Making the case
for Super Bowl ads
They may be very pricey but they pay for themselves
By Diego Vasquez
Feb 5, 2010
In years past, there has been lots of debate over whether Super Bowl ads were worth it. You're not hearing that as much this year. There is a greater sense this year that for some brands the high price actually pays off. One likely reason is that the pregame hype has gotten louder and louder. Also, advertisers are doing more and more to make their ads the center of a larger campaign, as opposed to a stand-alone effort. But there are other reasons why the buy makes sense, especially this year. Sunday's game is expected to break a viewership record for the third year in a row, and pricing for the game is rumored to have dipped for only the second time ever, though CBS has not confirmed that. Further, with CBS airing a pregame special about the spots that actually got decent viewership Wednesday night, and dozens of web sites set to replay Super Bowl ads the day after, advertisers have arguably never gotten such widespread exposure. Walt Guarino,
who has worked with Super Bowl advertisers and is now
president and managing director at Insight/SGW, a New Jersey marketing agency, talks to Media Life about why the Super Bowl is recession proof, why some brands pulled out, and why the Census Bureau's buy is a real head-scratcher.
Why has the Super Bowl become "recession proof?"
Basically because there is nothing else like it. It reaches the widest audience at once. Also, it has become a part of American culture. It is the biggest mainstream media event there is, and it reaches all age groups and families as well.
It keeps getting more important from a marketing perspective because an ad in the Super Bowl is now becoming a lynchpin for integrated marketing communications strategies. Companies use public relations, social media and other disciplines (promotions, contests, et al.) in a coordinated manner to get the biggest bang for their buck and a better return on their 30-second investment.
What does "recession-proof" mean and how have we seen that playing out this year?
In early January, there were a lot of negative articles about buying a spot in the big game. People wrote about big-name dropouts like Pepsi, GM and FedEx. They were predicting doom and gloom, and that was accelerated by a report from a media measurement company that the price per spot was lower than last year.
CBS did not confirm that story, but the word was already out there.
At the same time, CBS was way ahead of schedule in terms of booking sales. As for the "dropouts," GM was not in last year and Pepsi's Frito-Lay division is once again advertising its Doritos, which was very successful last year using a consumer-generated spot.
If one looks at the list of advertisers this year, it's pretty much the same as in past years with a lot of regular "comebackers" and an interesting crop of "newbies." It should wind up to be a very good year for Super Bowl advertisers.
How much did the dip in pricing for this year's game help to entice new advertisers? Does the lower price point make the game a realistic "reach" for smaller companies?
The dip in pricing (if true) in my opinion was not enough to make a big difference. Whether you pay $3 million or somewhere between $2.6 and $2.8 million, it's still a very expensive proposition. It's the ancillary stuff marketers do around the buy to merchandise it that makes it a value in the long term.
From what I can tell, the crop of new advertisers is about the same (if not better) as in previous years.
Why did longtime advertisers such as Pepsi and Fed Ex opt out of this year's game when pricing dropped?
Well, I've already talked about Pepsi. They say that they will be spending half of that money they would have spent of the game in social media. That's going to be very interesting to see how they could spend so much in social media.
By the way, Coke has been doing a great job online and in "push media" (e.g. cell phones) with its My Coke Rewards program, which has been around for a couple of years now.
As for FedEx, they have been advertising in other sports programming, and I think they just are spending less as a consequence of other issues, not the least of which could be sales.
The Census Bureau has really been pushing advertising across all kinds of media. Why did it choose a Super Bowl buy this year as well?
I don't really understand this buy at all. First, their total marketing budget is $340 million and $140 million is being spent in media over the course of the year.
Second, most of the expenditures are being spent on ethnic programming and materials to make sure those audiences understand the importance of the Census and teaching them how to fill out the forms.
Third, this money is being looked at askance because taxpayers may feel that it is somewhat extravagant and the buy on the Super Bowl (which I believe is two spots in the pregame show) exacerbates that possible feeling.
Generally levity rules the Super Bowl, but the Tim Tebow spot from Focus on the Family is getting a huge amount of buzz, not all of it good. Did Focus on the Family get its money's worth out of the controversy, or will the serious tone of the ad be overshadowed by the hilarity of Bud Light and other commercials?
As soon as I learned about the Tebow spot, I knew it would be a can of worms. Obviously, anytime you accept an advocacy spot you will hear from the opposition. Americans have an innate sense of what is fair and what is not.
So CBS has to justify why it accepted the spot beyond the fact that they think the tone of the commercial is acceptable for the Super Bowl. After all, it is Tebow and it is football.
Time will tell whether this was a good idea. As for getting your money's worth from the controversy, the answer has to be yes. This issue has legs and it will keep on running long after the game.
Is it a sign of the economic times that CBS actually accepted an advocacy ad after rejecting one a few years back? Was it having trouble moving the remaining inventory?
From all that I have said herein, I don't believe so. The game will be sold out and there wasn't that much inventory left as of a week ago.
Are there brands for which the Super Bowl really is not an ideal advertising platform? What types and why?
There are lots of brands that I would not recommend be on the Super Bowl.
Anything that is inconsistent with the spirit of celebration and the entertainment that is provided by the game (and its advertising) would result in a potential negative. It isn't worth the risk, never mind the money.
This would include products that deal with serious illness, political issues, possibly products that in some way conjure up tragedies and/or national security matters, and so on.
|
|
|
