Pepsi Not Advertising in Super Bowl Next Year

To put it in a local perspective, last year, the Super Bowl drew something like 300,000 Richmond, VA households (where I live). This is out of a possible 515,000 homes (the Richmond DMA). That doesn't even count the number of people in each home. Any time you have the ability to send your message to that many homes and people (who are all actually WAITING to watch your commercial, rather than fast forward through it), it's generally a pretty good idea if you can afford it. Advertising doesn't really get much easier than that.

 

As I know from reading advertising and marketing trades in my job, the explosion of "new media" has primarily created massive confusion among marketing executives, who are shifting dollars about willy-nilly hoping to be struck by luck lightning by one of their choices.
Research indicates that after an initial spike caused by the growing audience for a new format (Web sites, etc.), advertising effectiveness levels off to roughly the same for almost all media.
Guess which is the exception?

 

But -- I think, especially in this economy, you have to be careful about what you spend in the public eye.

If I have my car insurance through somebody throwing $3 million down for a 30-second spot... I immediately think that maybe, just maybe, I am paying too much for my premiums.

 

Because it tastes awful and no one would drink it if they didn't brainwash you.

 

It comes at a very steep price.

 

All it proves is that advertising people are pretty dumb beasts, much like newspaper execs. Neither know what to do, when it comes to the interwebs. The internet audience is too fractured to be useful. To make a splash, you have to advertise in a big event that people watch. The Super Bowl is perfect for that and the commercials during it, are some of the few that aren't fast forwarded through.

And I want to take a guess Michael G -- Newspapers...

Now explain why that is good or bad?

 

As it should. Average local spot during a Super Bowl around here costs about $20,000. Would I pay $20,000 so 300,000 homes could watch my commercial? I don't know. But if I estimate that there are 2.5 people in each home watching the game, now I'm talking about rougly 750,000 people. And I'm spending $20,000. Cheaper than direct mail. Yeah, I'd do it.

 

When the new project fails, the advertising head won't have to worry about convincing anyone at Pepsi to give the money back to him. His replacement probably won't have any trouble getting it back, though.

 

Newspapers is right, Jay F. The reason, however, is that so many people have pulled out of print advertising so fast, you are getting a better crack at the audience's attention because of less competition, and lower rates to boot.

 

I'm curious if Pepsi made the announcement because tomorrow Coca-Cola will announce that it IS advertising in the Super Bowl next year.
There is one solid reason you DO spend the money on the Super Bowl.
Introducing a new product or logo/packaging/advertising campaign and you want to break through the clutter.
If you don't have anything new to introduce, I don't understand the point. Love the Bud ads but don't understand their purpose. All they do is prove they know how to make better ads than beer.

 

In related news, the NFL announced it would begin accepting advertisements for Las Vegas.

 

The best, and most economic, form of advertising is opt-in, direct email advertising.

You can send out an email, track how many people have opened it, how many people have clicked on the link, and how many people have made a purchase.

You can track how well each offer does, and with good information about your customers, you can tailor offers to specific people.

When I worked at CO, we could email promotions for last minute fairs, to promote new routes, or to put trans-atlantic first class tickets on sale. And you could watch the revenue come in.

Try to track the effectiveness of a newspaper or Super Bowl ad like that. You can't.

And the results of these offers is immediate.

We spent a lot of money on software to track our customers preferences. And when layoffs hit, everybody lost head counts except the people in this area and in customer loyalty.