While I am always absorbed in the advertising that runs during the Super Bowl, I could not help but be captivated by the rising Saints, carrying the hopes of the entire Gulf Coast region on their shoulders, gaining the possibility of fulfilling their dream in the nation’s most popular athletic event?
Given the record viewership of the game, I was certainly in a large group intrigued by this compelling story. More than 98 million people watched the 2010 National Football League’s Championship Game, a contest that a former commissioner thought might be a good idea to brand as the “Super Bowl”, or ultimate game.
The idea certainly paid off for teams, fans and advertisers. In fact, this year’s broadcast gained nearly ultimate statistics: Where else could expect to get almost every one in three Americans watching a program? Talk about captivation . . .
Anheuser-Busch thought so much of the possibilities that it returned this year and purchase an event-high five minutes of advertising time. Some were clearly better than others, but at an estimated $2.5-$3 million per 30-second spot you wonder if the brewer’s return on investment will meet expectations – if it can be accurately measured at all. Other companies spent less than 10 percent what Anheuser-Busch spent and garnered a greater buzz.
And, speaking of ROI, I was a bit surprised that companies did not adopt a more direct-response approach. While several were crafted with the idea of second viewers to websites or social media outlets, there was a decided void in the DR category. The reason I found this interesting is that Bob Barfield of Advertising Age voiced a memorable report of the 2009 Super Bowl ads indicating the commercial that would probably score the best ROI was a direct response piece for Cash4Gold.com, a website encouraging consumers to turn in their unwanted gold for money.
Garfield called the commercial that featured Ed McMahon and MC Hammer “one of the worst pieces of creative work” yet felt quite confident the message would have a terrific ROI.
My question is: Why didn’t companies with great creative use a more traditional direct-response format? If inferior creative results in a very positive ROI, would not a campaign with a dynamite message stand even a better chance of being successful?
One of the 2010 Super Bowl commercials bound to produce website traffic was HomeAway, which brought back Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo who starred as Clark and Ellen Griswold in the 1983 movie “National Lampoon’s Vacation.” The idea was offer the idea of a private home instead of gambling on an unacceptable hotel room. Good concept, mainly because all ages groups identify with the Griswolds – including the kids who are now GenXers and GenYers in the position to rent a hotel alternative.
While the message encourages families to consider the possibilities of renting a vacation home, it does not directly recruit second-home owners into becoming part of the HomeAway network. Why not take a small portion of the $2.5-$3 million spent on the 30-second Super Bowl ad and target vacation home owners in Vail, Tahoe, Scottsdale, Fort Lauderdale . . . with a direct response campaign that be measured against (and complemented by) the shotgun approach of the Super Bowl ad?
With more major companies employing some sort of DR, will traditional direct response ever be a major part of Super Bowl advertising? What would it take?
I’d welcome your opinions.
Rick
-
10Feb
