Ad-wise, still the
best thing on television
Oscar night is called the Super Bowl for women
By Diego Vasquez
Mar 9, 2010
The Super Bowl gets all the hype, but TV's most effective advertising vehicle may be the Academy Awards. That's the conclusion reached by veteran TV researcher Steve Sternberg, who released an analysis of Sunday's ceremony yesterday. Sternberg says that with just 39 minutes and 10 seconds of commercials over the three-hour, 37-minute telecast, the Oscars are the least-cluttered program on television, with ads accounting for only 18 percent of the broadcast. That's compared to 28 percent for a typical primetime series. The show had 43 national commercial spots, with Hyundai and J.C. Penney the top advertisers with seven spots apiece. Diet Coke was second with five, followed by Apple's iPad, airing its first-ever commercials, and Sprint, both with three spots. ABC also aired 10 promotions during the game, including two for returning show "V," which comes back from a four-month hiatus in a few weeks, and two for the new drama "Happy Town." Sternberg, who writes The Sternberg Report at http://thestarryeye.typepad.com/sternberg/, talks to Media Life about why the Oscars are an effective ad vehicle, how ABC decided which shows to advertise, and why he now wants an iPad.
From an advertising standpoint, why is the Academy Awards such a good vehicle?
The Academy Awards is generally the second-highest-rated broadcast of the year and has been referred to as the Super Bowl for women.
In addition to the high ratings, there is less commercial clutter than any show on television. Fifteen percent of the broadcast is devoted to national commercials/promos, and 3 percent is for local commercials. The average primetime series has 28 percent of the telecast time for commercials (national and local) and promos.
We saw this year with the Super Bowl just how many ads you can pack into one broadcast. Why has the Academy always been so mindful of not overcluttering?
The Academy not only controls how many ads can appear but what products can be advertised as well. They do this because they want to maintain a certain image and maximize ratings.
Did any creative stand out to you as particularly compelling or well done? Why?
Actually, I thought some of ABC's promos stood out most. The promo for “Modern Family” was hilarious, and the promo for “V” actually made me want to tune in (but that could be because the show looks so cool in HD).
For the products advertised, I'd say the iPad ads were most effective, I can't wait to get one, and it really wasn't on my radar beforehand.
First-quarter Super Bowl ads usually go for a premium because of the desirable positioning. Is there a similar phenomenon with the Oscars? If so, what's the most-sought-after ad placement and why? If not, why not?
I actually think the first quarter of Super Bowl is the least desirable position.
The Academy Awards tends to perform best between 10 and 11 p.m., so that should be the most desirable hour. But the last national commercial pod before the final three awards are presented may be the best spot in terms of attentiveness.
As you point out, once again the broadcast lasted well past 11 p.m., with Tom Hanks not even bothering to read the names of the nominees for the final award. You have a suggestion for how to avoid the end-of-telecast rush. What is your suggestion and why would it help ratings?
ABC has a three-and-a-half-hour broadcast where they try to get viewers to stay tuned for the [final] four awards. Then, because Nielsen only measures through the final national commercial, the final three awards, including best picture, air after that and therefore are not even included in the ratings. Then they rush through the awards that should have the most drama and viewership.
If they spread out the four major awards, and presented best actor at 10 p.m., best actress at 10:30 p.m., best director at 11 p.m., and best picture at 11:30 p.m., they'd have time to more fully present each, and ratings would unquestionably be higher.
ABC did not air promos for some of its most prominent shows, like "Grey's" or "Housewives." What do you think the reasoning was behind promoting the shows they did, and do you think that was a good call?
At this stage, I don't think promos for “Grey's” or “Desperate Housewives” is going to attract any new viewers. It’s much more important for ABC to get sampling for new shows, and returning first-season shows. And showing “Dancing with the Stars’” new lineup made sense.
With limited promo time available, I think ABC did it the right way. Although I was surprised not to see a promo for “FlashForward.”
Based on preliminary ratings, which look to be up over last year, do you think the 10 best picture nominees change was a success? Why or why not?
No question it helped ratings, as I predicted it would beforehand. The lowest-rated broadcasts tend to be when there are mostly movies people haven't seen.
Were there five nominees this year, I doubt whether “Avatar” would have been one of them (I know others disagree, but “Dark Knight” was not one of the five last year), and neither would “Up in the Air” or “Up” (and lots of people saw those).
A best picture nominee lineup of “Hurt Locker,” “A Serious Man,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Precious,” and “An Education” could have been disastrous rating-wise.
What's the most important thing media buyers and planners can take away from this year's ceremony?
The Academy Awards remains perhaps the best advertising vehicle on television. Nielsen and the networks should be pressed to have the entire broadcast included in the ratings.
I guarantee you if that happens, you won't see many broadcasts run past 11-11:30 p.m.
|
|
|
