Short YouTube interview (Feb 2019) in which Matt Britton weighs traditional Super Bowl advertising against social-platform strategies. He argues it depends on the brand: mass-market brands (e.g., Pepsi) can benefit from broad broadcast reach, while brands seeking precise targeting get higher ROI from platforms like Facebook. He notes a common Super Bowl strategy is to create ads that consumers will share (earned reach), and says traditional broadcast's future is limited except for live events like the NFL/Super Bowl.
Is the price really worth it? Or are companies better off pushing their super bowl ads to social media? Let's ask Matt Britton. What would be your advice to companies here? Go. Social or traditional?
It really depends on who your brand is and who you're trying to target. There are certain brands out there, like the Pepsis of the world, that have just a mass audience. So for them, sort of a monolithic 18 to 49 demographic makes sense. But for other brands that want to get more targeted and pinpoint with their efforts, nothing can reach the ROI and effectiveness of platform like Facebook. A big strategy for brands when they run a Super bowl spot is not so much marketing to the consumers, but marketing through them. You want the consumer to take that spot and go out and tweet about it or talk about it on Facebook so they can get that earned reach and that scale that can last far beyond the game. Is there any future in this kind of advertising? There's not, really. The only reason why consumers have traditional broadcast TV is they can tune into the NFL. That's how powerful it is. And obviously the super bowl is the culmination of that effect.