Super Bowl Advertising: From Exposure to Engagement

The Super Bowl is a coveted advertising vehicle because of the tremendous reach that it possesses. Sunday’s game between the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints will attract nearly 100,000,000 viewers. If the audience size were not enough, the Super Bowl has the added characteristic of an audience that looks forward to commercials rather than avoiding them. What more could a marketer want? How about brand engagement.

Achieving brand exposure is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for selling a product. Let’s face it, brand awareness can be created against someone’s will through repetition and a consistent message (I am thinking of those “memorable” Head On commercials). So, Super Bowl commercials will be seen by tens of millions of people who will do what? Remember the brands advertised? Maybe. Like a Super Bowl advertiser more because of exposure to a commercial? It is possible. Awareness-based metrics are problematic if the aim is to have relationships with customers. For this reason, more Super Bowl advertisers are shifting efforts toward engaging consumers beyond the 30-second spot.

Two examples of advertisers using Super Bowl commercials as a way to drive engagement are Levi’s and Denny’s. Levi’s Dockers brand will be featured in a commercial that encourages viewers to “tag” the ad using a phone app. The app will give access to branded content as well as an opportunity to enter a pants giveaway promotion. Denny’s is repeating its free Grand Slam Breakfast promotion, promoting a food giveaway that will take place Tuesday, February 9th. In addition, Denny’s will be doing a free burger and fries for a year giveaway among persons who register for Denny’s Rewards online. The promotion drives traffic to stores and builds Denny’s e-mail database. At the same time, visitors can learn how to connect with Denny’s on social networking web sites.

The costs of the promotions planned for Dockers and Denny’s add to the cost of being associated with the Super Bowl. The question is whether being seen on the big game (i.e., exposure) is a good enough outcome to accept. Engagement is the name of the game in marketing today, and tactics that make engagement more likely must be pursued.

The Best $3 Million Never Spent on a Super Bowl Commercial

At more than $3 million for 30 seconds of air time, one wonders if the investment in Super Bowl advertising is worth it. How about not spending a penny on airing a Super Bowl spot but getting brand exposure anyway? That scenario describes what has happened to ManCrunch.com, an online dating site for gay men. CBS rejected the Toronto-based site’s proposed Super Bowl spot, citing concerns that the ad did not fit the tone of programming for Super Bowl Sunday. CBS also said it could not verify the prospective advertiser’s creditworthiness.

Is the ManCrunch.com commercial too much for Super Bowl Sunday? You can decide by watching the spot. Another question to decide for yourself: did ManCrunch.com really intend to spend $3 million to air a commercial? My theory is that the company knew the ad would not pass the CBS “taste test.” But, by submitting the ad for review and indicating an interest in being an advertiser, ManCrunch.com is receiving extensive publicity. Cost: not $3 million! Sometimes, it pays to not spend marketing dollars.

DMA Agreement on New FTC Guidelines for Testimonials, Endorsers Too Late

The Federal Trade Commission announced significant changes in October to guidelines for the practices of product testimonials and endorsers in advertising (read the FTC’s release). Among notable changes included testimonials no longer being protected by the disclaimer “results not typical.” Instead, advertisers must disclose the results consumers should expect from the advertised product. Endorsements by celebrities, bloggers, or word-of-mouth marketers must now be disclosed in terms of stating the nature of a relationship between endorser and brand (e.g., paid endorsement or endorser received free products to evaluate).

This week, the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group impacted significantly by the FTC changes, released a statement that it had approved changes to its Guidelines for Ethical Business Practices to be consistent with the FTC. While the direct marketing industry should be commended for aligning its ethics policies with federal guidelines, it is disappointing that it took the FTC’s action to bring about change. This situation is a great example of how inattention to self-regulation by an industry can lead to government regulation forcing change. If the DMA had taken the lead on these issues long ago, particularly the testimonial issue that has long been contentious, it could have had a stronger voice in setting policy.

It is almost always better for an industry to be responsible for policing itself instead of allowing regulatory agencies to dictate guidelines (at least from the industry’s perspective). In this case, the direct marketing industry either refused to believe the FTC would make changes (the existing guidelines were developed in 1980), or it failed to anticipate a new administration’s stance on consumer protection could accelerate government involvement in changing the guidelines. Perhaps other industries will learn from the DMA’s experience and be more proactive in self-regulation.

The App Store: Fad or Fixture in E-Commerce?

Apple has made the app store a seemingly must have addition to the business model of firms that sell software via online channels. It is believed that Apple has gained more than $1 billion in revenues from its apps store. Now, Amazon will try to replicate Apple’s success by marketing apps for the Kindle e-reader. It is a dream scenario: software with low price points, no physical inventory, and no shipping costs. Do the success of Apple and the launch by Amazon signal a significant shift toward app stores sprouting across the Internet?

According to an article by Farhad Manjoo in February’s Fast Company magazine, software developers and brand marketers should probably refrain from looking to app sales as a prime revenue source in the future. The reason? The history of software development for interactive communications has been based on the idea of open development. That philosophy has clashed with the tight control Apple has exercised over the content created by developers of apps for the iPhone. Apple is obliged to control content associated with its brand, but it comes at a price- creating a disincentive for some programmers to innovate.

Certain brands will likely thrive selling apps. Apple has already proven that it can succeed. Amazon seems to be a good candidate given the success of Kindle. Adding more capability to the product via apps should make it even more attractive to current and prospective users. Otherwise, apps revenue will be a modestly small part of revenues for most firms. But, as the long tail of the Internet has shown, revenues will not always come from “home run” products. Niche markets exist; its is up to software developers to create apps that meet the needs of small customer segments.

Fast Company – “Why App Stores Are Not the Business Model for the 21st Century”

The Quiet Constituency in Tennessee Vols Saga: Sponsors

Recent incidents involving the University of Tennessee athletics program would likely rather be forgotten by many followers of the Big Orange. Three Vols football players were arrested in November for their involvement in a robbery of a convenience store. On New Year’s Day, four men’s basketball players were arrested on drug and weapon charges. Then, last Tuesday head football coach Lane Kiffin made an abrupt departure after only one season to take the head coaching position at the University of Southern California. Kiffin’s resignation set off a fury of protests from students on campus, feeling that their football team and university had been betrayed by Kiffin.

One constituency that has not been heard from during this spate of unwelcome events is the corporate sponsors of Tennessee athletics. National brands such as Coca-Cola, Ford, State Farm, and Verizon Wireless are among the sponsors on the Vols roster. These sponsors as well as others spend large sums of money to associate their brands with UT sports. Why? They want to access the loyal audiences that follow Tennessee sports. In theory, the image of the property being sponsored (UT athletics) influences the image people hold of sponsors. If that is the case, do sponsors really want their image to be shaped by the negative events of recent months? I do not believe that is the outcome they had in mind when signing on as sponsors.

How should we interpret the sponsors’ silence? Do they not care that the happenings in the Tennessee athletics department could reflect negatively on them? Or, do the sponsors have confidence that UT athletics director Mike Hamilton will effectively manage the situation and maintain the integrity of the Vols brand name? In either case, it is very important that Tennessee athletics proactively manage the program’s image. The action taken (or lack of action taken) sends signals to different stakeholder groups about the brand. For the sake of the fans of the Big Orange as well as corporate partners, the signal that needs to be sent loud and clear is that leadership will take whatever steps necessary to portray Tennessee positively.

Make Any Occasion a Selling Opportunity

I received an e-mail offer yesterday that I thought was clever use of the low cost medium in attempt to influence purchases. The offer was from Fazoli’s, a quick service Italian food chain. The occasion on which the e-mail was based? Martin Luther King Day. The premise- kids are out of school Monday. The offer- receive a free Fazoli’s Kid’s Meal with the purchase of an adult entrée. What a brilliant move! The cost for communicating the promotion is minimal, and the promotion not only could drive store traffic, but it is tied to creating revenue (selling meals to adults).

Selling opportunities do not have to be naturally occurring. MLK Day has nothing to do with a quick service restaurant. But, marketers at Fazoli’s have identified a situation that many households will experience on Monday. Kids are out of school and may be bored at home. Getting them out of the house, including lunch at a discounted total cost, will be the solution many parents turn to… it likely will be at the Roy home! Eating out on MLK Day will likely cross my mind. I am unsure if Fazoli’s would have been considered (even though my family likes it a great deal), but as a result of the e-mail I received it is high on the list now.

Look for selling opportunities in not so obvious places. It helps to be able to be nimble in communicating with prospects (e-mail and social networking web sites are great to make it happen). What do you have to lose? See you at Fazoli’s this Monday.

Marketing Priorities for 2010: Part 3 of 3

In my final post about marketing priorities for 2010, I add to the long standing priorities of adding value and listening a relatively new charge: foster community among customers and other interested people. The capability to create a community around a brand has been enhanced greatly through social media networking tools. Actually, communities have formed around brands long before a Facebook fan page or Twitter account made it possible for people to digitally connect with companies. The difference is the ease with which one can signal his or her relationship with a brand by making the decision to join a community.

Fostering community is related to the other two priorities I identified previously, adding value and listening. Marketer-created brand communities is a vehicle for adding value. It enables consumers to extend their relationship with a brand and interact with people who have shared interests. Community makes it possible for marketers to have more listening opportunities. Whether it be customers talking with company representatives directly or listening to communities in the broader social media space, a brand that works to build brand community will be better off than brands that operate in a reactive communication mode with their customers.

The three priorities I have discussed in recent posts share a common recognition: companies might legally own brands, but in reality they are caretakers of brands. Customers and other stakeholders shape brands through their perceptions, attitudes, and actions toward a brand. I hope 2010 is the best year ever for your brand!

Marketing Priorities for 2010: Part 2 of 3

In my last post, I identified the ongoing quest to add value for customers as one of three priorities on which marketers should focus in 2010. Today’s post is Part 2 of 2010 marketing priorities, and it, too, takes us back to basics: listen to customers.

I can see eyeballs rolling now. Of course marketers should be listening to customers, why should listening be held as a priority for the year? The answer is that tools available for listening are more numerous today. It is vital that marketers use them to not only know what is being said about them and their products, but more importantly, to respond to what they learn from listening to customers. When customers and bloggers talk about brands on Facebook, Twitter, or other channels, companies must be listening so that they can engage in conversations as warranted.

According to a study by Econsultancy and bigmouthmedia, nearly one-half of companies that monitor social media conversations about their brands respond to negative comments by attempting to directly engage the person posting the negative comment. Instead of attempting to quash comments, these companies embrace them as a means to have dialogue with customers and influentials. Another positive response to listening to comments in social media is using the feedback to make improvements to products and services- 33% of the companies surveyed indicated they monitor social media brand conversations for this purpose. These marketers are using social media as a form of marketing research and are reacting to what they glean from unsolicited comments about their products and services.

The practice of listening to customers is not new; how we can listen to customers is changing. Also, the expectation that marketers listen to customers is higher than ever given that there are many channels to interact with customers. Have you ever sent a company an e-mail only to receive a canned response (or worse yet, no response at all)? Your expectations of how the company should have listened and responded to you were not met. Interacting with customers and others in meaningful, ongoing conversations is possible on an unprecedented level. Make listening to customers one of your priorities in 2010.

Marketing Priorities for 2010: Part 1 of 3

As 2009 goes down in the books and we usher in 2010, I reflected on what I see as marketers’ priorities should be in the coming year. I will share three focal points in the next three posts. I begin with the priority that should have been a priority in 2009, should be in 2010, and frankly should be a top priority as long as marketing is practiced.

Add Value for Customers

I know, this directive seems like a given. Marketers have been obsessed with the value proposition for decades. The challenge, and therefore the priority, resides in developing an understanding of how consumers define value today. An oversimplification of value is price of the product or service. A more balanced view of value is benefits delivered for the price paid. In the boom years leading up to the recession of 2008, marketers were able to shift the definition of value in a way that consumers equated brand image as well added product benefits as justification for premium pricing (i.e., expensive but worth it).

The effects of the recession on personal incomes and household spending patterns has significantly reshaped many consumers’ views on consumption and how value is assigned to products and services. Focusing on price as the driver of value is a mistake even in a weak economy. Relevance of brands to consumers is still important. A sensitivity to consumers’ financial state is not exhibited merely by a low price. One reason Hyundai won accolades for its Hyundai Assurance program is that it demonstrated the company understood consumers felt vulnerable because of the recession. Hyundai was in effect saying “we understand.”

The quest to add value for customers should never end. If it does, we no longer need marketing! What changes periodically is how consumers conceptualize value. Now more than ever, marketers must be in tune with what their customers are thinking and feeling. It is this focus on customers that will enable marketers to deliver greater value in 2010.

New Position for Super Bowl Ad Mainstays: Sidelines

Advertising aired during the Super Bowl each year creates nearly as much excitement as the big game itself. Why not? It is an event in which 90 million or more viewers are tuned in, and the lore of Super Bowl commercials makes viewers more receptive to commercials than they are the other 364 days of the year. The popularity of the Super Bowl has driven up the price for a 30-second spot to the point that this year’s game will cost advertisers $3 million.

The Super Bowl is as popular as ever, but Super Bowl advertising may be another story. Some longtime advertisers have opted not buy spots this year. Most notable is Pepsi, which announced its intention to focus on a cause-related initiative, The Pepsi Refresh Project. FedEx, another veteran Super Bowl marketer, has indicated that it, too, will not buy commercial time. Escalating ad rates have led Pepsi and FedEx to question whether a Super Bowl ad buy is the best use of resources. Evidently, the answer was “no.”

The Super Bowl is a marquee event, but in today’s highly connected world there are many options for reaching and engaging audiences. The decisions by Pepsi and FedEx in no way suggest that marketing through sports is losing its power or appeal. These companies have audiences to reach beyond what the Super Bowl can deliver. Super Bowl ad sales remain strong as more than 90% of the spots are sold already. Given that we are in the early stages of emerging from a recession, that figure is impressive. Super Bowl advertisers come and go; it would not be surprising to see Pepsi or FedEx step off the sidelines in the future and advertise during the Super Bowl again.

MediaBuyerPlanner – “Pepsi Drops Super Bowl Ads”