GM opts against Super Bowl ad amid cost cutting

[mgescuro]

GM opts against Super Bowl ad amid cost cutting

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080922/gm_super_bowl.html?.v=1

General Motors Corp. said Monday that will not air a TV advertisement during the 2009 Super Bowl, as the automaker continues to slash expenses as part of its restructuring plan.

GM Spokeswoman Kelly Cusinato said that while GM will remain a sponsor of the National Football League and will likely air ads before and after the game, it will not buy ad time during the actual event.

"We're in the midst of cost cutting," Cusinato said. "We're scrutinizing all of our programs and all of our media spending, so in the midst of that, we decided against it."

The decision to skip the Super Bowl advertisement was also based on the fact that the automaker won't have a major vehicle launch to promote then, Cusinato said.

The Super Bowl isn't the only major TV event that GM has passed on recently. The company also decided against airing ads during Sunday night's Emmy Awards and the upcoming Academy Awards, Cusinato said.

Despite a soft advertising market, NBC hasn't had trouble finding other takers for the 2009 game's spots.

The network said earlier this month that it had sold 85 percent of its available slots, with a dozen 30-second commercials going for $3 million apiece. At that time, only about 10 slots were left.

For the 2008 Super Bowl, GM ran an advertisement for its GMC Yukon hybrid during the game, along with one for its Chevrolet Tahoe during the pregame broadcast, Cusinato said.

Cusinato said GM doesn't disclose how much it spends on individual advertisements, or how much it expects to save as a result of its decision to not advertise during the game.

More at Link

--------------------

Looks like GM is really, truly cost-cutting.
When GM had first decided to cut Academy Award sponsorship, I thought that was a bad idea because although the Awards' audience is declining, 32M viewers is still nothing to sneeze at.
GM won't buy advertising time for 2009 Oscars

So, if GM was really indeed going to cut costs, they should also cut Super Bowl advertising because it's not the most effective marketing vehicle.

Well, we now have our answer, I guess.
It's a smart move. Best for GM to come back in 2010, to the Oscars and Super Bowl with Volt-themed ads, etc.

[RamJet502]

Good, the return on investment is very poor for Superbowl commercials.

[jbernie]

The decision to skip the Super Bowl advertisement was also based on the fact that the automaker won't have a major vehicle launch to promote then, Cusinato said.

Based on that statement alone it isn't a bad idea, don't advertise just for the sake of it, make sure you have something worthwhile advertising.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by RamJet502

Good, the return on investment is very poor for Superbowl commercials.

I didn't know that. I always knew it was expensive, but it does get a lot of people talking about which was the best/worst, etc.

[Tequilujan]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

[b][size="4"]
The decision to skip the Super Bowl advertisement was also based on the fact that the automaker won't have a major vehicle launch to promote then, Cusinato said.

Hmm, Isnt there some amazing gm vehicle that everyone has been anticipating launch around march or something? i cant remember the name but i was sure it would deserve a 30 second spot....not sure though, guess not

[Kennyboy]

In times of economic recession, it's best to limit your spending.

[gardnet1]

For the price of a few Superbowl ads, GM can buy a whole lot of playoff time and Superbowl pre-game/post-game air time. That's what Ford did last year and I thought they did well with it.

GM should sponsor the Chevy Volt pre-game or Post-game show (or Camaro). I know there will be a teaser about the next peeus and manufacturing in Miss.

Unless GM has a great commercial that everyone will be talking about for weeks afterwards, then it isn't worth the price.

If GM advertised during the Superbowl, then it would definitely need to be for the Volt explaining the plug-in and getting in good with the eco-freaks.

BTW, does this mean the MVP won't be getting a Cadillac this year?

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by Slideways

I didn't know that. I always knew it was expensive, but it does get a lot of people talking about which was the best/worst, etc.

Super Bowl advertising is synonymous with a shot gun.
It'll get the job done, but it's not the most efficient. You'll hit other things other than your target market. And it's a bit sloppy.

I always saw GM's Oscar (and Tony) Award advertising to be more targeted. Only certain people watch those shows; therefore, advertising Cadillac and Saab was more effective, as it was those people who watch those show who are more inclined to buy a Cadillac or Saab in the first place.

[mikesright]

Originally Posted by jbernie

Based on that statement alone it isn't a bad idea, don't advertise just for the sake of it, make sure you have something worthwhile advertising.

Exactly. Without a major vehicle launch, it would have been pointless to spend the money on a Superbowl ad. However, this action does not mean that the Superbowl is not a good place to spend advertising money. It's just better to spend the money on new, groundbreaking products rather than to spend the money on an existing product, at least for the auto industry.

The reason advertisers pay so much money to air commercials is because the audience is so large and people actually watch the advertising. I think 3mil for 30 seconds in the Superbowl is a good deal, because you know 90-110 million people will watch your ad. On a sitcom, you may have to pay several hundred thousand dollars for 7-20 million people who don't care to watch and may avoid the commercials in various ways. That's why it's a good deal.

[zete]

Better to put money into folks driving the cars to events than spending millions on ads. I always thought the Superbowl ads were more a gimmick than anything. Let's see who has the "best ad", but a few days later, who truly cares.

I think GM did the right thing.

[mikesright]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Super Bowl advertising is synonymous with a shot gun.
It'll get the job done, but it's not the most efficient. You'll hit other things other than your target market. And it's a bit sloppy.

I always saw GM's Oscar (and Tony) Award advertising to be more targeted. Only certain people watch those shows; therefore, advertising Cadillac and Saab was more effective, as it was those people who watch those show who are more inclined to buy a Cadillac or Saab in the first place.

True. That's why you typically see mainstream brands like Chevy, Budweiser, and Microsoft advertise in the SB.

[Slideways]

What's wrong with shotguns? It seems that the Super Bowl would be a good time to show some of the facts to help change the image of the Chevrolet brand. As long as they do a better job than the recent Pontiac commercial, that one's pretty weak. I know GM did their homework on this, and that their ad dollars will probably be spent on a more focused audience (enthusiast magazines and television). I hope it pays off.

[kenman923]

Are they still planning to give a Cadillac away to the MVP of the Super Bowl?

[TORRED1]

As a share holder, I would agree. Don't waste money on the superbowl.

[fenderbender]

They should produce just one short clip of the Astra, then at least a few people will know about it.