I think the inspiration behind this promotion is stronger than the execution. The game might look good--I was impressed with the effort--but it's boring to play. It's essentially a one-shot gag with no viral qualities (viral is in the eye of the beholder, however--maybe tennis fans would love it), and therefore doesn't do much for brand-exposure. Besides, we've got Rogers, Amex, Pong (Atari), and Andy Roddick as competing brands. So which brand are we supposed to be paying attention to here?

To clarify, the commercial has been around since early 2006 based on this Australian version showing a different URL at the end. American Express is responsible for the commercial, and it just so happens that they are a major sponsor of the Rogers Cup. As far I as I was concerned, American Express was what I should be focusing on. But you are correct in pointing out that the message is diluted: Atari, American Express and Roddick himself are all competing for our attention.

The game itself is nothing beyond what's been done to death with Pong - it's certainly boring and not worth spending too much time with (unless you want to beat the high score - it's in the neighborhood of 53,000 last I checked). I suppose I was more taken in by the seamless transition from one medium to the next, because all too often I've seen video games exploited in commercials simply because they're in the public's consciousness. They're used as an accessory rather than a vehicle for sending the message. And in this case, the message of "Stop Pong" is to get a high score - not purchase stuff with an American Express card.