When you watch a lot of the same type of programming you see a lot of the same commercials.

The intent is obvious.  Advertisers target their existing and potential customers by viewing habits and hit them with their best shot.

For example, if you’ve watched a lot of NCAA football this fall you’ve seen a lot of Taco Bell, Burger King, and AFLAC spots.  We repeat, a lot.

For no good reason this AM, we decided to dissect these three attempts at getting you out of your LayZBoy recliner and getting into your wallet.

First up we make a run for the border, although you shouldn’t say that anymore.  And, actually, that’s part of the point.   Taco Bell might be changing its image right before your eyes.

For years after it dropped that campaign, it attempted to shove too many “lipstick on a pig” creations down your throat all at a great value (read cheap) price surely ending in $.99. “Try our taco stuffed chalupa on a bun,” or something similarly unappealing like that.

Suddenly, they have the newly paired couple about to embrace on the beach, waves in the background, when the buoy falls over and makes the Taco Bell familiar gong sound.  Like Pavlov’s dogs, the female heads directly to the nearest Taco Bell.  When you need a taco, you need a taco, and you need it from Taco Bell.

It’s whimsical, its lifestyle, and it doesn’t trade on price.  If you have a brand that has value, why incessantly promote price?  Maybe Taco Bell’s brand had little value, and it’s now attempting to gain some.

We grade the initiative S for solid.

With Burger King, let’s flame broil the 30 seconds wasted straight away.  Let us count the ways.

The Burger King name limits the offerings that people will assign value to.  Quick, name another offering there besides the Whopper?  Subtly change the name already.  Think Popeyes.  It’s now calling itself Louisiana’s Kitchen more loudly by the year.

Second, change your corporate colors and uniforms.  This is a tough one.  But, if you keep doing the same things over and over again and you expect better results you define insanity someone once said.

Third, rework the mascot from head to toe.  Burger King, the character, is plastic-looking, intimidating to children, looks like Charlton Heston in Gray Lady Down, and provides no symbiotic connection.  Think Geico.  That gecko is tied at the hip to your home, boat, car, or motorcycle insurance.

And, lastly, stop offering your best product on sale every single day.  It’s not a sale anymore.  Two Whoppers for six bucks is the new price point.  Trading against yourself on price is a race to the bottom.  It’s one you can’t win, and if you do you lose anyway.

If the Home of the Whopper went out of business, would anyone notice?

We grade the initiative T for tired.  Very.

Speaking of kings, the king of football coaches, Nick Saban found 30 seconds here and there to trade in his crimson-colored wardrobe for a bright light blue blazer and shill for AFLAC.  Sometimes it’s he and the AFLAC duck, and sometimes Prime Time Neon Deion Sanders joins the two legends.

But just like how his defense can hit you directly in the jaw from the first play till the final whistle, Saban’s acting (or lack thereof) is something that you cannot unsee.  You focus on it, not the message.

When paired with the duck and its iconic quack of AFLAC, it does make an impression.  Goal number one is to get the audience to remember you.  Sometimes that’s good, and sometimes not so much.  Adding Sanders, who is now coaching too, looks downright uncomfortable on air.

And about that nasty blue color that overrides the entire spot-terrible.

Saban doesn’t need AFLAC’s money.   AFLAC doesn’t need Saban.

The duck isn’t lame, but the spot should be a lame duck.

We grade the initiative B for barn.  What?  As Mr. Wonderful would say on Shark Tank, “take the video out behind the barn and humanely dispose of it.”

And, now we’re set for the second-half kickoff.