As Super Bowl Sunday approaches, Insight Interactive's Michael Comins wonders if buying TV spots is like backing the Eagles in the big game -- a losing proposition.

Being a New England Patriots fan in Philadelphia right now is a lot like being an internet advertising proponent in an advertising world dominated by television. In both cases I’m vastly outnumbered, but I also feel confident I’m backing the stronger horse.

This is not to say that the Pats are a lock to win, nor am I suggesting that advertisers should shift all of their ad budgets to the internet. But anybody who takes an objective look at the data can see that the Patriots should probably win (thus Vegas has made them a seven point favorite) and that advertisers should be spending more online.

Don’t get me wrong: I love to watch good television advertising. In fact, it was Apple’s famous 1984 ad for the Macintosh that inspired me to get into advertising in the first place. However, the Super Bowl may be the only time all year that I actually watch TV commercials. The Super Bowl, after all, has become just as big for its commercial launches as it is for football itself. But if you’re not coughing up $2.4 million dollars (!!) for a 30-second spot in the big game, chances are that the spots you're buying are going largely unwatched.

Of course, TV’s dirty little secret has always been that it’s sold on program ratings and not commercial ratings. Ever since the invention of the remote control people have zapped commercials. And, of course, TiVo and other DVRs have now made that easier than ever. A study by the CNW Marketing Research found 72 percent of DVR users skip over commercials. According to Jeff Cole of the USC Annenberg School’s Center for the Digital Future, only five percent of people routinely sit through and watch television commercials. These are astounding numbers.

Now I realize consumers can ignore advertising in any channel, including the internet. But at least when an advertiser buys an impression on a website they know for sure that there was a person sitting in front of the computer when it was served.

And consider this: If an advertiser runs a lousy ad on the Super Bowl (and we’ve all seen our share of stinkers), they’ve just flushed $2.4 million down the drain. On the internet, $2.4 million buys an advertiser a very extensive full year campaign. And if the program isn’t working, they have twelve months and plenty of money available to test, test and retest until they find a successful mix of media and creative.

For many brands, internet advertising makes more sense than television for another reason: targeting. Television is still a mass medium. If an advertiser is selling a niche product (e.g., a prescription drug that is only indicated for a tiny fraction of the population or a tool that would only be of interest to individuals in a specific line of work), the internet can reach those audiences far more efficiently than television can. 

And while the internet may not be able to deliver the emotional impact that television can (although some of the ads in iMedia’s Creative Showcase come close), it compensates for that by providing an opportunity for greater depth of product information via a site visit (or via rich media) -- a feature that is often crucial for complicated sells. Perhaps most importantly, for programs designed to drive leads or sales, the internet usually delivers at a fraction of the cost of DRTV -- and that’s before you factor in creative production costs.

Television still makes a ton of sense for the true mass advertisers with the really deep pockets. Companies like Coca Cola, Budweiser, Procter & Gamble, et al. spend more money in marketing than they could possibly spend on the internet. If Coke suddenly decided to shift their whole budget to the internet the infrastructure of online advertising would probably explode. Besides, if an advertiser runs enough weight on television they’re bound to reach everybody eventually. At least until everyone’s using TiVo.

But even the mega-budget advertisers should be spending more money on the internet. The internet performs very well against light television viewers. That last million dollars on the $50 or $100 million ad buy is doing nothing but adding excess frequency against the heavy television viewers. Shifted to the internet, those dollars could provide reach against a more elusive segment.

Make no mistake, television commercial viewership will continue to decline as more and more people migrate to DVRs and internet usage continues to displace the television as the consumers’ most frequently used medium. Advertisers big and small would be wise to invest now to figure out how best to use the internet sooner rather than later.

I’m not asking brands to shift their entire ad budgets online, but failing to invest sufficient dollars in the internet is a bigger gamble than betting against the Patriots in a big game.

Michael Comins is SVP, Director of Media Services for Insight Interactive, a full service interactive agency headquartered in Philadelphia. Michael has been involved in media for over 17 years and has been leading interactive media teams for the last 10 years.