Let the hype begin. With nearly 150 million viewers, the Super Bowl is the marketing event of the year, with some of the best and worst thinking brand marketers have to offer on display. Marketers can make news simply by NOT advertising in the Super Bowl (Fedex, Pepsi, GM). Others are making news by how they leverage their $2.5-$3.0 investment outside of the event itself.
What sometimes is lost is the strategy impetus for promoting the brand in this high profile way. Does the Super Bowl offer a unique opportunity to build equity with customers and prospects? This Ad Age article provides some interesting perspective on brands favored by the fans of each competing team. Even more interesting, the brands favored by likely watchers compared to non-watchers.
"That anticipated audience may be big, but it's still not even half the country. So who are all those holdouts? According to ARS they over-index both as white and African-American. They're less likely to have children. Some 67% are female, and they tend to dislike advertising more than average. People in the West are also more likely not to watch, which isn't surprising given that the NFL abandoned Los Angeles years ago."
"Likely watchers are also predominantly iPhone users and over-index for Budweiser, which is a good thing given it's the game's biggest advertiser. Non-watchers prefer Sam Adams and Coors and the Droid. Watchers like Ford and GMC. Non-watchers like Honda, Nissan and Toyota. In general, Super Bowl watchers tend to overindex as loyalists of American car brands, while non-watchers overindex for foreign makes."
Which brand(s) do you think are using their $3.0 million or more investment strategically to support their business and brand objectives? Which are not?
Posts
18 comments:
I think that either way the brands that advertise will achieve the desired result. This is because if a commercial is good or bad people will watch it the next day online.
Watchers of the super bowl will spread the gospel of ads that they liked and for those who don't watch USA Today and other publications will have microsites dedicated to the ads. So in the end both watchers and non-watchers will know about the ads. It is money well spent regardless of if the brand is something that the watchers prefer.
In looking at the list of what brands are participating in the Super Bowl, it appears to be a list of the usual suspects (minus a few regulars like Pepsi).
The one company that should really take the opportunity to advertise in the Super Bowl is Toyota. Though the audience skews towards domestic automakers, Hyundai has proven that the Super Bowl can help sales for non-US auto manufacturers, too. Hyundai is running an ad this year, as well.
Toyota is in the midst of a recall of millions of vehicles with defective pedals that can get stuck and cause unwanted acceleration. This decision only came only after pressure from the US government. Toyota should take this opportunity to reassure its largest market on its dedication to safety. Johnson & Johnson proved with the Tylenol recall in 1982 that managing a recall well can add to the value to the brand. Toyota has a unique opportunity to reach a large audience in communicating its recall, safety record, and its customer commitment, but does not seem to be embracing it.
VW and Audi are both choosing to participate in the Super Bowl, which may prove positive for continued market share growth against struggling US automakers. The only US auto brand (well, 80% US-owned) that is choosing to participate is Chrysler with a Dodge ad. To me, this seems to be a clear sign that US auto manufacturers are still in trouble.
I may be a pessimist, but I am not convinced that advertising particularly for some of the usual suspects like the beer companies, coca-cola and pepsi are really that effective. I know personally, I watch to see the creativity behind the commercials but it certainly will not sway me to buy one of those products. But, I may be in the minority of people who say that.
That being said in looking back at previous successful ads, they seem to have great success if the superbowl is used an as introduction of a new product.
Adage.com has a list of companies who have slots for this year:
http://adage.com/superbowl10/article?article_id=141168
Ill be interested to see if there are any new product launches this year!
Thanks for the link Kristin! Being the sucker for cuddly advertising that I am, the first thing I saw on that page is that the Budweiser Clydesdales are not making an appearance in the Super Bowl ads. While the Clydesdales don't get me to buy Bud Light, I still prefer those ads over the more recent offerings of Anheuser-Busch. But anyway...I find it interesting that Frito-Lay, a part of Pepsi, is advertising...I guess Pepsi's lack of Super Bowl advertising doesn't extend to all of its brands!
I agree with Kristin though, the ads really don't sway me in my purchasing decisions (save for one post-9/11 Budweiser spot); I just like seeing what these companies come up with! And sometimes, the ads are more entertaining than the game.
To Mat's point about the car manufacturers'...I think maybe it's a good thing there aren't more US car manufacturers advertising this year. I wouldn't want to see the potential uproar if they did after receiving all that bailout money! Of course, this doesn't stop them from advertising during other shows and events, but at least it's not quite as visible as the Super Bowl.
After perusing the list of companies that have secured spots for Superbowl advertising, I can't say that I'm particularly surprised. The "usual suspects" of "junk" food, car manufacturers and mobile media seem to comprise the annual list.
Like most of my fellow classmates, I am not easily swayed by Superbowl ads and mainly watch them to appreciate the creative genius and to assess whether the ad seemed to justify the high cost of air time.
I was pleasantly surprised to see CareerBuilder on the list. Given the fact that we are currently coming out of recession, it would have been nice to see other such companies that aid in getting America back on their feet. Ads by Walmart, Health Insurance companies, or even Banks may have been well recieved by the Americna public and gone so far as to express feelings of empathy.
At the same time, these ads do cost an arm and a leg and many companies have likely found more productive ways to fuel this money back into the economy.
I think that most of the ads are successful in creating a buzz around their brands/products, but I’m not sure how much they’re driving consumer purchasing behavior. Most of the commercials are talked about for a few days, maybe weeks, but then what? I think that the most effective, and probably strategic, are those brands that are able to resonate with viewers enough in order to drive an initial purchase shortly after the game. And if consumers have a pleasant experience, they will continue to purchase the product. That being said, as Kristin mentioned, this is probably most effective with the launch of a new product, and one that is a small consumer good that is frequently repurchased.
Dove is taking the success from its “Real Women” campaign and launching a new one targeting males. Unlike the serious, deep tone that the women’s campaign takes, they are going for a more sarcastic approach (an effective choice, in my opinion) for the male segment to touch the different phases of a man’s life in which his “manhood” is “tested”. I really can’t think of any better media/entertainment event for them to launch this in the U.S. than the Super Bowl. And since, according to the Ad Age article, both teams’ fans over-index for Unilever’s Degree, the company could see some great success.
I'd just like to take issue with the idea "That anticipated audience may be big, but it's still not even half the country. So who are all those holdouts?"
As I understand it, there is no factoring of "Super Bowl parties" and that a groups watching it on a TV still counts the same as 1 person watching it. How many people have watched it with groups of 20-30? I think the idea that less than half of the nation watches the game is built upon a faulty premise.
That being said, probably another big year for talking babies, just have to wait and see...Go Colts.
In my opinion, the first question asked can be broken up into two. Which brands are using their investment strategically? All the brands advertising are being discussed in the media, and their efforts are being dissected already before the ad even airs. (Thanks for the link, Kristin!) This certainly sounds like a good investment for a brand.
But do the efforts support their business and brand objectives? It all depends on the individual company’s brand objectives. I think many brands in the past have been successful in generating awareness and reminding consumers of products with these spots, but little else. To this effect, I echo my classmates’ sentiments regarding the success in product launches. But will Anheuser-Busch InBev, Coca-Cola and Doritos really make back their investments in sales? Perhaps this direct sales increase doesn’t matter to these companies, and they are just trying to remain in the forefront of consumers’ minds. After our class discussion about point of purchase as the customer is standing in the grocery aisle, the Super Bowl spots for these brands may be a highly profitable investment.
Here are a few reasons why I think some companies are shelling out the 'big bucks' to advertise during the Super Bowl:
1) The great "Commercial Bowl" - Truth is, there are millions of people who watch the Super Bowl simply so they can see the commercials. (I read estimates stating more than 10million fall in this category) This means that, instead of the usual muting or getting up from the couch during commercials, people will excitedly crowd around the TV and hush everyone in the room whenever a new commercial break starts. This ALSO means that commercials will be watched & re-watched online, as well as discussed via news, blogs, etc for at least a week after the game. They're getting A LOT more exposure than a mere 30 seconds of air time.
2) To identify their brand with this iconic piece of American culture - Not much explanation needed here...everyone knows what the Super Bowl is, about half of us watch it (think about it...that's HUGE!), and to many the Super Bowl ranks up there with national holidays, apple pie, and credit card debt (I couldn't resist).
3) To target a certain market - Let's face it, there will always be beer commercials during the Super Bowl. End of story. Oh, and you'll probably also always see at least one ad sporting 'classy' women along the lines of the GoDaddy girls or Carmen Electra.
4) Launch something new or revitalize something old - Such a high profile event is perfect for this sort of thing. If Blockbuster had any sense they would be on this, in my opinion.
The entire fabric of network television as we know it has nothing to do with entertainment and everything to do with making money from ad dollars. It's the one reason why online viewership hasn't supplanted television, yet - they simply haven't been able to figure out a model that's as profitable as the network television model that has been in place for decades. Television exists to push ads, and in an age where viewership is more fractured than ever, the Super Bowl becomes the one venue where companies *should* be shelling out $3 million an ad because it's the one program that the entire country still watches together.
It all goes back to our Pepsi example. While I agree that the television ad model isn't nearly as good of an investment as it once was, why on earth would a company move it's dollars away from the one ad buy that is 100% guaranteed to have maximum exposure?
Look at the list of top brands that Forbes and Interbrand put out every year. How many on that list are consistent Super Bowl advertisers every single year? Coincidence?
As a native New Orleanian, I was very surprised at the results in the article in Ad Age. From my experience, the average New Orleans Saints fan is a blue collar worker. They like non-Light beer and to party. I very much doubt that they perfer Volkswagon over Ford. We like our trucks in the south (I once had a typical Southern co-worker tell me if you can't haul hay or equpiment in it he didn't want it.) and normally do not venture out into German luxury. Also, in the south, we love our Coke. I don't even know if most restaurants or sports venues in Louisiana serve Dr. Pepper. But I digress....
When I saw the list of advertisers, I, like most of my classmates, can not say I'm surprised at the list. Most of the advertisers are classic football brands. I think these companies would be wise to focus on how their brands create value in the recession. I was slightly suprised to see Audi (I wouldn't think this would appeal to the average Saints fan) and very surprised to see the Cenus department is advertising. I'm looking forward to watching these ads and seeing which companies wow with me with their creative marketing!
It is definitely open for debate, whether the commercials are able to reach their target audience with their initial showing on the super bowl. I'd be curious to hear how many people view the ads afterwards. The most popular commercials, and even the really really bad ones, are shown time and time again on the news and forums like this. Companies aren't paying for 150 million initial views, but for all the publicity that comes from having paid for the slot. Pepsi made it very clear they weren't going to advertise on the super bowl just to capitalize on the media coverage around the decision.
I thought the "house of Bud light" commercials were well done and will be effective in improving/maintaining sales. The prominence of the can in these ads and the fact that they were relatively entertaining will keep Bud Light in consumers minds, something which I think is important in Bud Light's market segment.
The other ads that drew my attention were the Kiss/ Dr. Pepper ad, mainly for being ridiculous, and the McDonald's ad on just before the start of the Superbowl, with Dwight Howard, Lebron, and Larry Bird. Both of these accomplished their goals--introducing Cherry Dr. Pepper, and associating McDonalds with sports & activity.
Admittedly, if I'm watching the super bowl,I'm one of the people watching it for the commercials. In general, I would say hats off to the commercials crafted by companies to debut on this night of American tradition. That being said, I think Budweiser owns the monopoly on successful super bowl commercials. I cannot think super bowl without thinking of the three frog "Bud. Weis. Er. Bud. Weis. Er." commercial, or the "True." campaign. This year, I would have to say the Budweiser "Fence" commercial was my personal favorite. Budweiser knows its football-watching target audience, and it does a fabulous job of spending thirty seconds in that audience's living room each January. Successful marketing at work.
Google was king - simple, cheap to produce (aside from the $3 ad space), product-focused, and with an emotional connection that Bud or Coke didn't come close to matching last night.
I find it interesting that there is such a hype around Pepsi not advertising, yet Doritos (owned by Frito Lay, owned by Pepsi) had a plethora of commercials. Pepsi did advertise one of its brands, just not the main cola one.
106 million viewers? Beating the MASH finale? Hope Pepsi enjoys their charity project ;)
Thanks for sharing this blog with us. I just want to share something that Brand Harvest is the leading brand consulting company in Mumbai, India.
Post a Comment