It came as no surprise that this week’s news brought a slew of articles on the most watched TV event in US history—the Super Bowl. While advertising and the Super Bowl have always gone hand in hand, this year’s disappointing game put even more pressure on ads to perform. However advertising is not solely meant to entertain the viewer (who didn’t find the Budweiser puppy really cute?), but also motivate them to buy the product. But this week Natasha Baker of CenturyLink importantly asks the question we all have been thinking: is the traditional (and pricey) television Super Bowl ad truly worth it?
In her contributed Forbes article, Skip Pricey Super Bowl Ads: Brands Reach Customers Online With Big Data, Baker stresses the value of digital advertising. “Unlike Super Bowl ads on television, these campaigns are highly targeted to each customer, and are focused on driving revenue, versus creating brand image alone,” Baker writes. Another advantage of digital? Measurability.
Being able to leverage data points to target and acquire new customers, as well as retain existing customers is arguably more beneficial to a brand than producing a viral commercial that does not drive actionable results. Not to mention, digital is a significantly cheaper option, and in some cases free tools are available--like Semcasting’s Marketing Appliance. Using existing customer data, our Marketing Appliance builds customer profiles including reach statistics, demographics, personalization and indexed comparisons. With all of this data, Semcasting can then provide lookalike audiences to expand your current customer base.
So as a marketer, which do you prefer: an affordable measurable, targetable digital campaign or a $4 million puppy?
Ray Kingman : Mar 6, 2014 8:17:24 PM