What would you do with $2.7 million?

Posted on by

I know what I wouldn’t do with $2.7 million, and that’s blow it on a Super Bowl commercial. And, now atBudbowl
long last, comes scientific proof that, unless you’re Budweiser, you’re wasting your cash on Super Bowl spots.

A study just released at the Cognitive Science Conference (and what a fun group that must be!) showed that ‘…ads with poor cognitive skills were misattributed by consumers, and beer ads were attributed to the huge Super Bowl presence that is Budweiser.’ Translation: people simply don’t remember the ad they just saw. So, regardless of the category or the cleverness, Super Bowl ads don’t work.

This comes as no surprise whatsoever. Yet, the ad trades still routinely go nuts about ‘first time’ Super Bowl advertisers. And, Monday morning water cooler conversationalists everywhere will debate the most creative Super Bowl spot.

But, none of it matters because, unless you’re Bud, you’re ad’s going to be a dud.

Now, imagine for a minute how far $2.7mm would go if those very same marketers allocated the funds towards a mix of traditional and digital PR. It boggles the mind.

So, as you’re sipping your brew and eating that slice of pizza on Sunday, take a longer look at the ads. You’ll be watching $2.7 million literally going up in smoke.

8 thoughts on “What would you do with $2.7 million?”

  1. Some creative ad’s will still work…”Go Daddy’s” ad is already getting the site all kinds of traffic as it claims in their soon to air Super Bowl Ad that they will be showing Danica Patrick stripping on their web site. I’m sure this ad will be a big hit on Sunday with all the testosterone charged men watching the Super Bowl. And maybe the repman might take a peek.

  2. clueman has been a bit vitriolic and ad homonym of late. I’m glad to see s/he’s back with righteous criticisms of Steve’s often less-than thoughtful critiques. Keep ’em coming cluekid Keep ’em coming Steve. This is entertaining.

  3. [Get Rep’s]Lunch Boy , Super Bowl adds may, in fact be a waste of money but not based on the article cited to and linked in Repman’s blog.
    “And, now at long last, comes scientific [link to article] proof that, unless you’re Budweiser, you’re wasting your cash on Super Bowl spots.”
    It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to falsely attribute. I don’t actually believe Repman is intellectually dishonest; I’m just establishing the fact that Rep does not comprehend the article.

  4. You show me someone who thinks spending 2.7 million on 30 seconds of air time will have anywhere near a positive ROI and I’ll show you someone with their head up their ‘sun don’t shine hole.’ I agree with everything Repman said in this post. Except maybe that it’s still a good investment for Bud. I think it’s more about tradition for them and expectations. The Super Bowl ads wouldn’t seem complete without a series of witty Budweiser spots. But figure out how many beers AB will have to sell to make up for the 4+ minutes of air time they bought. I doubt it is a revenue generating exercise.

  5. Dude, he pegged his blog to the Super Bowl because it is timely – as in the game is this Sunday.
    We all know that rep doesn’t value the traditional 30 second spot, and since this Sunday…eh, I give up.

  6. At least you don’t dispute the fact that you pulled your theory from out that place on your body that the “sun don’t shine” and not from the referenced article. The article’s theme is that it’s a waste of money to buy adds (any adds not just super bowl adds) that are not found in and sound with “cognitive science.” That is Rep, it’s a waste of money for one to buy adds that don’t work to achieve one’s intended results. The Article urges add buyers to seek “cognitive science” guidance before purchasing any add, including super bowl adds.
    Allow me to break it down further Rep: You have drafted a number of screeds panning the ineffectiveness of a given P.R. strategy, any one of which, I could read and conclude–based on your logic that “P.R. is a waste of money.” Oh wait …

  8. “Translation: people simply don’t remember the ad they just saw. So, regardless of the category or the cleverness, Super Bowl ads don’t work.”
    The forgoing is either an intentionally false statement or evidence of Repman’s acute insufficiency of reading comprehension. dude, did you even read past the article’s title?