The annual Super Bowl buzz-buildup and ensuing flurry of analysis about game day ads is all just part of the entertainment. And it’s continuing now, almost a full week later. These attention-getting moments on one fun-filled winter’s eve reflect little, if any, true marketing wisdom. Instead, such flash-in-the-pan attempts at reaching millions of eyeballs (whether they are attentive or not) or a mention from Stuart Elliott the next day does not an effective ad buy make. So, why do these ads get SO much attention while the rest of the year’s efforts are barely a blip on the marketing industry’s radar?
The Super Bowl is a greeting card holiday in true American style – a fabricated reason to run ads that really don’t resonate with consumers (other than for the fun of watercooler discussions) and that otherwise wouldn’t be made.
Do they generally correspond with the brand’s existing messaging? No.
Do they generate so much interest from consumers that they switch products the next time they are shopping? Not likely.
Would many of them (if any) be cited as part of a great marketing case study by a business school professor? Nope.
Will a-one be remembered next year about this time? You tell me.
To apply either a general marketing or specific marketing to women filter to Super Bowl ads as… well, seems like an exercise in futility. I’ve tried it in previous years and found that my heart just wasn’t in it. How can advertisers be called out for not doing their best work in reaching women, when the truth has always been that Super Bowl ads don’t do a great job reaching anyone? Instead, the ads are about grabbing a viewer’s attention for 30 seconds in the hopes of generating search engine play later on.
How can such a set up possibly measure a brand’s marketing brilliance to any degree?
As far as the women’s market angle goes, in particular – from what Elliott wrote in his post-Super Bowl ad wrap up, and from the sampling of ads I saw, none of them was particularly noteworthy. Can we rake these advertisers over the coals for not understanding the women’s market? Sure. But, that’s beside the point if they don’t connect with any market at all.
Certainly, Super Bowl ads are fun and goofy, which may be worth the cost for a select few brands. But, they are largely irrelevant for consumers, and so (you’d think) largely a waste of time for most advertisers. This has long been the case, but given this economy and struggle to connect with penny pinching football fans, the truth became more evident in 2009.
Being more clever or exciting than the last ad of the day or than the ads from last year’s game is an uphill battle. Brands that are fine-tuning their media buys and larger marketing efforts in hard times might want to stick with improving on and innovating their own “game,” rather than jumping ship for the glory of one big, fabricated, moment on a football-obsessed day (enjoyable though it may be).
I totally agree. In preparation for Super Sunday, I got on youtube to look at several Top 10 Superbowl commercials from 2008. AFTER, viewing them I said “Oh yeah.” But without cheating, I would never have remembered them and then I thought about how much beer A-B had to sell just to recoup ad costs. Commercials were Entertaining, but were they Effective? If not, what’s the point?
I agree, every commercial has a truck or a guy drinking a beer. Women watch the super bowl also and guess what, they shop.
I think it’s high time this group of “marketers” start looking at advertising — and marketing as a disciple — as something more than the amateur Oscars.
It ain’t about being clever. It’s about selling stuff.
Did the ads help sell more stuff or not? Measurement means everything here. Most advertisers don’t make money when they advertise – virtually no consumer products companies and a fraction of B2B companies, per the studies I’ve read on the subject. This is a lesson in and of itself.
I’ll post on this soon because it needs more attention. We need to stop playing at art critic and remember why we do what we do in the first place.
I think it is viewed as sort of the super bowl of advertising where there are winners and losers. The company that advertises during the super bowl wants to be the talked about ad. “Hey, did you see that great ad with the Dalmatian and the Clydesdale.” If you get a hit like that, I think it would increase sales and help with brand building.
It would be interesting to see the ROI on winning (i.e., well regarded) commercials run during the super bowl. If they cannot measure ROI that precisely with television, then statistics on a revenue jump, brand switching, and other data.
For example, do people switch from Miller to Budweiser as their regular beer because they love the dog and pony shows? That can add up to a lot of beer and a higher average Customer Lifetime Value (CLV). Beer is almost like a subscription service with recurring revenue. Many people who drink beer buy it pretty regularly.
Finally! I’ve been crying “the Super Bowl has no clothes” for years – especially to arrogant CEO’s who think that one commercial during the SB is the ONLY marketing they should do year-round – It has become obvious that for some it was never about driving sales and promoting their brand but more about braggin’ to their peers that they’re running a super bowl ad! Bravo to Andrea for exposing the hype!
A beer subscription service.. I like it! And, sounds like we need to figure out a way to “sell” marketing decision-makers on the long-term as opposed to the award-winning. Hmmm… How is this not yet obvious? Thanks for all the comments.
Great post! i find it interesting, i agree with your ideas. i want to share this lens content Online Marketing for your further reference.
Good day!