Prev1 of 4
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

iStock_000010681073XSmall-Football-Superbowl-300x199Spending $4 million for a 30-second television commercial during Super Bowl XLVIII must not be a complete waste of money to the 43 participating companies or they wouldn’t be bothering.  I guess.

Research firm Communicus suggests that the more a commercial costs, the less effective it is. Based on a study of 21- to 59-year-olds before and after the 2012 and 2013 Super Bowls, ads from both games were recalled only 35% of the time by consumers compared to half the time otherwise.

They referred to ads being more style over substance as one possible cause. I think it’s more like substance a.k.a. Bud Light over memory.

We better not spill the beans to the five biggest spenders on commercials in the five past Super Bowls (2009-2013) that collectively spent $437 million—Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD), PepsiCo (PEP), Coca-Cola (KO), Hyundai (HYLMF) and Chrysler.

Rest assured you’ll see plenty of people drinking refreshments and driving cars during the 32 minute, 32 seconds of total commercial time while the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks battle it out at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

I can’t say one way or the other if people actually buy products based on ads aired during the Super Bowl or network news for that matter. However, here are a few companies that aren’t spending a single dime on TV commercials during the big game, yet still have a huge presence.

Prev1 of 4
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Share This