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.
Share your ideas
10 Total
February 7, 2008 at 12:45pm
Tim Tymchyshynwell 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
Whelan MahoneySmart, 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
Erika SchneiderWhat 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
Hugh FosterIt 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
Bekah WilcoxYou 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
Jon NIt'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
Aziz GrieserI 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
Sam KimThat 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
Prasad AjgaonkarSTUPIDITY IS MOTHER OF EVOLUTION
February 12, 2008 at 7:24pm
Jayson Aquilantivalue 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..
Share your ideas