As a disclaimer let me say that I am biased against marketing because it seems so abstract and nebulous and seems pretty easy for business to justify doing much of it without much proof of its results. Thats just my opinion.

I have a really hard time seeing how almost any of the superbowl ads result in ROI. I presume some do but I read an article about this topic a few years ago that was arguing that unless your ad was extremely well targeted it would be very unlikely to pay off and determining if its well targeted is not easy to do. One example from the article was that one year one of the top ads for the year was considered very funny and almost universally recognizable. When interviewing viewers about the ads almost everyone could recall the details of the ad but when asked about the product, 40% cited the company's most direct competitor as the product the ad was about.

Propaganda is certainly powerful, so your ad better be a great brainwashing tool and it better be clear what the brainwashing message is, otherwise, I doubt it can pay off at 5 million dollars per minute.

Agreed. What really bothered me were the Ford ads. I kept wanting to scream at Mr. Ford himself and tell him to stop wasting money on telling us how great their cars are and spend money actually making them great. I guess 30 million in TV ads is cheaper than spending it actual improvements.

Also, the joke around the office was how the "new" and "improved" 2007 Cadillac Escalade looks just like the tired old 2002 version. What a joke!

Note: I've owned Fords most of my life and still own two Ford SUV's but after they've outlived their usefulness I'm jumping ship to Toyota or Honda. Here is a short list of just some of the issues:
1. Exploding Cruise Control Switch
2. Tires that explode and cause vehicle to flip over
3. Poorly designed vehicle that is prone to rolling over
4. Latch problems with rear of vehicle.
5. Faulty air conditioner - fixed twice.
6. Faulty electrical system

Thanks, D-Man and Guest. I wouldn't dismiss the effectiveness of Superbowl advertisements; there have been cases where they've managed to establish brands to a national audience. GoDaddy.com's first Superbowl ad springs to mind.

Of course, that's if they are inspiring or eye-cathching. If they're not ... that's millions of dollars down the drain. Also, there is the problem with honesty, as Guest pointed out. People aren't stupid about quality claims that fly in the face of reality. I had my own experience yesterday, when I called up my mortgage company, Sovereign Bank, to ask about a statement I had received. The recording proclaimed the bank's "Red Carpet Service" but the phone tree did not give any option to talk with a human about my problem, and when I finally got through to someone in a different section, she told me that she was actually in the bank account management department, the mortgage people were swamped and I would have to leave a voicemail. The voicemail message promised someone would get back to me by the end of the *next* business day. And they call this "Red Carpet Service"? Please!

FO,

I am aware of how well GoDaddy did on their superbowl ads and it appears their ads probably did pay off.

For companies trying to maintain international brands such as beer companies, car companies, softdrink companies, perhaps that whole nebulous concept of maintaining the national brand is worth the money, its hard to say, but for that kind of money it really seems like it has to leave a lasting impression and have a clear message. I guess in my completely amateur marketing opinion, most of the ads miss that mark in my mind.

I am reminded of the super bowl in like 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was where half the ads were for .com companies. Pets.com (only one I remember) and countless others that all went broke. They just didn't translate into any real business.

Like I said, I am biased against marketing because I am such a numbers and measurement kind of guy and marketing results are so abstract. I know thats just part of the nature of the beast. I guess I just suspect that in order for them to pay off you have to nail it pretty much perfectly or I suspect the money is not that well spent. Again just my totally non-experienced opinion. Would be interesting if anyone had any numbers that supported the general concept of advertising for the superbowl or if its just a general belief by marketing departments at these companies.

I know marketing is getting much more targeted and scientific in general which is good for the marketing department but I wonder if its not just scientifically accurate brain washing for the rest of us? Kind of a scary thought.

But the superbowl advertising is still the biggest dollars and just thrown out there to the biggest audience on the belief that it will have an impact. Sometimes I think that kind of marketing is more a religion than science. :)

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?guid={192BEE39-86C1-4229-A5E0-7B2632E0492A}&siteid=myyahoo&dist=myyahoo

Not exactly the same thing we are talking about but here is just yet another example of how these advertisers lazily throw their dollars out there believing that you can just throw ads out on the super bowl and get great results missing a big piece of the puzzel. TV's glory days of advertising have peaked and are on the downslide. Problem is most company execs don't fully know it or believe it yet.

One of my favorite commericals is the IBM ad where a King sits at around table asking his advisors what to do; one of them suggests building large catapults and tossing bags filled with treasure.

The King quips,"Are you saying we should throw money at the problem?"

Advisor, "Exactly."

Thats a very clever way of making the point about how rediculous it is to simply throw money at a problem.

Does it make IT execs want to buy IBM systems to keep from "throwing money at the problem"

I have no idea if it does that or not, presumably IBM does, or do they?

The story of the IBM ad -- or, for that matter, the Superbowl ad which featured a robot impregnating a dinosaur, the ad with the cavemen (also featuring a few dinos), and a host of other gimmicks -- point to a trend in advertising: Using eye-catching special effects to imprint their brand in viewers' minds. And I have to say, it works. I bet 50% of the people reading this post who have seen the Superbowl ads just mention can correctly identify the brands being pitched.

It's not a new trend, either. Apple computer fans love to talk about the Big Blue ad, which only showed once, at the 1984 Superbowl. People still remember it after 22 years!

And ironically enough, I just purchased my first apple product (an Ipod Nano) and it only took 22 years! Advertising works!