The Super Bowl is the digital media columnist's fish in a barrel. Every year, the prices for spots go up. The production values go up. The demand (apparently) goes up. And we digital media columnists sit here on the sidelines taking potshots at how inefficient and silly the whole thing is.
When I first started writing my weekly column, your average 30-second spot in the Super Bowl cost something like $1.2 million. This year, spots run up to $3 million. We've been ranting for more than a decade about artificial demand, inefficiency, and decision-making via executive management ego. We've pointed out how advertising in the Super Bowl can be outperformed by other TV schedules in terms of both efficiency and reach, and how digital media can do the same. Last year, I wrote about specific things a brand could execute in digital that would deliver superior reach and impact over the same timeframe.
I think it's time for me to stop putting the Super Bowl in my crosshairs.
Clearly, there's no shortage of leading advertisers who want to advertise in the Super Bowl. While some advertisers that have historically advertised there will be sitting on the sidelines this year, most notably GM and FedEx, the U.S. economic recession won't likely have a pronounced effect on the ad extravaganza.
I've come to terms with the notion that the reasons for putting together a Super Bowl ad campaign aren't necessarily rational. I think most senior-level marketing people know that there are more efficient and impactful ways to spend media and production dollars.
The fact remains that the Super Bowl is one of the only shared media moments we have left in broadcast media, and the only one that can be reliably predicted from year to year. We know that every year, people will watch the telecast all or most of the way through, and that they'll be talking about the commercials the next day. They'll be viewing them online for weeks afterward (and, in some cases, for weeks beforehand). Other sporting events like the World Series can't deliver that consistently. Special TV events can’t either. Even the series finales of the most popular TV programs can't deliver that.
Placing an ad in the Super Bowl is the only way to absolutely ensure that people will be talking about the commercial in any significant way afterward. It's the only event I can think of where huge masses of people are watching the telecast not just to see two great teams play one another, but for the commercials as well. The commercials are both expected and celebrated.
I'm making my peace with the Super Bowl. Most of the justifications for advertising there are irrational, but I'm okay with that. Advertisers can still pin their hopes on the quality of the environment and the resulting buzz mileage they'll get from merely being there.
But you can't base a communications plan on one significant media event. By necessity, we're all going to have to learn how to get the most mileage out of our campaigns. That's ringing true right now for advertisers like FedEx and GM. Given all that's going on with the U.S. economy, hard choices will have to be made by advertisers both large and small.
That's where I think a big part of advertising's future rests. We can already show advertisers how they can make their budgets go further by pulling money from television and spending it in areas like targeted broadband video. Its that "do more with less" mindset that's going to result in the emergence of some clear winners in the marketing arena in the coming years.
Tom Hespos is the president of Underscore Marketing and blogs at Hespos.com.
