January 30, 2007
Marketers Passing on Super Bowl
There’s a lot of competition for the attention of consumers on Super Bowl Sunday. Marketers know that breaking through the clutter is not only challenging; it’s incredibly expensive, as well. That’s why top marketers such as Microsoft, Procter & Gamble and Unilever are taking a pass on running commercial spots during the broadcast of this year’s game between the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts.
“The Super Bowl is a great marketing vehicle. There’s no doubt about it,” Stacie Bright, senior marketing communications director at Unilever, told AdAge.com. Last year, Unilever ran a single ‘Real Beauty’ spot during the Super Bowl broadcast. This year, the company is opting to run spots for Dove during the Academy Awards.
Larry Koffler, who handles the Dove account for the Edelman public relations firm, said, “We would not recommend a spot for the Super Bowl just for the reach from a pure value perspective. It works if it’s integrated [with other things]. With simply one ad, even with the built-in mechanism for pre- and post-game publicity, it really isn’t enough.”
Microsoft is not concerned about missing the game. “We think we have a product and a message that stands alone,” said John B. Williams, general manager-Windows global communications. “Borrowed interest is always something you look at, but [our marketing] will give us more pop, in our opinion, than going into a Super Bowl environment.”
Discussion Questions: Does the Super Bowl hold the same importance as a marketing event that it has in year’s past? What are your thoughts on top marketers that have advertised during past Super Bowl broadcasts that are not doing so this year?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
The big bang days are over and omnipresence is the order of the day. I hear big sighs of relief as more mega-brands get permission to just sit expensive, make-or-break “opportunities” out. Reminds me quite a bit of what has happened to many industry trade shows . . . Every year, a select group of big name companies boldly decide not to play the exhibit-at-all-costs game and many others follow gratefully. Now they can put their money where it REALLY counts and do away with months of pre-show preparation and resource drain in the process. The next thing you know, the show consolidates, reduces frequency, morphs into an educational event, or shuts down altogether. How will the Super Bowl remain relevant to its “exhibitors?”
I agree that the luster has gone out of the ads in general. P&G, Unilever and Microsoft are just the tip of the iceberg for future Super Bowls as well. The clever ads and the one that WILL work are for products targeted to both men and women. Where else will you find them both actually watching the same program?
As an investor, I couldn’t care less if one of my holdings chooses not to advertise on the Super Bowl. In most cases, it will not make any difference. However, everyone should watch Super Bowl advertising as they often point out companies that are breaking out of the pack and provide good investment opportunities. If you see something new and interesting on a Super Bowl advertisement then investing in that company might be interesting. If you see a strong company take a different direction via Super Bowl advertising, this might also create some interest. If you see a company use the same old advertisement (Dodge Ram Trucks Robot fighter) it might give you the impression that they don’t have anything new to say and the product line might be getting a little tired. A lot is communicated about companies by Super Bowl advertising. Awareness of what is being said can make you a better consumer and better investor.
When you’re investing $2.6 million for a half-minute of air time, payback is crucial. The Super Bowl certainly captures a large, attentive audience, but showing one or two ads in that context seems unlikely to foster lasting change in consumer attitude or behavior.
So it’s not too surprising that an ROI-conscious company like P&G might prefer to parse out ad spending to target audiences in other media environments where the impact is more measurable. Or that Microsoft might make the judgment that a well-executed integrated PR and ad campaign might bring more lasting benefit than a few high-profile spots jammed in between the beer and insurance commercials.
The greatest marketing job in the world is one where you can play out your business rivalry and chutzpah in your advertising and have it also be relevant and meaningful to your consumers. For competitively minded males and females alike, the beverage, tobacco and auto categories come quickly to mind as wonderful examples. And the Super Bowl is the premiere venue for the battle. For these brands and advertisers, WHERE you are seen can be just as important (sometimes even more so) than how often you are seen.
Obviously not if some of the shrewdest marketers are sitting it out. On the other hand, look how much press they’ve gotten for not running a spot…. Seriously, Super Bowl advertising has become a very expensive ego contest for ad agencies, one played with the clients’ money. If you’re the client you can probably think of a million things to do with your money besides tooting your agency’s horn for them.
The essence of advertising is repetition, so Super Bowl ads alone don’t make a successful campaign. But they help reinforce repetition, largely with male sports fans. Certainly a lot of sports-related advertising may have more to do with the advertiser executives’ delight in rubbing shoulders with the celebrities involved and access to special seating. But plenty of sports-related marketing works. Where would Bud, Nike and Gillette be without it?
Many people watch the Super Bowl for the ads rather than the game. The ads are an important part of the whole experience. So when and why should a company spend the money for an ad?
Introducing a new product with a knock-out ad could stand out among the clutter and get people interested. Then the follow-up promotion is important, especially if tied back into the Super Bowl ad.
Creating a buzz about a product with a distinctive ad can also be effective if the ad takes a new look at the product, goes after a new consumer group, or repositions the product in a dramatic/humorous/surprising fashion.
Introducing another ad for products that have been and will be advertised throughout the year does not necessarily have an advantage that is worth the cost.
Making the Super Bowl the day when a distinctive new ad for your product is introduced every year can also be effective but has to be followed up with doing the same thing every year–then people will want to see the year’s “new ad.”
If your product is somehow tied to Super Bowl activity, like beer, then creating a distinctive ad can be effective.
Not all ads work just because they are played during the Super Bowl. Determining whether an ad is going to have an effect that is worth the money is an important decision.
I think effective Super Bowl ads now fall into two groups: breakout companies or products that use the Super Bowl to enter the mainstream consciousness. CareerBuilder comes to mind as an example. The other group are the “old guard” that are so well-associated with the Super Bowl that they double their marketing impact because they get months of publicity over what their campaign will be this year. Anheuser-Busch is a good example.
The marketers caught in the middle are overpaying. Microsoft is right to skip the Super Bowl–Vista will sell what it sells for upgrades to people who are well aware of its arrival and then every new computer is going to come with it. Companies with broad product portfolios and no special Super Bowl connection can reach the same audience throughout the year for the same money if it’s just a matter of GRPs.
The Super Bowl is still the premier advertising event for reaching men. Just because a few high profile companies have decided not to participate doesn’t in any way lessen that fact. For companies that have the resources and strategy to make it pay off, it is can be be very effective in spite of the high costs. When you realize how much it does cost, it makes me really sit up and pay attention to who can afford to play and what they have to say. In many years the ads were as much fun or more to watch than the game. Since I’m a big Bears fan, I doubt that will be the case for me this year. GO Bears!
Last night I caught another commercial making reference to a Super Bowl commercial, so now I can call it a trend! Rolling Rock is running commercials apologizing in advance for their Super Bowl ad, claiming it (depicting men wearing thong underwear) is tasteless.
I think this one is the best example yet of the Super Bowl ad ecosystem! Run a commercial claiming you were going to run a Super Bowl commercial, hoping to get caught up in the word of mouth hype around the event, never having even contemplated running in the Super Bowl. Makes me dizzy….
The Super Bowl is a main event in one’s sports-crazed life; just like the Final Four, or Masters. But the Super Bowl has a larger audience and can be ideal for new product introductions; new startup company exposure; great creative advertising exposure like the new UPS commercials, etc.
If the audience is right for a product or Brand to be advertised, and the chief marketing officer deems it beneficial even with the cost factor, do you challenge the decision?
There are too many unknown advertiser’s factors that we aren’t aware of, or can even contemplate.
Lastly, there is great interest in this Super Bowl, without a Janet Jackson appearance, with the Bears playing P. Manning’s Colts. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
The big bang days are over and omnipresence is the order of the day. I hear big sighs of relief as more mega-brands get permission to just sit expensive, make-or-break “opportunities” out. Reminds me quite a bit of what has happened to many industry trade shows . . . Every year, a select group of big name companies boldly decide not to play the exhibit-at-all-costs game and many others follow gratefully. Now they can put their money where it REALLY counts and do away with months of pre-show preparation and resource drain in the process. The next thing you know, the show consolidates, reduces frequency, morphs into an educational event, or shuts down altogether. How will the Super Bowl remain relevant to its “exhibitors?”
I agree that the luster has gone out of the ads in general. P&G, Unilever and Microsoft are just the tip of the iceberg for future Super Bowls as well. The clever ads and the one that WILL work are for products targeted to both men and women. Where else will you find them both actually watching the same program?
As an investor, I couldn’t care less if one of my holdings chooses not to advertise on the Super Bowl. In most cases, it will not make any difference. However, everyone should watch Super Bowl advertising as they often point out companies that are breaking out of the pack and provide good investment opportunities. If you see something new and interesting on a Super Bowl advertisement then investing in that company might be interesting. If you see a strong company take a different direction via Super Bowl advertising, this might also create some interest. If you see a company use the same old advertisement (Dodge Ram Trucks Robot fighter) it might give you the impression that they don’t have anything new to say and the product line might be getting a little tired. A lot is communicated about companies by Super Bowl advertising. Awareness of what is being said can make you a better consumer and better investor.
When you’re investing $2.6 million for a half-minute of air time, payback is crucial. The Super Bowl certainly captures a large, attentive audience, but showing one or two ads in that context seems unlikely to foster lasting change in consumer attitude or behavior.
So it’s not too surprising that an ROI-conscious company like P&G might prefer to parse out ad spending to target audiences in other media environments where the impact is more measurable. Or that Microsoft might make the judgment that a well-executed integrated PR and ad campaign might bring more lasting benefit than a few high-profile spots jammed in between the beer and insurance commercials.
The greatest marketing job in the world is one where you can play out your business rivalry and chutzpah in your advertising and have it also be relevant and meaningful to your consumers. For competitively minded males and females alike, the beverage, tobacco and auto categories come quickly to mind as wonderful examples. And the Super Bowl is the premiere venue for the battle. For these brands and advertisers, WHERE you are seen can be just as important (sometimes even more so) than how often you are seen.
Obviously not if some of the shrewdest marketers are sitting it out. On the other hand, look how much press they’ve gotten for not running a spot…. Seriously, Super Bowl advertising has become a very expensive ego contest for ad agencies, one played with the clients’ money. If you’re the client you can probably think of a million things to do with your money besides tooting your agency’s horn for them.
The essence of advertising is repetition, so Super Bowl ads alone don’t make a successful campaign. But they help reinforce repetition, largely with male sports fans. Certainly a lot of sports-related advertising may have more to do with the advertiser executives’ delight in rubbing shoulders with the celebrities involved and access to special seating. But plenty of sports-related marketing works. Where would Bud, Nike and Gillette be without it?
Many people watch the Super Bowl for the ads rather than the game. The ads are an important part of the whole experience. So when and why should a company spend the money for an ad?
Introducing a new product with a knock-out ad could stand out among the clutter and get people interested. Then the follow-up promotion is important, especially if tied back into the Super Bowl ad.
Creating a buzz about a product with a distinctive ad can also be effective if the ad takes a new look at the product, goes after a new consumer group, or repositions the product in a dramatic/humorous/surprising fashion.
Introducing another ad for products that have been and will be advertised throughout the year does not necessarily have an advantage that is worth the cost.
Making the Super Bowl the day when a distinctive new ad for your product is introduced every year can also be effective but has to be followed up with doing the same thing every year–then people will want to see the year’s “new ad.”
If your product is somehow tied to Super Bowl activity, like beer, then creating a distinctive ad can be effective.
Not all ads work just because they are played during the Super Bowl. Determining whether an ad is going to have an effect that is worth the money is an important decision.
I think effective Super Bowl ads now fall into two groups: breakout companies or products that use the Super Bowl to enter the mainstream consciousness. CareerBuilder comes to mind as an example. The other group are the “old guard” that are so well-associated with the Super Bowl that they double their marketing impact because they get months of publicity over what their campaign will be this year. Anheuser-Busch is a good example.
The marketers caught in the middle are overpaying. Microsoft is right to skip the Super Bowl–Vista will sell what it sells for upgrades to people who are well aware of its arrival and then every new computer is going to come with it. Companies with broad product portfolios and no special Super Bowl connection can reach the same audience throughout the year for the same money if it’s just a matter of GRPs.
The Super Bowl is still the premier advertising event for reaching men. Just because a few high profile companies have decided not to participate doesn’t in any way lessen that fact. For companies that have the resources and strategy to make it pay off, it is can be be very effective in spite of the high costs. When you realize how much it does cost, it makes me really sit up and pay attention to who can afford to play and what they have to say. In many years the ads were as much fun or more to watch than the game. Since I’m a big Bears fan, I doubt that will be the case for me this year. GO Bears!
Last night I caught another commercial making reference to a Super Bowl commercial, so now I can call it a trend! Rolling Rock is running commercials apologizing in advance for their Super Bowl ad, claiming it (depicting men wearing thong underwear) is tasteless.
I think this one is the best example yet of the Super Bowl ad ecosystem! Run a commercial claiming you were going to run a Super Bowl commercial, hoping to get caught up in the word of mouth hype around the event, never having even contemplated running in the Super Bowl. Makes me dizzy….
The Super Bowl is a main event in one’s sports-crazed life; just like the Final Four, or Masters. But the Super Bowl has a larger audience and can be ideal for new product introductions; new startup company exposure; great creative advertising exposure like the new UPS commercials, etc.
If the audience is right for a product or Brand to be advertised, and the chief marketing officer deems it beneficial even with the cost factor, do you challenge the decision?
There are too many unknown advertiser’s factors that we aren’t aware of, or can even contemplate.
Lastly, there is great interest in this Super Bowl, without a Janet Jackson appearance, with the Bears playing P. Manning’s Colts. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm