I would argue the downside wasn’t capped for Ring.
The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#22This 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 q…
As someone who is somewhat familiar with marketing but no expert, I always wondered how well attribution works.
It seems all guesswork to me. User journeys and decisions are not well enough understood to say, "If I spend $1 here, it’ll return $x".
Of course, marketing people come up with all kinds of calculations to show it’s possible.
That or I’m completely ignorant.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#23This 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…
>This has always bugged me. $7 million for a 30-second-long ad. What do they get out of it? Super Bowl ads are about brand building. They're not conversion ads. Their direct impact is to reduce CPC (cost per conversion) on other advertising. Say you have to pay $100 per instagram conversion. Users see your ads cold and need a lot of convicing. Most won't pay attention long enough for your ad to convert. You need them…
> Another study from 2015 showing that credit card logos increase estimates of item value
Notably, the abstract of the 2015 study specifically points out that the 1986 study has frequently failed to replicate, and although it finds an effect, the 2015 study has n = 28. As always with psychology studies, we would do well not to assert their purported findings as facts, as with the statement "The brand effect is so strong that displaying a Visa logo near checkout literally increases consumer spend". Psychology as a field is far too unreliable to make such assertions with confidence.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#24Earlier 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…
> 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.
> According to who?
According to researchers who actually ran blinded tests: https://daily.jstor.org/the-coca-cola-wars-can-anybody-reall...
What's funny is kind of the reverse is also true: when people were given the exact same cola but one was labeled Coke and the other Pepsi, not only did they say they preferred Coke, but fMRI brain scans should more prefrontal cortex activation for the Coke as well: https://medium.com/@marketingoal/the-pepsi-vs-cola-cola-expe... . That's the power of branding.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#25The 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.
Or Gillette. Or Jaguar. Wrong sort of advertising can provably destroy your brand image among your consumers. Social media helps to amplify things in both directions. So you really need to know your audience's current mindset. Or wrong move could lead to losing lot more than just any money and manpower spend on the ad.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#26This 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 q…
At least it's not Facebook or other online monster. When I read the piece I thought if it wasn't for superbowl that money would have went straight in the garbage.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#27I would argue the downside wasn’t capped for Ring.
First thing to come to mind when I read that claim.
Pretty obvious gap in the logic to consider only monetary downsides, right before listing all thos non-monetary upsides.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#28That’s a nice blog but they still get ripped apart in the Youtube comments.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#29This 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 q…
>> This article uses a lot of numbers to make not very strong arguments.
That's how marketing works.
Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad
#30Earlier 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…
> 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.
Have you done a blind test before? A group of friends and I have done a blind test of around 10 coke brands before. The only ones you could reasonably tell apart were Pepsi and some dubious organic cokes. But of all the ones that actually try to replicate the coca cola flavour it was just pure guesswork on our side.