Is the Super Bowl helping to kill off primetime TV advertising?
The Super Bowl has once again highlighted the power and appeal of the live TV ad-spot – but advertisers need to do more to keep viewers glued to their screens, argues Total Media’s Liz Duff.
On 7 February, two NFL teams battled it out for Super Bowl 50 – the most-watched live sporting event in the world. Last year’s Super Bowl drew 114.4 million TV viewers, which is why a 30-second advertising spot now costs upwards of $5 million.
Despite the hefty price-tag, there’s still plenty of brands who will be competing for the half-time hearts and minds of sports fans.
You may have seen teasers of Alec Baldwin and Dan Marino discussing their ‘snack stadium’ as part of Amazon’s inaugural Super Bowl spot, while actress Helen Mirren delivered Budweiser’s first ad since 2005 to combat drunk driving in a very British way.
The appeal of the Super Bowl ad-spot isn’t just morbid curiosity to see how much creativity $5 million can buy you these days. It also signals the importance and appeal of advertising around live programming – something that is arguably killing off interest in traditional ad-spots around pre-recorded shows.
The television landscape is currently a place where Netflix, Amazon and other subscription services are training an entire generation to watch TV without commercials. While watching TV on PVRs, where people skip through the ads, is now the norm for mainstream viewing.
It’s safe to say therefore, that on-screen ad revenues are facing barren times. The irony is that if ad revenues continue to dry up because commercials no longer form part of the viewing experience, then the money to fund production of new TV shows also dries up.
Advertisers understand this but still need an audience that’s going to stay glued to their screens.
That’s why one answer is to reinvest from primetime recorded shows into the full gamut of live programming, which promises a guaranteed instant audience.
[advert position=”left”]
That’s what General Electric’s new CMO Linda Boff has done. She’s opted to establish the brand alongside myriad TV events such as football, X-Factor finals, nightly chat-shows and other live-format programming, because the audience is more likely to watch live and therefore not skip the ads.
However, channels can’t rely solely on live programming to deliver high ad revenues. They also need to concentrate on providing innovative ad solutions across all programming that are more appealing to how audiences now watch TV.
Audiences will still record and watch on-demand content that’s transmitted live if they don’t see enough reason not to do so, and don’t feel they are missing out by not watching it at the same time as others.
Live viewing, therefore, is often driven by social media and the fear of missing out on the second-screen conversations that are happening during the programme.
That’s why programmes such as X-Factor and Britain’s Got Talent have been incredibly savvy in the past by launching second-screen apps and giving advertisers branded content opportunities that spawn fan communities online.
Other innovative solutions that have been tried by brands include more native-style advertising, which seamlessly forms part of the programme.
Brands and networks need to work more closely together to come up with innovative solutions.”
During December in the US, Pepsi ran a commercial during a Fox soap that was practically another segment of the show.
After paying the network to incorporate its fizzy pop into the series’ plot for three weeks, Pepsi capped the project off with an ad-break takeover featuring a single ad, starring one of the show’s main characters and continuing the soap’s storyline.
Viewers who were fans of the show felt unable to walk out during the ad break in case they missed something important to the plot.
This is a good example because it cleverly targets the programme’s demographic with personalised content, while successfully competing against the second-screen attention grabbers.
It also shows that a break stuffed with ads, even around a live programme with extensive appeal akin to the Super Bowl, isn’t always the answer. Brands and networks need to work more closely together to come up with innovative solutions that have evolved with the times.
It’s not to say that TV advertising no longer works as clearly there’s a long-term benefit to a memorable TV campaign, which according to the IPA results in profit uplifts of more than 140%. I’m sure that most of the brands who have spent in excess of $5 million on their Super Bowl ads will see an impressive return post-match day.
But, it is also worth noting during the run up to 7 February and during the game itself, which brands dominated the digital landscapes, how that aligns with their TV strategy and who drove the social conversation in real-time.
Only once we understand the ‘power of now’, the impact of this change in audiences’ viewing behaviours and how TV advertising can adapt, will the industry to stop the decline and claw back lost revenues and that all-important viewer attention.
Liz Duff is head of broadcast media at Total Media.