Production Cost vs. Placement Cost During the Big Game

We all look forward to the Super Bowl for two main reasons. First, getting together with friends and family, ordering pizza, drinking (root) beer and putting on our eating pants, and secondly for the commercials. While ordering a pizza and driving to a friends house might only cost you about 30 bucks total, the second favorite pastime costs companies a lot more than you might think.

In 2017, the cost for a 30 second spot during the Super Bowl was $5 million. If you think that's bad, imagine spending $9 million for a 60 second spot. Nine. Million. Dollars. Absurd right? While you might think it's a bit bananas to spend that much money on a spot just to make a funny joke or make a political statement, for some companies it's worth it.

84 Lumber released a rather controversial ad this year, depicting a single mother and her daughter attempting to come into the United States all to be met at the end of their journey blocked by a large, recently built wall.

The lumber conglomerate was forced to edit their ad just a little bit to not show the wall, seeing as it was a strong political statement seemingly against the newly elected President, Donald Trump. However, in a statement the Monday after Super Bowl Sunday, the CEO of 84 Lumber, a woman, released the fact that she did vote for Trump and currently still supports him.

Politics and controversy aside, it was very important for 84 Lumber to release an ad because they are a relatively small company. No one may know where they came up with $9 million to pay for a 60 second advertising spot, but they did. It was probably the most controversial and most talked about ads of the 2017 football game.

Nonetheless, some professionals think that advertising during the Super Bowl isn't worth their time or money. According to SmallBusiness.chron.com, average production cost of a national television ad is about 342,000 dollars. That's before you even submit the ad to the television network, which for the Super Bowl is FOX, and pay them either $5 or $9 million dollars.

Many companies that are notorious for advertising during the Super Bowl, like Budweiser or Doritos,  don't actually see much gain in sales after advertising. They are pretty much in the lucrative game for the publicity and to get people talking. After all, word of mouth advertising is the strongest and most persuasive way to get people to buy or use your products or services.

What do you think? Is it worth it as a large or small company to spend over a quarter of a million dollars to produce a high-quality commercial, then buy a spot during the Super Bowl each year for between $5 and $9 million? Let me know in the comments below!

Opponent of Silence

The most fascinating thing about the current social media craze is the idea of live Tweeting events. For example, during the recent Mad Men finale, I watched the show while also constantly reading how others were reacting to the show on Twitter and joining in the conversation. During the recent #PITvsCIN Wildcard Game last Saturday, Twitter went wild with opinions, GIFs and Memes describing one of the most unusual football games I've ever seen. However, after the Bengals Interception by Vontaze Burfict, which many thought ended the game, the Bengals Twitter account (@Bengals) went silent until after the game was over, not acknowledging the two personal fouls that allowed the Steelers to reach a victory. At the same time, the Steelers Twitter account (@Steelers) was Tweeting almost constantly, updating its followers about the game's events. As I was combing through the real time game posts, I wondered if this was the right decision for the Bengal's PR department to make.

I still haven't answered my own question yet. I think from a crisis communications standpoint, it made sense to stay quiet because posting about the events happening during the game would just spark negative conversation about the Bengals. However, the point of a professional sports team Twitter account is to keep fans updated on what is going on. The Bengals had to be proactive and reactive at the same time, which is almost impossible. Perhaps the Bengals could have avoided Tweeting about the personal fouls by still keeping fans updated on the game events. On the other hand, they could have diverted attention away from Burfict by providing some sort of fun fact about the team or the other players. I think remaining silent, in this case, was the wrong communications move on the part of the Bengals. What is your opinion on the situation?