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 TV change our behavior, in concrete ways, or doesn't it? I suspect that it does change our behavior, that the advertisers are right. (They're betting a lot of money on their position; I'd expect them to have some basis for doing so before committing that kind of coin.) But if so, then the rest of what we watch also changes our behavior.
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.
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.
>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 to see a lot of ads.
But after they've seen your brand plastered all over the Super Bowl (and other brand opportunities), those same instagram ads might start converting at $90 per conversion. Users see your ad and go "Oh yeah I remember that brand, lemme check this out"
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 you actually realize that asymmetric upside. And, nowhere in the article does he talk about Ro's estimated success likelihoods or actual outcomes.
In short, he's basically saying:
- I made a bet
- It costs me something ("capped downside")
- There's a potential payout ("asymmetric upside")
- I have no idea whether this is positive expected value
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 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.
16 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 30.4 ms ] threadAt 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 TV change our behavior, in concrete ways, or doesn't it? I suspect that it does change our behavior, that the advertisers are right. (They're betting a lot of money on their position; I'd expect them to have some basis for doing so before committing that kind of coin.) But if so, then the rest of what we watch also changes our behavior.
And, obviously, so does our social media feed...
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.
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 to see a lot of ads.
But after they've seen your brand plastered all over the Super Bowl (and other brand opportunities), those same instagram ads might start converting at $90 per conversion. Users see your ad and go "Oh yeah I remember that brand, lemme check this out"
The brand effect is so strong that displaying a Visa (or Mastercard or Amex) logo near checkout literally increases consumer spend. Study from 1986: https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/13/3/348/18224...
Another study from 2015 showing that credit card logos increase estimates of item value: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Effect-of-Credit-Card-...
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 you actually realize that asymmetric upside. And, nowhere in the article does he talk about Ro's estimated success likelihoods or actual outcomes.
In short, he's basically saying:
- I made a bet
- It costs me something ("capped downside")
- There's a potential payout ("asymmetric upside")
- I have no idea whether this is positive expected value
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqXOcRtZoow
I'm not familiar with American culture, but are the following true?
1. More than half Americans watch it.
2. People don't go to toilet during breaks/ad time.
Otherwise it's just money flushed down the bowl..