Onto the Super Bowl

Now that Christmas is over, focus will shift to the Super Bowl.

One of the reasons the Super Bowl is such a big marketing event is because it falls during a slow time of the year. Christmas is a huge holiday, of course. Together with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, December provides something for almost everyone. New Year’s is closely linked to the other December holidays; for many people the arrival of New Year’s Day signals that it is time to take down the tree and get back to work.

Once Christmas is past, the calendar is fairly empty. There are few big social events. Valentine’s Day is a notable date, of course, but mainly for couples. Easter is a long way off. Martin Luther King Day is important, but is not really a holiday characterized by parties. The only thing people can focus on is the Super Bowl.

This year the game is on February 7, so there will be a five week build-up. For football fans, this period is dominated by the playoffs, as the crop of contenders is narrowed down. For marketers, this period is about generating PR and engaging people.

One of the most important insights about Super Bowl advertising is that the game itself is just one small part of the package. The PR buzz and hype are more important.

Once we get into 2010, Super Bowl marketing will kick into high gear. We will see a lot of press releases and teaser spots. We will also see a lot of online activity.

Observe as all the advertisers try to generate PR. We will hear a lot from brands like Doritos and GoDaddy.com. Who else will capture the spotlight as January unfolds?

Tim Calkins

Pepsi Steps Aside

PepsiCo will not be advertising beverages on the Super Bowl this year, according to an article by Suzanne Vranica in the Wall Street Journal today.  This means no Pepsi, no Diet Pepsi, no Gatorade, and no Sierra Mist on the big game in February.

This is a huge shift for Pepsi; the brand has been a core Super Bowl player, with spots running in the last 23 games.

Apparently Pepsi will be investing in an Internet-based, cause-related marketing effort instead of spending on Super Bowl advertising.

I’m not clear why Pepsi is making this sort of a move.  Why walk away from a proven marketing tactic?

The decision certainly isn’t about the money; while a Super Bowl spot is expensive, in the scheme of Pepsi’s advertising budget it isn’t a huge matter. 

One potential issue is that PepsiCo has struggled in recent years to create winning Super Bowl spots, airing a mixed bag of commercials.  While some worked well, others were rather weak, including one astonishing Gatorade spot that showed a dog slurping away for 30 seconds.

Another potential issue is that Coke has been successfully challenging Pepsi on the Super Bowl in recent years and apparently is continuing to invest heavily in the event.  By stepping aside Pepsi leaves the field to Coke.  That is one way to avoid negative comparisons.

PepsiCo is making a lot of changes these days in the beverage area.  Earlier this year the company introduced a new look for Pepsi, redesigned Tropicana and repositioned Gatorade.  At least two of the three were less than successful. 

It will be interesting to see how Pepsi does sitting out the game.

Tim Calkins

Hidden Costs of Super Bowl Advertising

 Advertising Age recently reported that Pepsi might reduce its presence in the Super Bowl because of concerns that it is not a good fit with the new social-responsibility message of the brand. This is one example of hidden costs associated with advertising in the Super Bowl. At one level, the Super Bowl offers a large amount of reach among individuals interested in the commercials. Appearing in the Super Bowl also signals financial strength to some, given the high price tag of making a 30-second appearance. At another level, however, appearing in the Super Bowl might also be interpreted as financial foolhardiness. Indeed, when Under Armour announced it was devoting 10 percent of its advertising budget to the Super Bowl, it invited heavy scrutiny and the company stocks experienced a drop.

GM has decided to opt out of the Super Bowl altogether. Given the pressure the auto industry is already under, it might not only be financially sound, but prudent based on managing expectations with consumers. Of course, the lack of an appearance also means a missed opportunity to reach millions of consumers with a brand message.

This all raises a series of interesting questions to me: Who is “allowed” to advertise in the Super Bowl in the eyes of the public? What brands can safely spend their money and be accepted by consumers? Which ones are likely to invite disdain from the public?

Surely there are several issues at play, such as the company’s perceived reputation in the marketplace, the financial health of the company, and its brand positioning (e.g., socially responsible might be a harder sell when one is spending $2.5 to 3 million on a 30-second spot). What do you think?

Derek Rucker

The Pros and Cons of Pre-Game Buzz

The high price of a Super Bowl ad leads many brands to explore how they can maximize their association with the Super Bowl well beyond their 30-second spot. This has led a number of brands to exert effort in generating pre-game buzz. For example, GoDaddy.com has evoked the perennial strategy of generating buzz around the fact that their Super Bowl executions  are almost too risqué for prime-time network TV. Other brands, such as Doritos, have engaged consumers to create their Super Bowl ads through contests, which calls attention to their presence in the Super Bowl in the weeks before the big game, and also provides an opportunity for pre-game consumer interaction.

With such efforts in place, a natural question that arises is whether there is ever a concern about generating too much buzz. On the surface, it might seem like anything that garners attention for a brand is a big step toward capitalizing on the lofty price tag of entering into the Super Bowl. However, pre-game buzz carries with it at least two risks that brands and agencies need to be sure to navigate. First, there is a chance for wear-out or reduced novelty of the execution by the time the spot actually airs on game night. If the concepts employed by the brand are not crisp and exciting, they might lead to a “ho-hum” response once they are aired. Second, pre-game buzz builds consumer expectations further, which means a brand had better deliver in the execution. An execution that might have been well-received could falter if consumers’ expectations are set too high. The key, of course, is to be aware of these issues so that pre-game buzz can be used effectively and risks are known.

Which brands have successfully used pre-game buzz to attract your attention? And likewise, which brands have annoyed you with pre-game buzz?

Derek Rucker

Who Will Play in the 2010 Super Bowl?

The Super Bowl is exactly two months away and we now have at least some idea who will be advertising in the big game.

The latest rundown includes many familiar names, with just one new player signed on thus far:

Familiar Names

AB InBev: Anheuser-Busch will be back again this year, running a number of spots for Budweiser, Bud Light and perhaps one of the company’s smaller brands. This isn’t a surprise; AB apparently has a contract that runs through 2012.

PepsiCo: PepsiCo will apparently be advertising on the Super Bowl again in 2010, but the company has not released details about the spots.

CareerBuilder.com: CareerBuilder is back for the sixth year in a row. This year the company is relying on consumer-generated creative, a new approach for CareerBuilder.

Emerald Nuts: Emerald Nuts advertised in 2006, 2007 and 2008 before sitting out the 2009 game. The brand will apparently be back in 2010.

Hyundai: Hyundai got an enormous bump from the Super Bowl last year; the company ran two very impactful commercials. This year Hyundai is running another two spots, and we’ll be watching to see how they stack up.

GoDaddy: Bob Parsons and the GoDaddy team are planning for another appearance in 2010. Look for more edgy commercials, little taste and high impact.

Levi Strauss: After an eight-year break, Levi’s will be advertising during the Super Bowl in 2010 to support a relaunch of its Dockers brand.

Motorola: Motorola will be advertising the new Droid phone during the Super Bowl, but the company is not releasing specific plans ahead of time.

The New Entrant

HomeAway: HomeAway owns property rental Web sites such as www.vrbo.com,www.vacationrentals.com and others. 2010 will be HomeAway’s first year on the Super Bowl.

It’s a solid list so far, and we will learn about other advertisers in the coming weeks. And who knows? Some of the companies planning to advertise might get cold feet before the game. This is just the beginning of what promises to be an exciting year – stay tuned for a lot more news on Super Bowl advertisers in the weeks ahead.

Tim Calkins

Super Bowl 2010: Watch for Falling Prices

It is August, which means it is time to begin thinking about the 2010 Super Bowl.  For marketers, this is the time to decide whether to buy advertising time or not, since developing television spots can easily take several months.

A big question: what will be the price for spots on the 2010 Super Bowl?

The price for Super Bowl advertising time has been steadily increasing.  Over the past four years the price of a 30 second spot has marched steadily up:  $2.5 million, $2.6 million, $2.7 million and, in 2009, $3 million.  Of course, these are all the published list prices; advertisers often negotiate better deals.

The pricing trend is unlikely to continue in 2010.  Indeed, I expect to see a sharp drop in the price of a spot.

There are two factors behind this.  The first factor is simple supply and demand.  The supply of Super Bowl spots will be flat; the length of a football game is not likely to change.  But demand will almost certainly be down; companies are slashing marketing budgets in a bid to protect profits in a slumping economy.  New companies, in particular, are not likely to be buying many Super Bowl spots this year.  When cash is tight, spending heavily to quickly ramp up awareness is incredibly risky for a startup.

With flat supply and weak demand, pricing should logically fall.

The second factor is perception.  Advertising on the Super Bowl makes a major statement, since everyone knows Super Bowl ads are expensive.  In a weak economy, many companies will be nervous about the signal a Super Bowl ad will send.  The U.S. auto industry, the financial services industry and the healthcare industry are all likely to be very sensitive to sending the wrong signal in a difficult economic time.

One way to shift the high-price perception on Super Bowl advertising is to dramatically cut prices.  This could make advertisers appear smart.  Perhaps the executives at GM could claim, “We are taking advantage of the new low rates to reintroduce our brands to the American public.”  Other advertisers could note, “We are spending 25% less for the same audience we reached in 2009.”

Any way you look at it, prices will almost certainly be down.

My advice to CBS: cut official prices by at least 30%, to $2.1 million per 30 seconds.

Tim Calkins

2009 Super Bowl Advertising Highlights

While this year’s Super Bowl advertising delivered the usual mix of humor and celebrities, it was a rather unique year. The spots were mixed, as always; some advertisers did a terrific job while others missed the mark. But the recession clearly played a role.
Perhaps the single most astonishing thing was the presence of Cash4Gold. This is a company that melts down jewelry. You send in your precious items and get cash in return. The fact that this company thought advertising on the Super Bowl was a good idea clearly reflects that fact that the U.S. economy is very, very weak. Liquidating the family gems is a desperation move. When you go to a pawn shop, you have hope of recovering your items. When you send them to be melted down, you are giving up hope. This is simply scary.
A number of the spots this year went directly at competition. Teleflora attacked flowers that arrive in a box, deliberately bashing the competition. Audi left Mercedes and Lexus in the dust. Hyundai went after BMW and Japanese auto companies. Denny’s made fun of family- oriented pancake houses, indirectly slamming IHOP. This level of competitive intensity reflects the tough economy, too; advertisers are trying to differentiate and drive sales at the expense of competition.

The Best
The job sites carried the day. Monster.com was the top finisher in the Kellogg Super Bowl Advertising Review, with CareerBuilder very close behind. Both advertisers resonated because they featured people with lousy jobs. I suspect this is something many people can relate to. CareerBuilder takes the prize for most improved; last year CareerBuilder missed the mark with a horrific spot featuring a heart leaping out of a woman’s chest. This year’s effort was dramatically better.
Doritos breathed new life into the idea of consumer- generated content. Doritos ended up running two spots, both submitted in the Doritos “Crash the Super Bowl” contest. Both worked quite well because they attracted attention and had exceptionally strong branding.
The E*Trade baby was back this year, and with good reason; last year E*Trade was one of the top advertisers. This year E*Trade again hit the mark; the spot delivered a clear message and was highly entertaining.
Denny’s rounded out the top group of advertisers in the Kellogg Super Bbowl Advertising Review. The Denny’s spot communicated a benefit versus competition, and then revealed a striking offer: on Tuesday, the Grand Slam Breakfast will be free. This is a huge deal and will generate enormous excitement. I hope they have enough eggs for the likely demand.

The Worst
Five advertisers finished at the bottom of the 2009 Kellogg Super Bowl Review: Toyota, Vizio, Castrol, GoDaddy and SoBe.
The biggest disappointment was SoBe. This spot was part of the much hyped 3-D extravaganza at the end of the second quarter. People were encouraged to track down the special glasses, put them on at the appropriate moment and then get ready. And, after all the build-up, the SoBe spot was largely incomprehensible. SoBe’s spot in the 2008 Super Bowl wasn’t very strong. This spot was worse; it was an unintelligible muddle.
Toyota and Vizio were simply too dull to stand out on the Super Bowl. They weren’t terrible spots, really, they just weren’t very interesting. Castrol should have been better; the spot featured chimps, and chimps have a long and proud history on the Super Bowl. This one just fell a bit flat.
GoDaddy was, well, GoDaddy.

Other Interesting Advertisers
Anheuser-Busch stumbled this year, falling in the middle of the pack. A-B ran some very clever spots, such as the Bud Light spot with Conan, and a trio of nice, iconic spots for Budweiser. But A-B also ran a few dull spots, such as a skiing spot for Bud Light that was focused on drinkability (what is drinkability, anyway?) In addition, I suspect the trio of Clydesdale spots watered down the impact.
Pedigree ran a very cute commercial encouraging people to get a dog. The ad fell in the middle of the pack in the Kellogg Review, but I suspect it resonated with dog lovers, and that is the group Pedigree really cares about.
Pepsi and Coke both lacked fizz. The spots were all big and iconic but somehow fell flat. I suspect that in another year they might have worked, but in a grim economic time the light, fluffy stuff seems strangely out of touch.
The most inconsistent advertiser was Hyundai. The Korean company ran two commercials. One was quite effective at communicating that Hyundai recently won the North American Car of the Year, beating BMW, the Japanese autos and everyone else. The other was an old and fairly dull spot announcing the Hyundai assurance program, which lets you return the car if you lose your job. The mixed message was a problem.
I can’t figure out why GE was advertising at all. GE ran two spots, one highlighting how GE has wind technology, another highlighting GE’s smart electric technology. Why would GE do this? How will these spots drive sales? Remember that GE is a company about to lose its AAA credit rating; GE should have saved the money to shore up the finances.
But of course, GE is NBC’s parent. When sales of Girl Scout cookies are flat, you can always sell to your parents. The same rule applies for Super Bowl spots.

Tim Calkins

Super Bowl Advertising 2009: A Viewer’s Guide

The 2008 Super Bowl is just days away. After months of build-up, the teams will finally take to the field, and perhaps more importantly, the advertising will finally run. The big event is at hand.

What follows is a viewer’s guide to the 2009 Super Bowl advertising: a list of things to watch for as the game unfolds.

1. Overall: The big issue this year is the recession/depression/meltdown. Will the advertising creative reflect this? Or will we see the usual mix of jokes and gags and over-the-top production? Watch for how advertisers address the difficult economic climate. This is a big challenge this year; great advertising connects with people, and people are certainly concerned about the economy and the future right now.

2. The first spots: The most valuable advertising slot in the Super Bowl, and in some ways the most valuable advertising moment in the world, is the first ad that runs after the opening kick-off. Anheuser-Busch will run their best spot at this moment; this should be the spot that finishes at the top of the popularity charts. Does the spot measure up? Who gets the second spot?

3. Pepsi: The first half will be all about Pepsi. Watch for several spots from PepsiCo, including advertisements for Pepsi, Gatorade and Doritos. Last year PepsiCo ran some very strange advertising on the Super Bowl. Will they nail it this year?

4. The second quarter 3-D extravaganza: Be sure to locate your 3-D glasses for the second quarter 3-D ads. Do the ads really pop, in all senses of the word? Watch if anyone else at your party has the 3-D glasses. One of the big challenges for this idea was execution, simply getting the glasses distributed. How well did the advertisers do?

5. E-Trade: Last year E-Trade nailed it with two terrific spots featuring the talking baby. Is the baby back? Is he as funny and as on message? I suspect these will be some of the best spots to run this year. They certainly were last year.

6. Coke: In the second half Coke takes the field. Will Coke deliver? Last year Coke ran two great commercials. This year they have a new campaign, but with a similar message. Who wins the Pepsi vs. Coke battle?

7. The great job site battle: Monster and CareerBuilder go head to head in this year’s Super Bowl. CareerBuilder ran two rather polarizing and generally disliked spots last year. Will they deliver this year? How does Monster respond? Do they differentiate? Or do they promise the same thing?

8. Pedigree: I believe this is the first time a pet food brand has advertised on the Super Bowl. Does Pedigree fit in with the beer and the chips? The big question for Pedigree: will this spot actually drive significant incremental business? If so, how precisely will that work?

9. Denny’s: Denny’s is apparently rolling out an exciting new offer during the Super Bowl. What is it? Does it make sense? Look for this spot to generate a lot of talk value; Denny’s may be one of the strongest advertisers this year despite being new to the event.

10. Cars: There are three auto industry advertisers to watch, each with significant challenges. Can Hyundai credibly claim that a Hyundai is like a BMW? Will Audi follow-up last year’s arresting spot with another striking execution? And how will Cars.com position itself given that there aren’t many people buying cars at all right now?

All in all look for this to be another dynamic year for Super Bowl advertising, recession and all. I predict there will be some great spots that really stand out, and many spots that are very respectable. And there will be a few that really miss the mark; there always are.

- Tim Calkins

Evidence for Super Bowl Effectiveness

Perhaps the most frequent question I have about the Super Bowl is whether the ad buy is a judicious use of spending. My typical response to this is it’s worth it for the right brand with the right goals. I then will parlay into a discussion about how that $3 million dollars is not only about the 30-second spot that reaches millions of people: Brands are paying for pre-game intrigue and interest and post-game exposure and discussion. In addition, some brands will take their presence a step further for launching a massively new campaign. The point of this is to say that $3 million buys you quite a lot of exposure if you are successful and, especially for a brand with a strong strategy, could be a very wise investment. I’ve always said and believed this, and I don’t foresee changing this perspective in the near future.

 

However, along with touting the potential benefits of spending in the Super Bowl, I’ve also been very cautionary about the ability to gauge effectiveness. Indeed, Tim Calkins and I wrote an article about just how difficult, and perhaps impossible, a task it would be to accurately measure Super Bowl return on investment. And, while I stand by the fact that determining the precise ROI, or even a good approximation, is a herculean task, I was pleased to see a recent article by AdAge that discussed some metrics of success for being in the Super Bowl.

 

In this article, AdAge reports that more than 21 million consumers watched ads after the 2008 game online, Audi saw a 200 percent increase in web traffic within a month following the game, and E-trade had a 32 percent increase in the funded accounts opened after the game. These are only a few examples mentioned in the article. While this does not provide a complete, or even clean, metric of ROI, I think it does demonstrate the power of having a large audience interested in watching your ad. Put differently, while I don’t expect to see a metric of Super Bowl ROI in the near future, I think the accumulating evidence does indeed suggest that a Super Bowl ad buy can be a very effective use of one’s advertising budget. However, I’ll also stick by my comment that it has to be the right brand with the right strategy.

 

- Derek Rucker

Hyundai’s Challenge

The Super Bowl is full of challenges.  The Steelers have to establish a running game.  The Cardinals have to find a way to move the ball against Pittsburgh’s tough defense.   Kurt Warner has to connect with his trio of talented receivers. 

Perhaps the greatest challenge, however, awaits Hyundai.  The Korean automaker is attempting to convince people that Hyundai’s new Genesis sub-brand is a credible competitor to BMW, Mercedes and Lexus.  This is a daunting task.  Hyundai ran two commercials on the 2008 Super Bowl to support this effort, and Hyundai is back again in 2009.  The challenge remains.

Brands are incredibly powerful, in part because they shape our perceptions.  A nice piece of jewelry becomes very special when it carries the Tiffany brand.  The same item loses much of its value when it is branded Wal-Mart. 

Hyundai’s problem is that the Hyundai brand has a low-quality perception.  While the brand has improved in recent years, in part due to Hyundai’s long warranty, I suspect that few people think “luxury” and “top quality” when they think Hyundai.  People might think “value” and “reliability.”  But “luxury?”  No.

The good news is that the Genesis is apparently quite a good product.  Indeed, at the recent Detroit Auto Show the Hyundai Genesis was named the “North American Car of the Year.”  On a product basis, the Genesis might be a real competitor for Lexus and the other high-end brands.

Still, the only way the Hyundai Genesis will succeed is if the company is successful at changing the perceptions of the Hyundai brand.  As car site Edmunds.com noted, “With badges removed, the Genesis could easily pass as a Lexus or Mercedes-Benz, although we doubt many brand-conscious folks would give a Hyundai a second glance.”  With Hyundai’s current brand perceptions, it is very unlikely that the Genesis will be seen as credible luxury car, regardless of the actual product. 

And this is Hyundai’s Super Bowl challenge:  get people to view Hyundai as a viable player in the high-end auto market.

The Super Bowl is a wonderful venue for this sort of effort, because it gives Hyundai a chance to reach everyone and command attention.  The lack of automobile ads on the Super Bowl this year means that Hyundai will stand out even more than usual.  Hyundai is making a wise tactical choice.

Can Hyundai do it?  I doubt it.  For the brand repositioning to work it will take a very long time and many more Super Bowl spots in the years to come. 

If Hyundai wants to credibly play in the luxury space, it should follow the lead of Toyota, Honda and Nissan and create a new and distinct high-end brand.

Tim Calkins