To advertise on such a massive platform costs a massive amount of money. Yes, because for $5 million a company could pay 10 people $100,000 a year for five years of work.
This year, companies are coughing up $5 million (or more) for a 30-second spot. That seems better than 30 seconds of D-list celebrities selling snack food (and the celebrities don’t do it for free, either).
They are paying for silent focus: Tens of millions of people quietly watch Super Bowl commercials and actually talk about their favorite moments of corporate branding.
They are also paying for exposure: Super Bowl ads are watched and re-watched—on Twitter, on Facebook, on You Tube, and on next-day rankings and analyses across the internet.
As a general rule, advertising works best on consumers with little information.
(When selling a sham headache remedy, it’s easier to convince a rube than a good physician.) The lesson applies to the Super Bowl, too.Neither can advertise and they both keep millions of dollars.Or both can advertise and, since the market share won’t budge, wipe out tens of millions of dollars just to maintain the status quo.But even controlling for this, the Super Bowl premium is clear.The Super Bowl’s remarkable reach can also give a lift to lesser-known musicians.Perhaps the Super Bowl is best understood as the world’s most expensive debutante ball for new cultural products.On the one hand, the big soda, beer, and snack regulars spend millions each year in the hope that they can win about 24 hours of goodwill.," found that commercials by beer and soda companies in the big game had a "null and/or insignificant effect" on revenue.The researchers found no relationship between ads and growth in sales per viewing household.So, for the largest companies in the most competitive markets, the Super Bowl is more like the Prisoner’s Dilemma Bowl.Coke and Pepsi face a choice: One of them can advertise and eke out a little bit of market share.