I find the US commercialisation and dopamine inducing activities quite annoying. Compared to European sports, it's so different.
The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
11–20 of 51 posts
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the cache for everyone involved in creating the commercial. So, nice feather in the cap for the hundreds of people who get to touch it. I have no doubt advertising has some effect on consumer preferences. However, I am a skeptic that one more Coke Cola ad aired at the Super Bowl meaningfully changes sales relative to the billions they already spend elsewhere.
> I am a skeptic that one more Coke Cola ad aired at the Super Bowl meaningfully changes sales It actually might. Coca Cola had $48b revenue last year, or in other words, 4800 millions. Spending 7 of those millions to put your product in front of 100 million people seems like a reasonable bet. If even a couple percent of those people are (sub)consciously influenced to pick up a 12-pack the next time they stop by a st…
The irony is that this especially true for Coca Cola. They are basically an advertising company at heart. They sell flavored sugar water. For all the hype about "are you a coke person or a Pepsi person", in blind tests most people can't tell the difference between coke and generic cola. The billions they spend in marketing annually helps ensure they can sell their flavored sugar water for a lot more than Aldi sells their store brand flavored sugar water.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#13This has always bugged me. $7 million for a 30-second-long ad. What do they get out of it? Well, presumably, a change in peoples' concrete behaviors that is more than $7 million. They expect that (otherwise they wouldn't buy the ad in the first place). At the same time, we're told that all the sex and violence on TV doesn't matter, because it doesn't change peoples' behavior . So, which is it? Does what we watch on T…
Ads are designed to change our behavior.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#14The author keeps saying, over and over, that the reason this is a good bet is because "the downside is capped and the upside is asymmetric" as if that's some ground-breaking realization. Sorry, but obviously the downside is capped. The downside of virtually any marketing investment is capped at the cost of the media buy...And, the upside being "asymmetric" isn't some saving grace. What matters is the likelihood that…
This is also kinda wrong because the downside can be a lot more than your marketing spend if people really hate your ad. Just look what happened when Budweiser decided to send a personalized Bud Light can to a transgender person. For the Superbowl specifically, I can't imagine the "Search Party" ad helped Amazon sell more Rings.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am a skeptic that one more Coke Cola ad aired at the Super Bowl meaningfully changes sales It actually might. Coca Cola had $48b revenue last year, or in other words, 4800 millions. Spending 7 of those millions to put your product in front of 100 million people seems like a reasonable bet. If even a couple percent of those people are (sub)consciously influenced to pick up a 12-pack the next time they stop by a st…
The irony is that this especially true for Coca Cola. They are basically an advertising company at heart. They sell flavored sugar water. For all the hype about "are you a coke person or a Pepsi person", in blind tests most people can't tell the difference between coke and generic cola. The billions they spend in marketing annually helps ensure they can sell their flavored sugar water for a lot more than Aldi sells t…
I don't know, I can distinguish between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola easily. I prefer Diet Coke, FWIW.
I also now have a bottle of Lab Cola from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc and it _is_ indistinguishable from regular Coca-Cola to me. So it might be plausible in case of a deliberate Coca-Cola knock-off?
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is that this especially true for Coca Cola. They are basically an advertising company at heart. They sell flavored sugar water. For all the hype about "are you a coke person or a Pepsi person", in blind tests most people can't tell the difference between coke and generic cola. The billions they spend in marketing annually helps ensure they can sell their flavored sugar water for a lot more than Aldi sells t…
I don't know, I can distinguish between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola easily. I prefer Diet Coke, FWIW. I also now have a bottle of Lab Cola from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDkH3EbWTYc and it _is_ indistinguishable from regular Coca-Cola to me. So it might be plausible in case of a deliberate Coca-Cola knock-off?
I also "can" and so can my siblings but I actuallly stopped drinking sugar water but my siblings don't so they are "passionate" about coke and "hate" Pepsi for some reason. I don't understand
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am a skeptic that one more Coke Cola ad aired at the Super Bowl meaningfully changes sales It actually might. Coca Cola had $48b revenue last year, or in other words, 4800 millions. Spending 7 of those millions to put your product in front of 100 million people seems like a reasonable bet. If even a couple percent of those people are (sub)consciously influenced to pick up a 12-pack the next time they stop by a st…
The irony is that this especially true for Coca Cola. They are basically an advertising company at heart. They sell flavored sugar water. For all the hype about "are you a coke person or a Pepsi person", in blind tests most people can't tell the difference between coke and generic cola. The billions they spend in marketing annually helps ensure they can sell their flavored sugar water for a lot more than Aldi sells t…
> in blind tests most people can't tell the difference between coke and generic cola
According to who?
I think most colas taste fine but it's not hard to differentiate the ones I've had.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#18I find the US commercialisation and dopamine inducing activities quite annoying. Compared to European sports, it's so different.
Well, we used to at least not have to suffer through gambling ads...
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#19This article uses a lot of numbers to make not very strong arguments.
Lets assume that as a media planner, you have the bag of money under your desk to plausibly be discussing buying a Superbowl spot. You are already spending millions of dollars on media every month, the question is - will the Superbowl spot yield more than other channels ?
For some small set of advertisers in this decision matrix, there's also the question of whether the media production cost is worth it (hello coinbase). For the vast majority of decision makers in this position, the media production budget is already getting spent.
Lets say the spot plus extra cost is $10m to use a nice round number.
You have an expectation of how many new users or website visitors your media budget typically delivers for $10m, because you spend that regularly (monthly, quarterly, it doesn't matter, but the point is that your spend has been growing).
So the decision is really really simple. Superbowl or the other places you've been shoving $10m. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but usually its like eh compared to the other places you've been shoving your $10m, underwhelming. Which is why you see justification pieces like this.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#20The author keeps saying, over and over, that the reason this is a good bet is because "the downside is capped and the upside is asymmetric" as if that's some ground-breaking realization. Sorry, but obviously the downside is capped. The downside of virtually any marketing investment is capped at the cost of the media buy...And, the upside being "asymmetric" isn't some saving grace. What matters is the likelihood that…
The downside isn't really capped as in most cases there's a big dev effort to prep for an event like that. Plus a lot of spend on the day of the event to deal with the surge. This can easily be in the millions as well, in direct cost as well as in opportunity cost