More Proof that Super Bowl Ads Don't Work
Monday February 5, 2007
This interesting blog post by David Hawk makes a good point. Looking at the 5 companies who have spent the most on Super Bowl ads over the past 20 years, you'd really have to question the return on a company's investment for advertising during the Super Bowl.
A prime example in the top 5 is General Motors. GM has spent a total over $65 million on Super Bowl advertising, but where did it get them? Today, GM is essentially struggling for its survival.
Now, if you could produce a commercial for the $12 total spent on producing the one Dorito's commercial and then put it up on YouTube, that would be a good return on investment. That commercial was well-liked and would probably get a lot of traction out of viral marketing. That would sure beat paying $2.5 million for a 30-second TV commercial.
Related topics:
A prime example in the top 5 is General Motors. GM has spent a total over $65 million on Super Bowl advertising, but where did it get them? Today, GM is essentially struggling for its survival.
Now, if you could produce a commercial for the $12 total spent on producing the one Dorito's commercial and then put it up on YouTube, that would be a good return on investment. That commercial was well-liked and would probably get a lot of traction out of viral marketing. That would sure beat paying $2.5 million for a 30-second TV commercial.
Related topics:
Comments
While I agree with your post, I thought I should point out that your assertion that GM’s ads didn’t work is not necessarily true.
It’s possible that if they hadn’t spent the $65 Million on superbowl ads they’d be much worse off than they are now! Of course, there’s no way to know for sure.