In terms of exposure, Super Bowl space has a potentially big payoff; this year's game ended up being the most-watched television program ever, capturing an average of 106.5 million viewers, or 213 million eyeballs. But what about in terms of efficacy? Or more specifically, did advertising during the Super Bowl truly advance a company or organization's messaging in any meaningful way?
It's true, individual ads are hit or miss, as reviews in AdAge, New York Times and Slate will tell you. Each review will have had a positive or negative effect on the sales of a particular product or service. But for one of the ads, which probably received the most pregame buzz, those golden seconds of airtime during the Super Bowl were dedicated to advancing a chaste position, while in fact not selling anything.
So if managing a brand or brand image is the main purpose of these ads, or taking a "moral" stance in the case of the Focus on the Family Tebow spot, are Super Bowl ads also influenced by larger factors than the ad itself? I would argue yes. Contrary to what Big Advertising will have us think, these crazily expensive Super Bowl ads might never be as effective at advancing a company's message -- particularly when it is about something as personal and polarizing as abortion -- as a great PR campaign could be.
In other words, the nuclear option doesn't work for everyone.
That's because an ad's efficacy in terms of brand and messaging can be directly affected and diluted, simply by association. Join the ranks of other advertisers and earn the label of a 'Super Bowl Ad' -- your brand becomes -- one of them. And the overall theme of any given year's Super Bowl ads can also infect or amplify a message or brand image.
To read the article in full follow this link.
Posts
