When a Super
Bowl ad makes sense
Some big brands may see a return on investment, but not all
By Diego Vasquez
Feb 2, 2012
Every year the cost of a Super Bowl ad bumps up, this year to a record $3.5 million for a 30-second spot. And every year media people ask the same question: Are Super Bowl ads worth the cost? The answer is maybe, according to sports marketing researcher Kirk Wakefield. For the right brand and the right product, the wide reach offered by the game, which draws an estimated 160 million viewers when out-of-home and online viewing is combined with TV, is a good fit, Wakefield says. Mass-market products like beer and tortilla chips are most likely to see a return on investment, because who in the audience doesn't like beer and tortilla chips? But for higher-end or niche brands, investing in a pricey Super Bowl buy makes less sense. Only a small fraction of that huge audience is actually interested in buying your product, which means a lot of wasted money. Wakefield, chair of the marketing department and associate professor at the Hankamer School of Business at Baylor University, talks to Media Life about who should be advertising in the Super Bowl, who should not, and how advertisers can make a connection between their brand and the event.
Are Super Bowl ads worth the cost? Why or why not?
They are for those whose target audience A--widely overlaps with the 160 million audience, and B--fits with the sports and entertainment context of the Super Bowl. So Budweiser and Coke make good sense, as they are a part of the fan experience in many sports venues.
The question is do they really gain anything else by being in the Super Bowl, given that they already hit this audience hard and heavy the rest of the year? My studied guess is that brand loyalty for these sports advertisers is no better off because of the Super Bowl, since they have already saturated this market.
What's the argument against advertising in the Super Bowl?
I think the biggest question is the issue of advertising waste. Brands pay the $3 to $6 million per each ad to reach the 160 million viewers. But how many brands are potentially used by anything close to that 160 million? So the CPM may be great, but not so much if you figure your brand audience is only a fraction of the total viewership.
Another big issue is that ad campaigns are successful based on repetition and longevity. If all you're going to do is hit the Super Bowl, you've got to be ready to sustain it to that same audience. Or, again, all that gained from a single exposure is essentially wasted.
What's the argument for it?
If introducing a new brand or model where the advertising objective is awareness, the CPM to gain exposure is good. The problem is that this is a mass market approach to the majority of Americans, so advertising a product aimed at specific segments is gaining exposure to plenty of folks that may like the ad but will never be in the market.
For instance, what's the viable market for Honda's CR-V? It's not all of America. But, one could argue favorable responses to the Ferris Bueller-like ad could gain broad social support, which might influence buyers in their target market.
How can advertisers get viewers to make a connection between their brand and the event?
Since many of these ads will run again (or before and after the game via social media), brands have an opportunity to connect brand & event if:
1. The brand advertising is somehow related to the event: We more easily process information that is congruent or similar. So ads that are entertaining and tie into the sport/event make sense. Ads that are informational and unrelated to the context (sports/entertainment) tend to be ignored, and in any case do not occupy the same mental space as the sport/event. Fail.
2. The brand is prominent and familiar: Prominent, well-known brands are already stored in memory and easy to retrieve. Unknown brands must be stored and associated with information previously learned. So, unknown brands are easily forgotten and rarely connect with viewers, kind of like the local ads shown on rotation. In particular, creative ads where the new product is only tangential to the content will suffer. In an entertainment environment, we simply won't work that hard to try to make the mental connection.
3. The brand adds value to the event: Viewers must believe the event is better off because of the brand. They would miss the brand if it wasn't there. When fans connect the brand and the event like that, the two share the same mental space. That's when the fans' passion for the event transfers to the brand.
Are there any examples of advertisers that have done this really well?
Budweiser/Bud Light, CareerBuilder, Pepsi and Doritos are examples of brands that fans would miss if they weren't in the Super Bowl. Fans associate their brand advertising with the Super Bowl. The ads are entertaining, tie in to the event, and the product is the star of--not tangential to--the advertising.
What sort of brands/ad categories are ideal for Super Bowl advertising and why?
Brands in categories for frequently purchased, mass-marketed products that need wide reach to be effective.
What sort of brands/ad categories would be better off spending their money elsewhere? Why?
Brands aimed at niche markets and/or bought infrequently. If the target market is relatively limited and is a high involvement purchase made infrequently (e.g., Mercedes, Audi), the advertising waste on those not currently in the market is tremendous.
Are there any brands that seem to have wasted their money with Super Bowl buys the past few years? Why?
Carmakers and new movie releases seem to be wasting their money. First, they are rarely rated as the most liked. If you don't really like the ad, you're not going to associate it with something you do really like (the Super Bowl).
Second, the reason fans don't care about cars or movies is a large portion aren't in the market. With Americans waiting far longer to buy a new car (10-plus years), that means only about 10 to 20 percent are going to care.
And, frankly, as Hollywood continues to produce films aimed at small markets (R-rated, restricted audience) and/or low quality (Adam Sandler), only a minority of the audience will care. Worse, movie trailers are already readily available to moviegoers, which means the exposure is pretty much wasted. They've already seen it or will see it soon.
Finally, who do you think will win Sunday's game?
Since I was at Ole Miss for 11 years, including while Eli [Manning, the Giants quarterback] was there, I'm rooting for the Giants.
|
|
|
