well a friend of mine brought that up regarding a commerial he was going to use. He figured that You Tube was free and could potentially hit a greater demographic. Also, he could run his entire :47 commerial; so he opted out for the You Tube version, may god help him
Smart, if you still had money to run the ad after the Super Bowl debut. However, I know for a fact that $2.7 mil could get you a nice sized campaign on FastCompanmy.com for a whole year!
What is stupid is spending a zillion dollars to pay a spokesperson like Justin Timberlake in an ad that had no interesting punchline or story, or pay tons more for special effects like Derek Jeter's ball field. The smart guy is the ad agency behind E-trade who uses a baby (prob not as high paid as JT), like a home video camera, a voiceover and yes, some special effects to make the kid talk. Yes, $2.7 million dollars is a lot of a spot, but you win in the end if all it takes is a baby and a clown to get perhaps 91 million* people to see and remember your commercial.
*number of people who watched last year's super bowl
You have to admit that Superbowl ads are a unique form of advertisement. It's the only time I specifically watch TV ads, instead of fast forwarding on my DVR or getting up to do something else. It is certainly a great position for the advertisers to have viewers watching live TV and the expectation to be entertained by commercials. It's probably worth it to some of them.
It's worth it, but only if you come with the right commercial. If you have the funniest, most entertaining commercial of the night, everyone will be talking about you the next day. If not, you just flushed $2.7m down the drain. There were a lot of awesome, memorable commercials that ran during the superbowl. Sadly, there were a lot more that just plain sucked and were a total waste of advertising budget.
I think the rest of the country missed the Native American Indian's legislation over gambling commercials seen here in California... Four months leading up to the Super Bowl we watched the minority Indian tribes talking about how the big bad Indian tribes have screwed their people for centuries. Too bad only the big casino owning tribes could actually afford ad spots during the Super Bowl. Net result? Primaries are past, and the big indian casino tribes win by a landslide. What a surprise!
That really depends on the product and purpose; However, a commercial is a failure unless it translates into some significant revenue. No matter how funny or clever the ad is, it's stupid if it fails to bring in some good $$$. Just not worth it.
Smart if your goal is to get eyeballs on your product and create buzz. But you have to have enough money to ensure that the ad is created well enough to stand out. Stupid if you that is your advertising budget for the year.
Stupid. Not because it is ineffective advertising, but because a commercial campaign which continually exudes a bright message over time is better than a one time shout.
13 Total
February 7, 2008 at 12:45pm by Tim Tymchyshyn
well a friend of mine brought that up regarding a commerial he was going to use. He figured that You Tube was free and could potentially hit a greater demographic. Also, he could run his entire :47 commerial; so he opted out for the You Tube version, may god help him
February 7, 2008 at 2:23pm by Whelan Mahoney
Smart, if you still had money to run the ad after the Super Bowl debut. However, I know for a fact that $2.7 mil could get you a nice sized campaign on FastCompanmy.com for a whole year!
February 7, 2008 at 4:04pm by Erika Schneider
What is stupid is spending a zillion dollars to pay a spokesperson like Justin Timberlake in an ad that had no interesting punchline or story, or pay tons more for special effects like Derek Jeter's ball field. The smart guy is the ad agency behind E-trade who uses a baby (prob not as high paid as JT), like a home video camera, a voiceover and yes, some special effects to make the kid talk. Yes, $2.7 million dollars is a lot of a spot, but you win in the end if all it takes is a baby and a clown to get perhaps 91 million* people to see and remember your commercial.
*number of people who watched last year's super bowl
February 7, 2008 at 4:55pm by Hugh Foster
It really depends on what you're selling. For any of the big three auto giants, 2.7m is quite bargain.
February 8, 2008 at 7:01pm by Bekah Wilcox
You have to admit that Superbowl ads are a unique form of advertisement. It's the only time I specifically watch TV ads, instead of fast forwarding on my DVR or getting up to do something else. It is certainly a great position for the advertisers to have viewers watching live TV and the expectation to be entertained by commercials. It's probably worth it to some of them.
February 11, 2008 at 1:26pm by Jon N
It's worth it, but only if you come with the right commercial. If you have the funniest, most entertaining commercial of the night, everyone will be talking about you the next day. If not, you just flushed $2.7m down the drain. There were a lot of awesome, memorable commercials that ran during the superbowl. Sadly, there were a lot more that just plain sucked and were a total waste of advertising budget.
February 11, 2008 at 5:50pm by Aziz Grieser
I think the rest of the country missed the Native American Indian's legislation over gambling commercials seen here in California... Four months leading up to the Super Bowl we watched the minority Indian tribes talking about how the big bad Indian tribes have screwed their people for centuries. Too bad only the big casino owning tribes could actually afford ad spots during the Super Bowl. Net result? Primaries are past, and the big indian casino tribes win by a landslide. What a surprise!
February 11, 2008 at 5:56pm by Sam Kim
That really depends on the product and purpose; However, a commercial is a failure unless it translates into some significant revenue. No matter how funny or clever the ad is, it's stupid if it fails to bring in some good $$$. Just not worth it.
February 12, 2008 at 5:08am by Prasad Ajgaonkar
STUPIDITY IS MOTHER OF EVOLUTION
February 12, 2008 at 7:24pm by Jayson Aquilanti
value is in the eye of the beholder...or is it beauty?
$2.7 for some is a mere pittance, while some of the best viral campaigns probably started out costing $27K
Depends on the product, the message and the relevancy. Whatever the message is, just speak with the consumer and not TO the consumer..
February 13, 2008 at 2:24am by Anthony Richardson
I for one, feel as though the SuperBowl ads have been getting less and less creative every year.
February 13, 2008 at 1:31pm by Lindsay Pudavick
Smart if your goal is to get eyeballs on your product and create buzz. But you have to have enough money to ensure that the ad is created well enough to stand out. Stupid if you that is your advertising budget for the year.
February 14, 2008 at 1:22am by James McIntyre
Stupid. Not because it is ineffective advertising, but because a commercial campaign which continually exudes a bright message over time is better than a one time shout.