However, I'd like to draw your attention to the advertising super bowl, which I personally think is even more fun. This article helps to explain the Chevy ad (technically a promoted tweet, I think) at the top of my social media tool this morning.
Think about what's going on:
- In terms of content that is driving Internet marketing
- In terms of integrating across many online and offline channels.
Of course there's more to come; here's more about the costs and nature of the audience.
If the audience is complementary, then the promotion of a game that is only seen on-line, may only encourage more people to have the game on TV and on the computer at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced this is the case; more people are watching more stuff on computer screens. And in any case, pre-game buzz is pretty important for Super Bowl advertisers, and tweeting is a very inexpensive way to build excitement and connections in consumer's minds.
The consumer is reminded to check the game/GM out on the computer/mobile device and while the consumer is online, they are likely tweeting and posting to friends. During the game, I see 2 things going on. 1)At the lower end of the scale, #ChevyGameTime players may associate the excitement of the Super Bowl, the camaraderie of friends real and virtual, and the possibility of a new GM truck. At the upper end, the internet exposure gives GM the opportunity to pull people into looking at the New Truck/GameTime message, as simple as a click of the mouse; for longer than a 30 second spot. Ever customize a car online just for fun? 2)Maybe not GM's mode of operation, but the internet ads aren't regulated by FCC broadcast rules. (The NBC network can still reject them, sure.) Perhaps Budweiser would be interested in that kind of almost risque spot. (http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/banned_super_bowl_ads/)
And after the game is over, it gives GM something to reconnect with consumers, research the demographic better, and the possibility to have something last beyond the game.
I find this interesting in contrast to this other article about VW and ABC. http://bit.ly/wuLJXc Since GM has some exclusivity on the Car Ads category with NBC and the rates during the show are very expensive, competitors (Car makers AND TV networks) find (or make) opportunities to leverage the excitement of the most watched show of the year. I like this move by VW especially because the advert was made for digital publication and then reformulated to run on TV during the show.
Yes, more people are watching on 'small screens.' Check out the post I wrote on my blog about multitasking a few weeks ago. Everyone is trying to leverage the really expensive SB ads, and for some audiences online is the best way to do that--to get other content aired, and perhaps most important, to build their community of contacts. The online audience may be especially attractive, so that's a plus. But I do think their base of fans and email addresses is the best long-term benefit.
DeleteI'd be curious what reasons or justifications they use to justify a higher CPM price for the online content. Maybe it's related to higher confidence (or an argument for higher confidence) that viewers of the online content are more likely to stay and be exposed (or more focused/attentive) to that advertising message, compared to a television audience?
ReplyDeleteAdvertising, online or offline, is always priced by CPM--cost per estimated thousand viewers. And yes, the 'quality' of the viewers does matter. It's usually because the marketer is reaching the specified target audience. In this case, I think it is because the audience is expected to be young, relatively affluent, and probably skewed male, which is a tough audience to reach.
ReplyDeleteAssuming you are one of my students, you need to use a post name I can recognize even if you prefer not to identify yourself.
After reading the article, I understand that in addition to the usual television broadcast, NBC for the first time is also going to internet stream the event live. This is brilliant because a streaming internet version potentially allows advertisers to target their intended audience more effectively, sending different ads to different demographics. I'm not sure if this capability is set up yet, but when it is, I would think the advertisers would be willing to pay a CPM premium for this targeting ability, which is an advantage over the traditional TV ads.
ReplyDeleteI know that people are watching more content on mobile devices, which makes sense given the huge rise in mobile devices, both smartphones and tablets. This growth should continue for years to come. However, this does not mean that in the case of the Super Bowl that a company's resources are better spent on online advertising than a TV spot. I'm not convinced by these articles, and the surplus of supply for the Super Bowl's internet advertising means that the service is either overpriced by NBC/NFL or undervalued by advertisers. In the case of the Super Bowl, I would lean towards the former. I also think that most viewers will watch the big game in large groups through traditional TV more so than streaming where one may be alone watching the game on their mobile device.
ReplyDeleteWe can't just look at technology without the context and reasons for which it is used and what consumers demand.
I would like to know what is behind the viewership numbers in both examples (per TV set or device or number of persons watching?), but it seems to me that for the Super Bowl, traditional TV is more highly valued by buyers, and possibly even undervalued by the NFL/NBC (they could charge higher prices given the high demand). But none seem to have adequate information on the value of the Super Bowl's online ads (the number of fans streaming the game), and buyers appear to be less willing to pay a premium for that uncertainty.
If I were a media buyer that wanted to advertise during the Super Bowl, I would want a TV slot unless I had evidence that I could get a bigger bang for my buck online.
As a consumer, I bought TV service just for the superbowl. I have internet, but why would I want to stream it??! I want to invite friends over and host a party for the game and we will watch it on TV as it is meant to be watched, without any potential streaming issues if I want to work through my Apple TV. There is value in advertising to the internet audience, such as targeting specific demographics, but I think that the service is not ready for the Super Bowl, and the market doesn't seem to support the online advertising costs.
I think that we will get to a point in the future where most TVs are online...they will know our viewing preferences, our preferences as consumers, and the TV will actually use the data collected on us as individuals be it from Amazon, Apple/iTunes, ebay, Google, etc, and tailor ads to target us in our living rooms. It may be streaming TV. It may not be. But give it a few years, this form of advertising is coming to our living rooms. But 2012 is not that year.
It's not just about watching the game, which can be done on a mobile device or your laptop. It's about watching it with family and friends, throwing back some beer, and enjoying some great food. Maybe this will change when Apple releases its next Apple TV, but streaming isn't how most live sporting events are currently viewed on weekends (a different story when at the office for some people!). Change takes time, and may require more time before the NFL/NBC can charge rates this high for online advertising.