I thought I would post some after-the-big-game thoughts on my b-school blog that pertain to business. As an Indianapolitan, the Giants’ win was vicarious for us since Peyton and the Colts couldn’t pull it off. So in the pseudo-glory we are basking in here in the Hoosier state, I’ve already posted some haiku on my other blog about the game, emailed and texted my friends to death, and switched my car’s radio for the time being solely to sports talk.
But here, I’d like to address the business of the Game Above All Games. It’s no secret that coming out ahead on your Super Bowl advertising investments is difficult. At $90,000 per second for a commercial air time, you would be hard pressed to find a marketing professional who didn’t have some alternative ideas on how to best use ~$3M to market your product. Furthermore, every year, people analyze the ads and talk about the biggest winners and losers, seemingly based on creativity/entertainment of the ad alone. And if you work for the marketing firm that broadcasts a “loser” ad, you might as well keep drinking long after the game ends, because you don’t need to come to work on Monday.
So, who came out on top this year if you take a little more comprehensive business view of these ads beyond just “what was entertaining/memorable?”
I submit that these 4 companies were the biggest winners last night.
#4: Godaddy.com. Every time they produce one of these so-called “controversial” ads, they generate more hype. Their return does not come from the commercial itself, but rather because of the news stories (aka: free publicity) about their tussles with Fox, the visits to their site to view the “uncut” material, and the way their reputation and hype about their ads seems to grow every year. The deserve props for several insights:
- They know their core business is in high tech and that horny men dominate their customer base.
- They have taken the long view, using several years of successive advertising to multiply their returns.
- They know that the controversy and hype is as important than the ad itself.
#3: Budweiser/Anheuser-Busch. Another long-view company. Their conservative approach over the years with the Clydesdales and other picturesque, touching imagery has built a loyal appreciation for their company. Even non-drinkers can look forward to their ads and may even think, “Maybe they’re not so bad,” in spite of the product they sell. Budwesier is not the official beer of the NFL or of the Super Bowl. But did you know that? Secondly, their comedic ads sometimes push the envelope, but other times they really are funny. With these ads, from frogs to large, dancing black men, to bodily noises and breathing fire, Budwesier has mastered the art of a memorable ad, capped off with a prominent display of the product or its logo that will stick with consumers for a while.
#2: Audi. Chalk up a HUGE victory for this luxury arm of VW. EVERYONE now wants an R8. They hit us with something totally awesome AND unexpected right out of the gate. They had the best commercial placement. There was nothing controversial about the ad for analysts to criticize. $2.7 million currently amounts to about twelve and one-third Euros, making this ad far less expensive for them than for American companies. And the marketing execs at Audi can be thankful for this: their product sells itself. And Audi knows that every R8 buyer knows their ego will be stroked and fed by the constant repetition of people asking, “Isn’t that the car from the Super Bowl ad? Awesome!” With no hard data on hand whatsoever, I would predict that this ad is the most likely to return its multi-million dollar investment to its company.
#1: News Corp. I don’t know how much Fox paid the NFL to broadcast last night’s Game-With-A-Capital-G. But, they did a terrific job with the broadcast from the business perspective. How many times over is that $2.7M rolling in to their account now? 50 or so? Then, possibly the most cost-effective advertisement of the entire game: myspace.com/superbowlads. At first, I thought myspace.com had scored a low-priced moneyball by sponsoring the game and hosting the ads, but then I remembered that MySpace is owned by News Corp., and realized that they took full advantage of the opportunity to drive traffic to their site. It didn’t cost News Corp much at all to make this happen, and this kind of traffic and subsequent revenue is the gift that keeps on giving as users end up on MySpace for a large chunk of today. Take that, facebook. (but I’m still loyal to the ol’ stalkbook). Finally, Fox’s production of the event was solid. Tom Petty’s audio mix was spot-on, which is always difficult with televised concert events (ahem, Rolling Stones??). The HD picture was at the top of its game. Joe Buck, a personal favorite of mine, having grown up listening to his papa broadcast Cards games on KMOX, St. Louis, did a fine job. I understand that Mr. Buck is not everyone’s favorite announcer, but he didn’t ruin this game for anyone. An accomplishment. News Corp had opportunity to hype House, Idol, Jordin Sparks, Ryan Seacrest, Randy Jackson’s new album, Paula Abdul’s as-yet-still-intact pop music skills, and the Daytona 500. In high school, I remember learning about vertical vs. horizontal corporations. Horizontal corporations are those that have several disjoint, seemingly unrelated companies. While you could put most of News Corp under the general banner of “media,” you have to admit that Fox did a fine job of making a positive impact on several horizontal holdings. They are the real winners of the Super Bowl business yesterday.
Now it’s your turn. Does this analysis make sense to you? Or have I just proven in public why I have no business being accepted in any top b-school? Who won the business spoils in your view last night?
