Download Read a summary of the research methods and results

Research Brief
A Research Brief is a brief summary of research
findings.
Super Bowl Advertising: Lots of Buzz…
But is it Worth it?
THE PROBLEM
2013 drew almost 111 million viewers watching in real time and devoting high levels of attention to the entire Super Bowl experience. Despite the “buzz around the bowl,” however, many
question whether or not advertising in the game is worth the investment. This is quite understandable when the ad time itself is close to $4.2 million for 30 seconds and costs often
exceed $10 million when including production costs.
Ronald Goodstein, Associate Professor at Georgetown University, provides a unique perspective to this perennial question. He suggests there are factors within the game that affect
Ronald Goodstein
Associate Professor of Marketing and
Contributing Researcher at the Georgetown Institute for Consumer Research
the overall processing of, and opinions toward, advertisements and brands. Fluctuating fan
affect (fan’s perceptions of ads are a product of game score and momentum), combined with
varied viewer motivations, and male-centered advertising, render the expenses of advertising during the game unadvisable for many.
Goodstein’s areas of interest arecustomer focus, building long-term
customer partnerships, strate-
In a recent study Professor Goodstein asked, (1) Does what is happening in the game itself
gic marketing management and
affect how consumers process, remember, and evaluate the advertised brands? (2) Does it
positioning, building and managing
matter if you are a fan of one of the teams? To answer these questions, Professor Goodstein
brand equity, integrated marketing
asked respondents about their perceptions of advertisements and the brand sponsors run-
communications, ethnicity in market-
ning them immediately after the Super Bowl and after a one week delay.
ing, and consumer behavior.
THE FINDINGS
The results of the study both verify many intuitions and provide unique insights on the effectiveness of Super Bowl ads. For example, both immediately after the game and one week
later, men liked the advertisements and advertised brands more than women liked them.
When it came to the amount of advertising, the results clearly suggested that less is more.
Longer advertisements were actually less liked than were shorter advertisements; this was
also true both immediately after and one week later. Brands that ran multiple ads were less
liked than brands that ran a single ad. Similarly, ads from brands that were mentioned as a
sponsor were less liked than brands that were not mentioned as a sponsor.
Perhaps most interesting though was the impact of the game itself on liking of advertisements.
There was a significant effect of the team the viewer was rooting for, i.e., fans of the winning
team had better opinions of the advertisements and brands. This was true both immediately
after the game and one week later. This effect could be traced down to fluctuations in the
game itself. Advertisements that aired when the eventual winning team was leading in score,
or when they were judged to have the “momentum” of the game, were better liked.
Goodstein also found a significant impact of Super Bowl viewers’ motivation. Those who
Key Points
were “watching for the advertisements” liked the advertisements more immediately after
• Men like the ads and brands
the game. However, those who were “watching for the game” liked the advertisements and
better than women did; this
brands more one week after.
is likely due to nature of the
ads themselves.
• There are negative
correlations between the
amount of advertising
and brand evaluations,
suggesting less is more.
• Fans’ perceptions of the ads
and brands are tied to their
team’s performance.
‘
IMPLICATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
What do these results mean for brands and advertisers? Three implications can be drawn
from Professor Goodstein’s findings. The fact that men liked the ads and brands better than
women did is likely due to the nature of the ads themselves, which are more male-oriented
(e.g., sexual connotations and male interest topics). As a result, advertisers have two options,
safely conforming to the standard by targeting males with their Super Bowl ads, or risk flaunting conventions with an ad that generates significant buzz for its uniqueness.
The negative correlations between the length of the ads (and number of ads) in the Super
Bowl and viewers’ overall opinion of the ad suggests that it may be beneficial for advertisers
to run one short and concise commercial. The 60 second Super Bowl ad, multiple runs of
a 30 second ad, or different ads for the same brand may not be the biggest bang for the
advertisers’ buck.
Fans of the game itself liked ads and brands less immediately, but after a delay, they had
greater liking than did those watching for commercials. Those watching for commercials
displayed the opposite pattern. These effects, together with the significant impact of a team’s
performance and game outcome on fans’ views of advertisements and brands suggest Super
Bowl ads may not be worth the cost.
This Brief, based on the work of Ronald Goodstein, was composed by Chris Hydock in collaboration with Ronald Goodstein.
The Georgetown Institute for
Consumer Research, Sponsored
by KPMG, develops innovative,
ground-breaking research to illuminate
the challenges and opportunities
of understanding and marketing
to consumers.
For more information, visit
http://consumerresearch.
georgetown.edu