Though there are definitely some serious football fans in the R29 office, many of us are guilty of watching for the pure pleasure of the advertisements (and the chips and dip, but that's beside the point). These over-the-top experiments in marketing are half the fun and a show in and of themselves, which is why only the biggest companies can afford it — a 30-second spot will cost you an average $4 million, according to Digiday. So, yeah, you won't be seeing any R29 ads during the game this year...and that's partly because we're not sure if it's worth it.
As Internet media becomes more and more popular, we have to wonder. Aside from the cost of purchasing the air time, TV spots tend to require a lot more production. Maybe companies could get more bang for their buck — not to mention exposure to a more varied customer base — if they funneled that cash into Internet advertising? Now, we might be biased, but this article on Digiday seems to back up our theory. That $4 milion spent on 30 seconds of Super Bowl time could buy an entire eight days of ads all over a major homepage like AOL or Yahoo. And you know those sponsored articles on Buzzfeed? Those sell for about $20,000 a pop, which means instead of a blip on TV this Sunday, you could get your brand featured 200 times on a site that, according to its own stats, gets over 25 million unique visitors per month. True, last year 111.3 million tuned in for the big game (according to the International Business Times). Still, assuming that Buzzfeed paid content reaches a healthy portion of its visitors, it sounds like a pretty good investment to us.
Not convinced? That $4 mil could also get a brand 33 days of promoted trending topics on Twitter, eight days on the YouTube homepage, and a lot more. Check it out after the jump, then tell us: Which holds more influence for you? A Super Bowl spot or constant repetition on your favorite website? (Digiday)
Image via E*TRADE.