How should we separate the winners from the losers in Super Bowl advertising?
Some advertisers measure success via social media mentions for USA Today’s public, semi-scientific poll. But these ratings may have little relationship to how one would rationally try to assess the ad’s real impact. At best, this poll measures how some, hopefully representative, viewers felt about the relative entertainment value of the commercials.
There is no attempt to connect with how, if at all, the ad influenced or even started to influence any movement through the purchase funnel.
To assess whether the investment in a Super Bowl ad (which often includes special production of a spot or pool as well as the $3.5 million for the one airing) was a good one or not, an advertiser needs to be able to calculate how that ad somehow leads to more incremental profit (not revenues) than the costs involved.
Marketers should not be distracted by the number of online hits or post-game buzz which, after all, can often be driven by controversial, if not offensive, ads. In football, exciting plays are fine, but only points count. In marketing, having people hear or see your message is nice (even necessary on some level), but only incremental profits over a specified period can justify advertising spend. As we watch this year’s Super Bowl ads, try to discern which ads might reach this goal. Report back on Monday.
For anyone interested in how ROI can be assessed, please read through this Association of National Advertiser’s White Paper we developed.
It's amazing to me how often an ad is lauded for its creativity -- especially in today's environment when being memorable and even controversial is the conventional wisdom for success -- without thought for whether the ad effectively met marketing objectives. I do get that advertising is meant to build the "halo" of awareness and familiarity for a given brand, rather than immediately drive sales (and it's difficult to measure!), but even at the brand-building level ads, including Super Bowl ads, often seem to miss the basics:
> Did the ad reinforce the brand name?
> Was it consistent with the brand's equities?
> Was there any call to action?
I think even some buyer's choice of the SB as a marketing platform is a mistake. Given that most
Americans watch the SB, it makes sense for Coke, Bud, Toyota etc. to buy
air time -- their target audience is, essentially, America -- but why enterprise software companies (whose targets are
CIOs), internet domain name providers, or mobile stock trading companies (whose targets must be at most 3% of
viewers) spend $3B to effect action among a tiny fraction of viewers seems stunning.
Leave a Comment: