Why You Spend $2.6 Million on Super Bowl Ad
Compare the blog buzz the day after the Super Bowl for frequent advertiser Bud Light (blue line with big spike) versus non-advertiser Miller Lite (red line that's flat).
Trend courtesy of IceRocket.com.
Labels: advertising, beer, buzz marketing, Super Bowl, television
posted by Samuel D. Bradley at 7:19 PM
del.icio.us
FOLLOW SAM ON TWITTER
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS FEED
4 Comments:
Since you've been blogging on Super Bowl ads, I thought I'd send this link to a segment from yesterday's Today Show on researchers using fMRI to examine viewer response to the ads. It's 7 minutes, but the discussion at the end is great for the start of an undergrad methods class. Donny Deutsch's comments really help cement the debate over how to gauge response to the ads. Here's the link --http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=6bfa2b85-a2b8-438c-8316-f0bd2c315c2a&f=00&fg=copy
Thanks for pointing this out. I had not seen it.
Call me a hater. I hate this research. A few years back, one of the top psychophysiologists in the world, Peter J. Lang, was speaking at the annual meeting of the Society of Psychophysiological Research.
He said to beware of "blobs on brain," referring to the fMRI pictures indicating brain activity. That is, just because the magnet makes it a pretty picture does not mean it is the appropriate tool. In this case it is not.
When emotion researchers test still pictures, great steps are taken to ensure even luminosity, etc. Because if one picture has more light, that light is driving the cortex -- literally putting energy into the brain.
In the Doritos example here, most of what is lit up is visual cortex. Not so much surprising.
Simply put, this is bad science. They assume way too much and try to gloss over people's eyes with pretty pictures.
I also cannot stand Donny Deutsch. How that idiot ever got a TV show is beyond me.
you're just pissed because Coke's video game ad came out a winner instead of your face-slapping ;)
Hater! ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home