This week I wanted to bring attention to Jeri Smith’s article on AMA (American Marketing Association): Does Super Bowl Advertising Really Pay Off? In my opinion, the article brings up really good points about the difference between an entertaining ad and an effective ad. An entertaining ad simply aims to please the viewer. While this may lead to increased brand awareness, the viewer can usually recall the events in the ad but not the actual company that created it. Using a ROI metric, this means that the ad was in fact a failure. On the other hand, an effective ad increases purchase intentions. In other words, the ad succeeds in getting the viewer to buy the product advertised.
Effectiveness when it comes to the Super Bowl
There are countless studies out there (too many to list but just Google super bowl ad effectiveness and you’ll find them) showing that ads that run during the Super Bowl don’t bring a significant boost to sales. So why continue to waste millions? It has most likely just become tradition. Companies with large advertising budgets spread their peacock feathers just to show that they are still on top and they can still afford it. Yet, the only thing that these ads do is create a potential boost to brand awareness. A very small few actually increase purchase intentions.
It’s actually quite ironic. Large companies with high brand awareness, such as Doritos and Coca-Cola, can afford the commercials but do not reap any benefits from them. Small companies and start-ups, on the other hand, would benefit a great deal from the exposure but cannot afford the price tag on a 30-second Super Bowl spot. How can we, as marketers, break this paradox? Can large companies focus on increasing purchase intentions instead of fighting to win the USAToday AdMeter? Or should small companies find a way to raise the revenue needed for a spot during the Super Bowl?