3 February 2008
Lame Commercials, Boring Game
Filed under TV
Ugh. You know it’s a bad sign when you can read through hundreds of RSS feed items during the Super Bowl. And then think it’s a good idea to do some blogging….
Super Bowl commercial rates were $2.7 million per 30 seconds this year, but apparently, the FOX network decided that it was money well “spent” to advertise the Daytona 500 and “Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles” ad nauseam, two things that a good chunk of the audience doesn’t care about. I haven’t seen a really groundbreaking commercial yet: the Audi parody of the famous “bed” scene from The Godfather was well done, and the parody of Rocky for Budweiser (Anheuser Busch) was enjoyable. Fed Ex also scored with the “Carrier Pigeon” spot. Mediocre first half showing for the Bud Light brand. Miserable commercials for godaddy.com and salesgenie.com (big surprise)
If you missed it, check out the next showing of Puppy Bowl IV: they’re sooooo cute. I want a billion.
Hoping for a better second half both in the game and during the comercials.
:: Adam College
4 February 2008 @ 10:37 am
You do realize that it costs Fox essentially nothing to run commercials for their own shows, right?
I was rewatching Season 3 of Lost during the game because I had pretty much no interest in who won the game.
Kevin
4 February 2008 @ 11:17 am
Yes it does, Kevin. Of course Fox, like the other networks that air large sporting and entertainment events, reserves some number of advertising spots for in-house promotional materials.
Hollywood economics is convoluted (or at least I assume so), and I imagine the end result is that there’s no line-item for “In-House Spots” on Fox’s SuperBowlAds.xls. Nor is there one for “Super Bowl Ad Time” in TerminatorBudget.xls. As you said, it’s “free” for Fox to air Fox commercials, less any production costs of making the commercial itself.
But for each 30 second ad for their own shows, Fox spends $2.7 million in opportunity cost. By not showing someone else’s ads and gaining income from that commercial, Fox has, in effect, “spent” money on their advertisements. That’s my point.
6 February 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Assuming they could sell those spots at that price. I used to work in the magazine business and we filled ad pages we didn’t sell with in-house ads.