use a classic American celebrity to get face time on TV.
Tim February 08, 2012 at 04:05 AM
This was a fairly weak year for Superbowl commercials looking back on years past. But then again, I was paying more attention to the game since I'm a huge Giants fan... Two Superbowl wins in four years! NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »