See a post Super Bowl interview here: http://mms.tveyes.com/PlaybackPortal.aspx?SavedEditID=e057425b-ec0c-4fe0-b6d5-e1ec2ad78b7e
Other related media coverage:
- http://wire.kapitall.com/investment-idea/game-on-here-are-the-top-superbowl-ad-spenders-in-the-last-decade/#
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/super-bowl-are-ads-worth-_n_1241677.html
- http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Sports_TV_52/When-a-Super-Bowl-ad-makes-sense.asp
- http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/02/01/game-on-here-are-the-top-super-bowl-ad-spenders-in/
- http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4201725/for-some-49ers-fans-price-of-ticket.html
________________________________________________________
Advertising in sports, just like sponsorships, is only worth the investment in two cases. First, Super Bowl ads are best at achieving awareness due to broad reach, making the CPM a great buy if awareness is the objective. Introducing or establishing a new brand (like the monkey-based ads from Career Builders a few years back or Go-Daddy’s provocative ads) that draws from a large, diverse audience makes some sense.
Similarly, ads for new movies and TV shows can make sense, as awareness is an important goal. But, the potential for ad waste is huge. What is the real target audience for each of these? I can tell you one thing, it isn’t everyone watching the Super Bowl. So, the real CPM brands should care about is what it costs to reach those in the target audience.
But, what about the rest of the brands we already know? Do Budweiser and Coke really need more awareness? The only real reason mature brands should be in the Super Bowl (or any other sports & entertainment arena) is if the (a)venue provides an opportunity to transfer fan passion to the brand. Unless the target audience largely includes ardent football fans (and, particularly, fans of the two teams playing), the ad buy will represent monumental wasted coverage. Viewers might recall the ad and even like the ad, but it’s immaterial if they are not in the target market. That’s less the case for Bud and Coke, but infrequently bought products and services that don’t fit the target audience aren’t likely to generate passion for the brand from fans.
How does the transfer of fan passion to the brand work? Fans watching the game must do two things. First, they must make the attribution that the whole experience is better because of the ad sponsor. In other words, they need to think if it wasn’t for this brand, watching the game wouldn’t be as good. Would the brand be missed if not there? Second, viewers must make a concrete connection between the brand and the event. It’s one thing to say, “Ha, that was a hilarious ad.” It’s another to connect the brand in the ad directly with the object of the fan’s passion. Psychologically, the brand and the Super Bowl event must occupy the same space in the minds of fans. When they think of the Super Bowl, they should also think of the brand. When these two things–attribution and linkage–happen, fans will transfer their passion to the brand. That’s the way our brains work: If we like the event and this brand is inextricably tied to the event, then we like the brand. To do otherwise creates psychological tension.
Of course, the process can break down at the attribution stage: This brand has nothing to do with the event and does not occupy the same mental space. That’s the problem with throwing irrelevant products and brands into the mix that have nothing to do with sports & entertainment. Informational ads have virtually no chance of making this linkage. Fans will not associate information about a new car model with fun at the Super Bowl….unless the information is entertaining and somehow relates to the Super Bowl experience.
