Trending Topics:

After all that buildup– SodaStream ad was flat

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
Screenshot from SodaStream's Super Bowl commercial where Scarlett Johansson wonders how it all went so wrong.

Screenshot from SodaStream’s Super Bowl commercial in which Scarlett Johansson wonders how it all went so wrong.

Whatever its political implications, SodaStream’s ad for the Super Bowl didn’t land well among viewers and mavens. It’s getting panned.

The Washington Post, headlines its review, “SodaStream strikes out with Scarlett Johansson Super Bowl commercial.” The piece focuses on the lame “punchline”– of Johansson, a purported soda scientist, sucking on a straw– and says SodaStream needlessly ran afoul of censors for the second year running, by seeking to take on Coke and Pepsi. And the Post says the ad was overshadowed by the political controversy.

TiVo’s Annual Super Bowl Report of most popular ads. There is a conspicuous absence:

TiVo Research and Analytics, Inc. . . , a leader in the advanced television market, today released this year’s top most engaging Super Bowl commercials, promotions and game top moments…

The following top ten commercials and promotions from Super Bowl XLVIII according to TiVo with about half airing in the first quarter and half in the 4th:

1. Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee (Halftime) 2. Budweiser’s “Puppy Love” (4th Quarter) 3. GoDaddy’s “Bodybuilder” (4th Quarter) 4. Doritos’s “Cowboy Kid” (4th Quarter) 5. Toyota Highlander’s “Terry Crews & the Muppets” (2nd Quarter) 6. Doritos’s “Time Machine” (1st Quarter) 7. RadioShack’s “The Phone Call” (1st Quarter) 8. Oikos Greek Yogurt’s “The Spill” (4th Quarter) 9. Bud Light’s “Up for Whatever #2” (1st Quarter) 10. Squarespace’s “A Better Web Awaits” (1st Quarter)

TiVo Research is the only audience research service using second-by-second to rank top Super Bowl spots based on actual commercial retention relative to overall program viewership….

Four of the top 10 ads and promotions on our list this year aired in the fourth quarter, in spite of Seattle’s huge lead on the field. [Ed. note: The same time the SodaStream ad appeared].

The USA Today ad meter ranked the commercial the 48th most popular out of 57 ads that aired during the Super Bowl. Our guess is that SodaStream’s CEO Daniel Birnbaum was expecting a bigger splash when he signed a Hollywood star.

CNN suggests that SodaStream missed the cultural moment:

Where did all the bikinis go?…

The absence of such bro-centric staples from this year’s stable of Super Bowl ads, and a preference for multi-racial, patriotic and small business entrepreneurial themes, seems to suggest that America is growing more serious and more sentimental….

“GoDaddy – another advertiser known for boobs and babes – and what are they are showing? A small business advertising,” said Kelly O’Keefe, professor of brand strategy at the Virginia Commonwealth University Brand Center. He was referring to an ad in which actor John Turturro introduces an entrepreneur quitting her job to launch a company called Puppets by Gwen.

“She actually quits her job on the air, which is an interesting stunt, but what is even more interesting is that GoDaddy has abandoned their raunchy ways of the past,” he said.

…He said that ads were more mature this year, seeming to abandon their adolescent themes of the past.

And there was the Financial Times, Peter Aspden and John Reed:

Perhaps the biggest disappointment for fans of Ms Johansson’s acting talents is the sheer banality of the ad. The star’s stiff and cliched turn is strangely reminiscent of Bill Murray’s performance-within-a-performance in her breakthrough film of 11 years ago. The cool indie beauty of that time has turned disappointingly corporate. Something appears to have been lost in translation all right.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

33 Responses

  1. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 3, 2014, 2:40 pm

    “The star’s stiff and cliched turn is strangely reminiscent of Bill Murray’s performance-within-a-performance in her breakthrough film of 11 years ago. The cool indie beauty of that time has turned disappointingly corporate. Something appears to have been lost in translation all right.”

    Zionism is culturally adrift from the West. I imagine 37 years of Likud thinking and the marginalization of the Israeli left wing damaged the ability of the culture to leverage its creativity. Running a pride parade is nothing special. Brainwashed students don’t add anything either.

  2. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    February 3, 2014, 2:49 pm

    Hard to believe the version soda stream chose was the best take. Very flat, as you say.
    Johansson has to be feeling as seasick as the Broncos.

  3. hophmi
    hophmi
    February 3, 2014, 3:08 pm

    “Zionism is culturally adrift from the West. ”

    Yes, yes, it’s Zionism that made this ad unsuccessful! Zionism designed the ad from its offices on Madison Avenue. Yes, that was it.

    Over 10 million hits on youtube and counting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxq4ziu-wrI

    • annie
      annie
      February 3, 2014, 3:25 pm

      stock keeps plunging, worst since i’ve been keeping track, just now: https://www.google.com/search?q=soda+stream+stocks&oq=soda+stream+stocks&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.6497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8

      Sodastream International Ltd
      NASDAQ: SODA – Feb 3 3:22 PM ET
      35.69-0.87 (-2.38%)

      numbers do not lie. the difference between yours and mine hops, is yours don’t necessarily mean viewers like the ad, it could mean they are watching it because of controversy*. whereas stock prices represent investor trust in the corporation.

      * from the WAPO embed in our article above:

      The Verdict: This hasn’t been a good week for SodaStream or Johansson. For the second year in a row, SodaStream has had its ad censored by the networks — the original ad contained a dig at Pepsi and Coke that had to be edited out because Pepsi is the sponsor of the halftime show (plus, they’re no fools — SodaStream knew they’d be able to rebrand the ad as “Scarlett Johansson uncensored” and let the pageviews roll in). You can see the unedited version, which packs more of a punch, here. But that has been overshadowed by an even bigger controversy. Critics have spoken out about SodaStream’s factory in the West Bank, which caused the actress to resign as an Oxfam ambassador over the conflict of interest. Max Fischer has more on the controversy in WorldViews.

      and please do open wapo’s must read max fischer embed. here’s a taste:

      Americans don’t like it when celebrities appear greedy or unprincipled, and choosing a soda-maker company over an international poverty-fighting NGO certainly risks that appearance (Corollary: News organizations have an incentive to write about frequently Googled celebrities, which requires engaging with controversies around those celebrities, which increases the controversy.)

      …….

      A third reason this has struck such controversy is that the entire issue got wrapped up in a separate-but-related issue called “BDS,” short for “boycott, divestment and sanctions.” BDS is an international movement that calls on the world to boycott and sanction all of Israel as a means of changing its policies toward the Palestinian territories. That movement has, as the Financial Times reports, seized on the Johansson controversy to further its larger campaign. Strategically, from BDS’s point of view, that makes sense: An issue closely related to their issue is in the news, and Johansson is getting hammered by the press, so why not seize on that sentiment at a time when it would seem to be unusually sympathetic?

      The effect, though, has been for the conversation around Johansson’s sponsorship deal to develop increasingly into a conversation about BDS, about boycotting Israel. And that debate is far more polarizing and contentious than the separate-but-related question of whether Johansson should have chosen Oxfam over SodaStream.

      oh gee, not surprising/not.as i have been saying all along, this is a huge win win for the BDS movement.

      • annie
        annie
        February 3, 2014, 3:44 pm

        oh look..still going down

        Sodastream International Ltd
        NASDAQ: SODA – Feb 3 3:43 PM ET
        35.47-1.09 (-2.98%)

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        February 3, 2014, 5:54 pm

        “stock keeps plunging, worst since i’ve been keeping track”

        Yes, a stock can go down and a company can still be healthy. The machine and cartridges sell well; so far the flavors do not. It’ll stabilize, don’t you worry. They’re certainly turning a profit.

        “numbers do not lie.”

        Yep, and most of the numbers for Sodastream are quite positive.

        “the difference between yours and mine hops, is yours don’t necessarily mean viewers like the ad”

        14000 thumbs up to 3000 thumbs down. The numbers say most people like it.

        “whereas stock prices represent investor trust in the corporation.”

        It’s a small cap, Annie. They can be a bit volatile. But I don’t think you’ll find many analysts saying SodaStream is in mortal danger. It’s turning a profit.

        As far “who won,” most people think no one won.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-stroup/during-lopsided-super-bowl-no-clear-winner_b_4719559.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media

        Both the Independent and Mail visited the factory, and reported back that the Palestinians working there are against the boycott.

        Oxfam America clearly did not support this decision, and they still haven’t put anything about it on their website.

        And the biggest problem for you is that at the end of the day, very few people outside the partisan communities have any clue what this controversy is about.

        I’m also familiar with the way activists always feel the need to claim big victories. It’s important for fundraising and morale, regardless of what the truth is.

        You guys are very invested in claiming victory, and in putting down anything Israeli. It’s still not clear how this strategy helps Palestinians, especially since the outcome has been to risk the jobs of hundreds of them, but I know it feels good for Westerners like us who live in boring countries without real conflicts to contend with.

        And of course, there’s the little problem with the outcome, which is that in the end, Johansson chose Sodastream over BDS.

        But I’ll agree with you on this one, Annie. I don’t think that there was a way for the BDS movement to lose this one, because it was not outcome specific. You guys wanted to make as much noise as possible to make your small fringe movement seem much bigger than it actually is, to make what is non-controversial for most Americans seem controversial, and to scare others celebrities from doing anything remotely Israeli. And perhaps you’ve succeeded in that. This was the symbolic victory. You showed that it didn’t matter that the head of SodaStream was a peacenik who had stood up for Palestinian rights, or that the Palestinians working at SodaStream were happy to be there, or that most likely, Mishor Adumim will end up in Israel. All that mattered was that the factory was in a settlement. The pro-Israel community did not get very involved fighting you on it, because, after all, Johansson chose to leave Oxfam.

        So, even though a number of journalists do not see this as a BDS win, and even though every indicator shows that most Americans could not care less about it, and that those who like Israel far outweigh those who do not, the ruthlessness you showed in pursuing this issue, the sheer ignorance of any nuance, the nastiness (the way you personalized the issue for Johansson and made it seem like she was some lowlife who favored money above all) – you’ve probably put the fear the God into a few American celebrities and made a people with a tendency toward paranoia a little more paranoid about the success of a movement that reminds many of them of the Nazi boycott of the Second World War.

        My congratulations to you, and I’m praying for your soul.

      • annie
        annie
        February 3, 2014, 7:37 pm

        As far “who won,” most people think no one won.

        who are you quoting?

        14000 thumbs up to 3000 thumbs down. The numbers say most people like it.

        out of 10million people? the numbers say most people who voted liked it.

        very few people outside the partisan communities have any clue what this controversy is about.

        well, wrt investors, did you read the big headline “SodaStream Drops Amid Sanctions Over Jewish Settlements” at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-03/sodastream-slumps-on-sanction-campaign-over-jewish-settlements.html

        ?

        there’s the little problem with the outcome, which is that in the end, Johansson chose Sodastream over BDS.

        in the end (which is not here yet), who scarlett chose at this juncture is irrelevant insofar as palestinians are concerned. i hardly see her as important in the grand scheme of things. she’s a lightening rod which has brought an unprecedented amount of attention to the boycott movement (see the wapo article i blockquoted above). what happens at the st department press briefings matters and what john kerry says matters. so your allegations about very few people outside the partisan communities is bogus, more and more people are choosing one side over the other, swelling those partisan communities (thanks to the publicity) and we are nowhere even approaching the end. we’re just beginning. scarlett’s ambassadorship has just been launched and her sticking with sodastream is going to provide endless coverage, hopefully anyway. the opposite of flying under the radar. so hold onto your hat because there’s stormy weather ahead.

        and your little conniption fit there at the end, the ‘ignorant/ruthless/nasty/nazi’ ending in ‘congrats/i’ll pray for you’… phff. you sound like a very sore looser indeed.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        February 4, 2014, 11:25 am

        “SodaStream Drops Amid Sanctions Over Jewish Settlements”

        Yeah. It doesn’t mean the “sanctions” caused the “drop.” It just means one happened at the same time as the other. The whole NASDAQ was sharply off yesterday.

        “who scarlett chose at this juncture is irrelevant insofar as palestinians are concerned”

        I know. That was my point.

        ” so your allegations about very few people outside the partisan communities is bogus, more and more people are choosing one side over the other”

        I’ve been around partisans on both sides for around 15 years now. I’ve seen the media makes lots of noise over something most people aren’t interested in. The media has, for instance, made much more noise about Syria than it has about this. Do you think most Americans know much about Syria?

        “swelling those partisan communities (thanks to the publicity) and we are nowhere even approaching the end. we’re just beginning. ”

        We’ll see. Until I see hard numbers, this is all so much huffing and puffing.

        “scarlett’s ambassadorship has just been launched and her sticking with sodastream is going to provide endless coverage”

        I wouldn’t count on it. The national attention span is not that long, and people clearly do not care enough.

        “and your little conniption fit there at the end, the ‘ignorant/ruthless/nasty/nazi’ ending in ‘congrats/i’ll pray for you’… phff. you sound like a very sore looser indeed.”

        As usual, Annie, I’m simply pointing out that you’re no better than the extremists in my community, who ignore all nuance. I’ve said many times that people here and the extreme right-wingers deserve one another. You’re both deceitful. You both engage in hate speech toward the other side. You both abuse anyone who disagrees with your orthodoxy and advances a more nuanced POV. It’s really the times we live in, where ideology is more important than truth, and yelling and screaming is more important than making peace.

        And as I’ve said many times, you’d accomplish much more for the Palestinians by helping them start companies like SodaStream rather than tearing down those companies in Israel. The entrepreneurial spirit, and the opportunity, is certainly there.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 3, 2014, 8:33 pm

        Having a bad day hophmi? Keep telling yourself BDS is fringe, if that helps.

        You showed that it didn’t matter that the head of SodaStream was a peacenik who had stood up for Palestinian rights,

        What Palestinian rights has Birnbaum stood up for?

        BTW most adults are going to have trouble squaring “peacenik” and CEO of company operating in violation of Geneva 4, ie. war crimes.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 3, 2014, 8:36 pm

        Since you clearly worship Israel, spare us your prayers hophead.

        No one en masse, is going to ever buy SodaStream products.

        10 million hits is because its ScarJo and the Superbowl. Not because SS products are suddenly going to take over the world.

        If that were the case, their brand wouldn’t be doing so poorly.

        The BDS movement isn’t targeting apartheid profiteers because they are Jewish. Its because they are apartheid profiteers.

        Not to mention BDS is a Palestinian initiative. The Palestinians live under Israeli tyranny.

        BDS is there way to resist.

        And yet, you still call them Nazis.

        You call Palestinians Nazis, you say its unhelpful for us to talk about the Nakba, you believe that Jewish terrorism was acceptable, etc.

        Someone should be praying for you – but they won’t.

        You clearly have no friends other than possibly other cultists like yourself.

        I guess it makes it easy for you to hate non-Jews when your cult emboldens you and gives your worthless life meaning.

        What is it you do again, hophead? Are you a professional troll? Do you freelance troll for the ADL, measuring antisemitism?

      • James North
        James North
        February 3, 2014, 11:05 pm

        Hophmi: Admit it — weren’t you more than a little surprised at the strong language in the Financial Times editorial? And does it really help a small company like Sodastream to have one of the most powerful voices in the financial world denounce it?

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        February 4, 2014, 11:30 am

        “No one en masse, is going to ever buy SodaStream products.”

        Eh? It’s about a $900m company with 25 plants. Someone buys them.

        “10 million hits is because its ScarJo and the Superbowl. Not because SS products are suddenly going to take over the world.”

        I’m not aware of anyone claiming that SodaStream will be taking over the world.

        “If that were the case, their brand wouldn’t be doing so poorly.”

        It isn’t doing so poorly. There’s more to investing than the stock price.

        “The BDS movement isn’t targeting apartheid profiteers because they are Jewish. Its because they are apartheid profiteers.”

        Uh-huh. But you’re not targeting Coke, a profiteer off labor abuses and environmental abuses.

        “Not to mention BDS is a Palestinian initiative.”

        Except that these Palestinians don’t seem to support you. So that would make the SodaStream campaign a Western initiative.

        “And yet, you still call them Nazis.”

        Lying is a sin, Cliff. And repeating a lie over and over again, well, that’s what the Nazis were very good at. You must have learned something from them.

        “You clearly have no friends other than possibly other cultists like yourself.”

        LOL. Project much?

        “I guess it makes it easy for you to hate non-Jews when your cult emboldens you and gives your worthless life meaning.”

        LOL. Ad hominem much?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 4, 2014, 1:27 am

        “, and that those who like Israel far outweigh those who do not”

        Wide and shallow support for Israel. Once a few facts penetrate, thanks to BDS, Dick and Jane will emerge from beneath the mainstream media waves of endless hype re Israel. No poll has ever asked the lovely couple specific questions about the real Israel.

      • annie
        annie
        February 4, 2014, 1:44 am

        most of the numbers for Sodastream are quite positive.

        except the ones that matter to investors.

        “We expected some weakness in U.S. sales but are surprised by the magnitude of the company’s gross margin and earnings miss,” Jim Chartier, an analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co. who downgraded the stock to neutral from buy, wrote in a note to investors yesterday. “While we continue to believe in the story longer term, we are moving to the sidelines until we have greater clarity on the company’s gross margin issues.”

        SodaStream has declined 40 percent since Oct. 29, the day before the company reported third-quarter sales that fell short of analysts’ estimates, the first miss on record.

        http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-14/even-star-johansson-can-t-help-sodastream-as-stock-sinks-26-percent-1

        that was 2 weeks ago before the stock fell again, it’s worse right now: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/sodastream-sanctions-settlements.html

        The machine and cartridges sell well not according to that bloomberg link they don’t:

        SodaStream benefits from the so-called razor-blade model of retailing where profits rely on customers repeatedly buying complementary products such as carbonation cannisters and flavors. Surveys of SodaStream products among U.S. retailers from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to Costco Wholesale Corp. showed modest sales growth from the prior year

        that’s a far cry from “quite positive”. it’s going to take more than ‘modest growth’ to offset sodastream’s issues. do your own homework. numerous reports stated people are buying the machines, but not using them.

        and perhaps fans of the apartheid state are giving them as gifts but the recipients are too repulsed to use them, or even take them home. i think phil wrote about receiving one as a gift and leaving it by the door as he left the house. blood bubbles and all that. maybe he’s not alone.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        February 4, 2014, 11:37 am

        “Keep telling yourself BDS is fringe, if that helps.”

        I don’t have to tell myself that. The polling shows it.

        “What Palestinian rights has Birnbaum stood up for?”

        http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/pride-and-embarrassment–at-the.html

        “weren’t you more than a little surprised at the strong language in the Financial Times editorial? ”

        No. FT doesn’t like Israeli settlements, and its editors are not huge fans of Israel in general.

        ” And does it really help a small company like Sodastream to have one of the most powerful voices in the financial world denounce it?”

        I don’t think it makes a huge difference. SodaStream’s success will be based on the market, like most companies. That’s the key thing. And in the long-term, it should be fine.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      February 3, 2014, 4:12 pm

      hits on youtube may mean awareness, but does not translate into advertising or positive awareness or successful advertising.

      Car crash compilations also get millions of youtube hits.

      The ad is lame.

  4. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger
    February 3, 2014, 3:08 pm

    1. There is no poll of the Super Bowl ads in which SS ranks above the bottom 20%.

    2. Johansson’s vapid attempt at allure as she mouthed “viral” was the most meretricious use of that term in ad history.

    3. By the time it aired well over half the audience had left because of the impossibility of the Broncos coming back.

    4. My wife was aware of the controversy over SS and Oxham and Johansson, but hadn’t yet seen it. She laughed pretty heartily, saying “That was short but awful.” Have to admit that as Seahawk fans (we lived in Seattle and Puget Sound before coming to Alaska), by the time it aired, we were into our second bottle of Rosenblum sparkling rose.

    5. SodaStream is down another 2+% today.

    • February 3, 2014, 3:23 pm

      What an amateurish, embarrassing ad for the Super Bowl.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 4, 2014, 1:29 am

        The ad went by so flat and fast–I almost missed it.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      February 3, 2014, 3:58 pm

      Flat? It was horrible. A lame embarrassment. Cringe worthy to the highest degree. How could this actress have gone along with that?

      Well, it is clear she is not too swift for getting herself into shilling for a business enterprise of the occupation and then doing such an embarrassing ad on top of it? She has done herself in.

      Stock is now over 3% down on the day. I will not be surprised if it is a penny stock in the next 18 to 24 months.

      It is down well over 50% of it’s value from the July 2013 highs of 77.80. That is a market capitalization loss of almost 700 million. — a huge amount for what is not really a big company.

  5. irishmoses
    irishmoses
    February 3, 2014, 4:41 pm

    Annie,

    While I share your enthusiasm, the whole stock market was down today and Sodastream’s losses were consistent with the losses of other small cap stocks today, maybe just a tad worse.

    Here’s two good articles from Bloomberg News on Sodastream’s stock price, John Kerry’s comments on the rising dangers of BDS, and Nyahoo’s and LiKood’s hysterical responses:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-03/sodastream-slumps-on-sanction-campaign-over-jewish-settlements.html

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-02/israel-spars-with-kerry-on-boycotts-as-u-s-peace-proposal-nears.html

    Scarlett’s SuperBore ad came on very late in a total washout of a game. I’d quit watching at the beginning of the second half and was working in another room when my wife yelled that the ad was on. From what I saw, it was unremarkable and unimpressive. She had a cheesy final line in the ad that I can’t recall. It seemed a bit political but not anything that most fans would have picked up on or been interested
    in.

  6. concernedhuman
    concernedhuman
    February 3, 2014, 4:43 pm

    That is wonderful while Johanson and sodastream earn negative attention , BDS gets positive attention .
    BDS great work !! All battles cant be won by war , some have to be by pen !!

  7. DaBakr
    DaBakr
    February 3, 2014, 5:36 pm

    Sorry. The CEO of SodaStream could not have POSSIBLY bought enough promotional material, publicity and attention to match that which has come form this (in the ‘real’ world) tempest in a teapot. Most Palestinians have no clue who SJ is. The add was ‘half-baked’ from the get go. It was never a very splashy add and with the edit of the punch-line-advertisers were relying on the ‘old’ trick of the ‘in crowd’ being those in on the ‘secret’ to understand the ad and the rest of the viewers who don’t care about SS just ignored it like everyone ignores ads. The real ‘coup’ for SS was in the weeks of publicity that ran up to the naturally flat (n.p.i.) ad-vert. S0, basically, everybody that already knew about the controversy watched the ad while those that didn’t? I don’t think that ad was ever designed to be as punchy as even their last year promo with the exploding coke and pepsi. (after all-as popular as SS may be its still nothing but a fly in the Coke and Pepsi corporate empires)
    But don’t kid yourselves into believing that the CEO isn’t pleased with the ‘free’ 3 week run of Soda Stream info. I doubt very seriously many minds were changed in a net+ way. Surely some folks became aware of the connection to Palestinians that were not before and I would assume their numbers would split into the same % that Americans currently hold for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a whole.

    But one thing I think would be foolish to deny-wether one is for or against SodaStream-they have a far larger public profile then they did before this SuperBowl dust-up.

  8. Citizen
    Citizen
    February 3, 2014, 5:45 pm

    I was watching for Sodastream add, and I almost missed it; it eventually came on and off in seconds,, after I already knew the Bronos had no chance, and sans any power at all. That doesn’t mean I liked that dog & horse show either, but at least it was captivating–animal love is compelling, even when so obvious. The Sodastream ad made me think of how little MW matters, because the masses don’t care about it, or the illegal settlements.

  9. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    February 3, 2014, 7:33 pm

    Speaking of BDS, did anybody catch this story?

    Netanyahu proclaims, “Boycott won’t hurt Israel!”

    Well, that settles that! If Netanhayu were right, the Israelis would immediately stop kvetching about something that won’t hurt them.

    Of course, this raises questions about why Israeli leaders and supporters really are so worried! In fact, they are very concerned.

    Notice that in the link above, Netanhayu is wearing a big sh*t-eating grin…

  10. piotr
    piotr
    February 3, 2014, 10:27 pm

    If we look at the successful entries for food and beverages, we see coffee, beer and junk food (Doritos). Marketing seltzer to Americans is an uphill battle under most favorable circumstances. Moreover, SodaStream somehow overlooked the most proven strategy, at least for beer, namely to reveal a lot of skin.

    Perhaps the strategy was to appeal to Zionists, including the Orthodox who would appreciate covered elbows and a high neckline. In that case, it does not matter if 95% the audience was indifferent or worse.

  11. DaveS
    DaveS
    February 3, 2014, 11:08 pm

    Of course, the quality of the ad is a secondary issue compared to the ScarJo/Oxfam/settlement controversy that is so much more important. BUT it doesn’t hurt that the ad was so God-awful. I was shocked at how bad it was.

    I also was shocked at the Dylan ad for Chrysler. WTF?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      February 4, 2014, 1:34 am

      They panned the Dylan ad on Imus Show; totally agreed with you. A review of the best contending Super Bowl ads across the tv channels–none even mentioned SJ’s Sodastream ad.

  12. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    February 3, 2014, 11:54 pm

    So great that the new face of occupation did not go over so well.

  13. Yani
    Yani
    February 4, 2014, 5:08 am

    Dutch asset manager PGGM, which oversees more than 150 billion euros ($203 billion), announced last month it would stop investing in Israeli banks because of their financial operations in the settlements. Norway’s sovereign oil fund last week renewed an investment ban on two Israeli construction companies that build in the West Bank, Africa Israel Investments Ltd. and Danya Cebus Ltd.
    <<<

    Pretty amazing that this tin pot fascist state attracted such high level investment in the first place. What was going on that saw these companies attracted to an investment in Israel is the first place? Surely it is the responsibility of the Norway funds groups to be investing in Norway.

  14. Sumud
    Sumud
    February 4, 2014, 8:05 am

    Scarlett’s troubled look reminds me of Steve Jobs’ pitch in 1983 to then-Pepsi CEO, John Sculley. Jobs famously said:

    Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?

    Scarlett chose the sugared water over Oxfam. Sad.

  15. Theo
    Theo
    February 4, 2014, 1:21 pm

    This comment is written with a grain of salt, because last time we owned an israeli stock was about 20 years ago and that investment turned out to be a bummer. The information on the stock was cooked and totally false.

    With that experience in mind, if the information on SodaStream is correct, then the stock is a buy at $35-36. The high during the past 12 months was around $76, also the stock lost over 50% in a short time, in my opinion mainly due to the BDS campaign against it. That will eventually go away and the stock has a possible gain of up to 50% in a year or two, however there are a lot of ifs.
    I would suggest it only to those who have a great faith in the future of Israel and want to participate in a small way. Others better stay with US stocks.

Leave a Reply