Many companies, including GM, FedEx and my uncle’s lawn mower repair service, are sitting out this year’s Super Bowl because of the slowed economy and the fact that each 30-second ad costs a record $3 million. But MSNBC’s Rob Neill shows us in a recent MSNBC.com article that $3 mil might actually be a bargain compared to other methods of television advertising.
(It should be noted that MSNBC.com is the news website for the NBC family and NBC is still trying to offload as many as 10 Super Bowl ads. We’re not saying Mr. Neill is secretly a member of the network ad sales team (pictured at right) or is getting a cut of the sales, but the relationship is worth pointing out.)
In the article, Neill points out that with around 100 million Americans watching the 2008 game, last year’s advertisers paid roughly 2.7 cents per view. Compare that to the Oscars, with lower prices but also a much smaller audience, where advertisers pay 5.7 cents per view — not to mention much less pre-event buzz. (Have you ever seen an commercial voting website for the Oscars?)
Still not sure whether to pony up the cash to play in the big game? (I’m talking to you, Uncle Roy.) Neill also cites a study commissioned by the NFL and Fox which shows that a single Super Bowl commercial “generates more sales than 250 regular TV ads.” We’re not sure what a “regular” TV ad is, but we’re now considering buying a spot to promote SpotBowl. Anyone wanna buy 47 kidneys?