Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

ro.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#31

Post by xnx »

SoftTalker wrote: post #3
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #2

This 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…

It's not just a single run of the ad. The same ad is run many times over, on other TV programs. It's promoted on social media. People see it and think "Oh yeah, that was a super bowl ad" and that makes it more memorable, and they associate it with the fun they had watching the game.

> It's promoted on social media.

It gets discussed for free on HN.

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#32

Post by xnx »

3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #4
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #2

This 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…

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.

> It's promoted on social media.

Résumé-driven marketing

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#33

Post by Razengan »

aorloff wrote: post #19

This 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…

Sorry it's just f'ing bizarre we're talking about throwing TENS of millions for "advertising" instead of shit that actually benefits people and the world.

Meanwhile some people complain about space programs etc. wasting money.

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#34

Post by conductr »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #16
cyberax wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pepsi is disgusting to me. To even speak of them as substitutes is outrageous to me. If you like it fine. I like both mayo and mustard but if someone doesn’t like mayo I don’t recommend it as a substitute for mustard.

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#35

Post by conductr »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #14
fairity wrote: post #9

The 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.

Yeah but this is footnote territory. The idea of a cap is more appropriate for most advertisers. There’s a minor chance you miscalculate and the cap dissolves. It kind of goes without saying as that always applies, possibly can have high magnification if too far off the mark.

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#36

Post by KurSix »

aorloff wrote: post #19

This 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…

I think this is true if you evaluate it purely as a performance channel, but I suspect most Super Bowl buys aren't competing with search/social on the same axis

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#37

Post by KurSix »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #2

This 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…

Advertising usually isn'tt trying to create a behavior from scratch, it's trying to redirect or prioritize behavior that was already likely to happen

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#39

Post by KurSix »

upmind wrote: post #11

I find the US commercialisation and dopamine inducing activities quite annoying. Compared to European sports, it's so different.

I think it reflects a broader difference in philosophy: US sports are optimized as media products first, sporting events second, whereas in Europe it's historically been the other way around

Re: The Economics of a Super Bowl Ad

#40

Post by wincy »

xnx wrote: post #31
SoftTalker wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a single run of the ad. The same ad is run many times over, on other TV programs. It's promoted on social media. People see it and think "Oh yeah, that was a super bowl ad" and that makes it more memorable, and they associate it with the fun they had watching the game.

> It's promoted on social media. It gets discussed for free on HN.

Well luckily I mostly just read the comments on HN, and I didn’t watch the superbowl, so unless someone tells me about the amazing Frito Lays commercial they saw, I have no idea which company is being talked about. Except I have been reminded that my Ring doorbell is bad, very bad.
Post reply on HN