Every year, Americans come together to watch one of the biggest annual television events ever. The Superbowl. And to match the huge viewing numbers, are the massive companies spending millions upon millions just to advertise during the venue. These commercials have gained huge popularity for their funny and edgy antics to get the attention of the consumer. But contrary to the massive amounts of exposure they receive, does the advertising actually produce revenue for the companies?
A study by a marketing company is aimed at tracking the effectiveness of these ads every year. This study was done for the 2015 Superbowl, which also makes this study very pertinent to companies looking to advertise for the venue next year. The study was done by tracking a consumer over a period of time before and then after the Superbowl. They then used the individuals purchase intentions and relates it to ad engagement. Their results found that the consumers were less engaged by up to 25% from 2014 advertisements. Consumers also forget 75% of the companies that advertised during the game. This is certainly concerning when these major companies correlate these huge advertisements to increased sales or branding.
A lot a data continues to surface about the results of these ads, and the amount of people who buy a product or recognize a brand continues to decline. The main reason these companies pay the premium for these commercials is simple. They are a sure way to reach millions upon millions of people at once, with a majority of them actually watching the commercials. A reason the ads may not be successful in the actual causation of sales is the actual context of the commercial. Even though you may laugh at one or fall in love with another, doesn’t mean you will actually buy a product because of the commercial. Also, many people will argue that these big companies are just building their brands. However that has not shown over the long tern success for past games. There are too many variables and unclear effects of the ads. I could even see how reverse causation could come into affect; the increased sales for a company cause them to have enough money to have a Superbowl ad. However, that would be hard to prove because they could not happen simultaneously.
So should a company spend upwards of 4 million dollars on a Superbowl ad? I think it is solely up to their own marketing decisions. The ads do continue to increase in price, but that may change as demand slows as well. I think under no possible circumstance the ads pay for them self in being the cause of increased sales by looking at the data and using factual evidence.
In my opinion, more people watch the super bowl for the commercials instead of the game. It is a good idea for a company to show a commercial during that time to appeal to a wide audience, but a lot of the times the commercial isn’t really about the product. I only remember them because they’re funny and entertaining. Its a good way to build the brand but not necessarily sell products. here a funny superbowl commercial that I enjoyed!
Without a degree in economics, it’s certainly hard to tell if these huge corporations stand to benefit from buying expensive air time during an event like the Superbowl. In the cases of places like Coke, Pepsi, Doritos, and Go Daddy, I would assume they have they’re own marketing team of professionals who have been around the industry for years and have a good idea of what works and what doesn’t. Even still one of these firms could put out an advertisement that isn’t all that effective. This is certainly a difficult thing to track however, and I think you bring up a good point.
Superbowl commercials are one of the highlights to every Superbowl. The game and the commercials almost seem complementary to each other. I think it is a good idea for other companies to promote their products aside from the usual: Coke, Sprite, Go Daddy, Doritos. The fact that most of the commercials are those companies, maybe it is time to let other corporations shine.