Wednesday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

dispatches from the new world of work

Super Bowl Rant

Late January always brings, along with the cold weather, news stories about Super Bowl advertising. We hear how Super Bowl advertising is a "no-brainer" because of the audience size, and how advertisers will benefit from "all the buzz."

I disagree with just about all of this news. In this post I will answer the seven most common reasons people think Super Bowl advertising is a great marketing opportunity:

* It's the only time you can reach so many people at one time.
* A Super Bowl advertiser gets extra value because people are interested in being entertained by the commercials.
* But it worked for (insert company name here).
* They must know what they are doing if they are spending so much money.
* You have to be there if your competitors are.
* It's ok if you're a big enough brand and can afford it.
* It burnishes a company's image, and can even increase a stock price.

If you've purchase a 30-second spot for this year's game, prepare to be upset with me.

It's the only time you can reach so many people at one time.

My first question: Why is it better to reach more people at one time? As the size of an advertising audience increases, you are also reaching many people who are not interested in your product. One of the big Super Bowl advertising stories this year is that 45% of the 90 million-person audience is expected to be female. Because of this, brands like Tide (P&G) and Sunsilk (Unilever) are buying Super Bowl ads focused on female buyers. Ok ... but that means they will also be reaching about 50 million disinterested males, at about 3 cents each. That's a lot of pennies.

We live in an age of smart consumers who are not easily sold. A rule for this marketplace: The more people you try to talk to at one time, the less effectively you communicate with each individual person. If you spread your marketing communications a mile wide and an inch deep, you run the risk of creating only superficial connections with customers.

A Super Bowl advertiser gets extra value because people are interested in being entertained by the commercials.

What is this all about, the Academy Awards or investments in improving business performance? People rate the ads on their entertainment value, when the only real value, the one that should be sought, is how well they drive business results. And let's be clear about something: Just because you entertain me, doesn't mean I will buy your product. Listen to people talk Monday morning after the big game—someone will be talking about an ad he likes, laughing uncontrollably as he drinks his coffee, spilling it all over his tie. Then he will stop, and say, "I can't remember what the ad was for, but it was funny."

Entertainment and cleverness do not necessarily translate to purchase behavior, even if they create a smile.

But it worked for (insert company name here).

Yes, some Super Bowl ads work. Putting all your chips on Red 14 at the roulette table in Vegas works once in a while, too. But Super Bowl ads and long-shot gambling bets don't work most of the time. And there is no formula; Super Bowl ad success cannot be predicted, and it can't be duplicated. It is a Black Swan.

They must know what they are doing if they are spending so much money.

Don't suspect that there is a lot of science going on here. There may be some Excel spreadsheet-based pseudo-science, but you should not imagine that companies are analyzing these investments the way they analyze other multi-million dollar investments.

In reality, many Super Bowl ad placements are "vanity buys," to quote a long-time ad agency media department veteran whom I know. In place of thoughtful analysis there is a lot of groupthink and forced rationale taking place.

You have to be there if your competitors are.

One of the first rules of advertising is that you should never make a specific advertising decision because your competitors are doing it. I've given many CEOs this advice: If one of your people tries to rationalize an advertising effort by saying, "We need to be there because our competitors are there," you should not approve the advertising effort. It is almost surely a bad idea, and you should ask for a better reason.

It's ok if you're a big enough brand and can afford it.

Like any risky investment, it should only be made if it can be lost. If you have a big enough marketing budget, and the Super Bowl can be a small piece of your overall effort, complementing hundreds of other touchpoints with customers that blend to create brand harmony, and if you will not be hurt if you lose your total investment, than you may be able to get away with it.

But recognize that it is a risk—a huge risk you are taking with your company's capital, a risk that has a high chance of producing a negative return.

It burnishes a company's image, and can even increase a stock price.

I encourage any marketing executive who wants to make that argument to go to his company's board of directors and stockholders and make it. Shareholders are the least likely to win from Super Bowl advertising. In fact if we think about who wins with Super Bowl advertising, we see that the ad agencies win, the networks win, and the NFL wins. We viewers also win, because we get all this free entertainment in the form of 30 second movies; we will laugh, even if we don't buy. It's the shareholders of the companies paying for the ads who tend to lose, because their management has made a very risky investment, with a high chance of failure. But these investments have been done under the guise of a great opportunity.

Steve Yastrow posted this on 02/01/08.

Comments

Steve mentioned in comments under his previous blog entry that he had opinions on this topic. So, here we have published his full-on rant. I'm glad to open up the opportunity for debate on this one.

Posted by cathy mosca at February 1, 2008 10:50 AM

Assuming that folks watch the commercials and aren't going to the bathroom or refrigerator, will they remember anything of value. Memories are short. For example, who won the Superbowl two years ago? If the audience really is interested in something and are drawn to a Website are they going to their closest computer and looking at the site...during the game. I doubt it. After the game, they probably forgot what they were interested in. The Superbowl ads might remind folks of something...not get 'em to do something new. One shot deals never work.

Posted by Joel Heffner at February 1, 2008 11:07 AM

Running an ad at the Superbowl is surely a bit like entering the Superbowl, but with a critical difference.

Every fan believes that this year is the one their team will win.

Every marketing manager believes that this year is the one their ad will win the buzz war.

Every year, most fans end the season disappointed... but it turns out they'll pay for a season ticket next year anyway.

Every year, most marketing managers are disappointed... but it turns out they'll get paid next year anyway.

Posted by Mark Harrison at February 1, 2008 1:41 PM

I think you could probably do a word replace exercise to remove "Superbowl" from Steve's piece and insert almost any major TV broadcast - a large sporting event, the season's finale of a top rated show etc etc. It begs the questions a) what do the advertisers themselves want from the spend (as opposed to what we might think advertising should achieve) and do they get it?; and b) at what point does mass advertising ever achieve measurable business improvement, and how can you tell it was down to the advert?

We come back to the old chestnut: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

Posted by Mark JF at February 1, 2008 2:17 PM

Apple may have started this with their now famous 1984 commercial played during the '84 Superbowl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)]. Although I recall seeing the 60 second spot, it never influenced my computer buying habits. These ads seem to create recognition for their products, but nothing more.

Posted by H. Peter Schiller at February 1, 2008 5:03 PM

"No brainer?" It should be "Brain damaged."

Superbowl ads are pure creative and corporate ego.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 2, 2008 10:27 AM

Can't you guys just have fun?
Should Macy's have a Thanksgiving day parade?

If these guys want to spend the money, let them.

Posted by ed at February 2, 2008 12:43 PM

Great post. If nothing else (and there is plenty of "else") the article turns this super bowl advertsing idea on it's head. Is it really worth it?- And if so, why? Advertising should increase sales period.

Ok, fine. OR advertising should strengthen the brand...which, inturn should increase sales. (period)

Anyone remember the Emerald? nuts commercial last year? I think it was Robert Goulay (sp) as the main character.. somewhat clever, but I still haven't bought a bag of their peanuts yet.
So whats the point? Or maybe I'm "nuts"

-Chris

Posted by Chris Malloy at February 2, 2008 4:11 PM

Well, given the results tonight of the Superbowl game itself, I'm swearing off it for life.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 4, 2008 12:29 AM

John O.--what was wrong with the result?

On topic, it has now become the fashion for pundits of all stripes to decry advertising on the Super Bowl as a waste of money. This attitude has become just as much "conventional wisdom" as the prevailing attitude that the advertisements have value in proportion to their price. The entire story is now in the same vein as those yearly pieces all the media outlets trot out before every holiday--make sure your kid's Halloween costumes are brightly colored and don't let them eat the candy until you inspect it; don't put candles on your Christmas trees or overload your tree with lights because you may cause a fire, etc. Super Bowl advertising stories are of the same ilk, in that they require no thought, just a regurgitation of the same old admonishments. Well, what if all the smart people on either side of this issue just stopped talking and thought about whether the advertising scheme for this event represents a market? Does it? Sure, it does. And, like any market, the value obtained is equal to the value perceived by the customer. Ergo, the ads are sold at the price the market will bear. To rant and rail against this practice is to rant and rail against market forces. Good luck with that. I wonder if all this anti-Super Bowl advertising talk isn't mere justification on the part of certain consultants who have decided (much too early) that the old big media game has ended and the new Web 2.0 targeted approach is now the new game.

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at February 4, 2008 7:34 AM

I just got off the phone with my daughter. Discussing last nights commercials forced us to remember the product they were advertising. Pretty strong in my opinion.

Posted by bruce at February 4, 2008 12:49 PM

Red Island ... Ah ... I don't think so. I think we that decry Super Bowl advertising are like the kid in The Emporeror's New Clothes. We're actually taking a more thoughtful look!

As for market forces, it may be worth it to the young creative director at the ad agency, who has improved his resume reel, or the CEO who gets to talk about his ad on CNN. The loser is the shareholder, whose investment is being put at risk under the guise of a "no-brainer."

Posted by Steve Yastrow at February 4, 2008 6:54 PM

Steve - I agree your point about the young creative director. However, if the CEO gets to talk about the ad on CNN (and by extension his business) then doesn't that make it a more viable expense? Not only does the business get a 30 second spot on the day but it also gets the "free" publicity this kind of spin off stirs up.

Posted by Mark JF at February 5, 2008 10:40 AM