Okay, some of you may find the topic of this post a bit controversial. Several people asked me to draft it. Also, I polled several marketers and advertising people and asked them whether they think it is still a value in 2024.
First, a bit of background to refresh your memories. This year, 30 seconds of time on the Super Bowl cost approximately $7 million. Interestingly, many of the spots were 60 seconds long meaning the advertiser was shelling out $14 million for one minute. On top of that commitment, production was elaborate and first rate and probably added a couple more million to the tab. Lastly, a number of top-drawer celebrities appeared in many of the executions, and they probably did not work for free. So, in some cases, it is fair to estimate that the tab for the one-minute commercial was $17-18 million.
Was it worth it? For 25 years, we have been discussing how fragmented all types of broadcast, cable and streaming video have become. The Super Bowl was the only place where you could deliver 100+ million advertising opportunities all at once. The time-honored rule in media has been that you “pay more to get more.” So, the Super Bowl gave you a rating not seen since the 1960’s for over the air TV. And, importantly, the Super Bowl may be the only event on TV where people actively watch the commercials intently. So, attentiveness levels to Super Bowl commercials are the highest among all programming. Also, the 2024 Super Bowl was wildly exciting to sports fans and the audience held up through the final second in overtime.
For the reasons stated above, most people who responded to me said that it was definitely worth it—two even described it as a “no-brainer” if you could afford it. A few said it was worth it if it were done in good taste and was humorous.
A few curmudgeons appeared. Bless them. Here are quotes that have been edited a bit and with obscenities deleted:
--"My boss kept pushing for it and we once spent a third of our budget for the year on it. We got some nice press and it might have helped morale a bit in the office but it did not move the sales needle one damn bit.”
--“Our CEO wanted it and he went to the shoot. Sales went up the next two weeks and then dropped back to normal. I visited him before he died, and he still talked about it. Were I a large shareholder, I would not have been thrilled. The guy was on an ego trip.”
--“The brand must have broad appeal—booze, snacks, maybe a Detroit produced vehicle. Otherwise, I do not see how it can pay out.”
--“Why take an eight-figure gamble these days when there are many targeted digital alternatives that can hit portions of your target at a reasonable cost and are trackable? I do not get the appeal anymore.”
This year, Budweiser brought the Clydesdales back which was fun. The Detroit automotive cabal was absent with only BMW and Kia present in the big game. The BMW spot with Christopher Walken was wildly entertaining to me but how many young people can relate to an 81-year-old Oscar winning actor? How many know who he is?
So, the jury is still out. Perhaps it can work for some advertisers in a broad category but, in age of accountability, can many prove that a Super Bowl commitment pays for itself?
I will be watching closely to see if a minute in the 2025 Super Bowl goes for $15 million plus.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com or leave a message on the blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment