Mind on My Money

for those that missed it, Miller's Commercial aired for about 1 second and consisted of a large man in a stocked room simply opening his arms out wide, and saying "High Life!". Subtle, but hilarious. I'm buying that stock.

I think this marketing add will work very well for millers stock. I think many viewers enjoyed the whole idea of miller mocking how expensive it is to buy adds during the super bowl, and with todays economic situations the commercial almost related to how difficult times are right now. This will increase the demand of the beverage and with that stock will go up.

I agree with the Miller commercial. I watched the game with 5 other guys and every time the commercials would come it seemed we were waiting and talking about the one second commercial. The Ads only do good for the money they pay for it if they are clever and creative.

I agree the good commercial such as Super Bowl ads will lead to good stocks. For example, Miller's ads is good. Also, super Bowl's ads are funny, so the consumers will not forget it and as a result, the effects would make the stockes rise.

In my opinion any of the commercial time bought during the Superbowl will increase the value of a companys stock. The opportunity to reach so many people is invaluble to a company. However, the value can be affected in different terms depending on the ability of that advertising to perk consumer interest. This year the two commercials that perked my interest were the Miller high Life commercial which I was looking forward to viewing and not missing and the advertising for Denny's which promoted free a free grand slam breakfast. I believe in the case of Denny's consumers will remember the company for the opportunity to eat a free breakfast and get consumers into restaurants to spend money on other menu items and increase immediate consumer interest. I believe that these promotions relate to the current issues that many Americans face with the economic situation and will stimulate consumer spending for a short run period of time for these companys. The free breakfast offered at Denny's actually benefits consumers and the company while theMiller High Life commercials relate to the economic issues and was succesfully marketed so that consumers were actually talking about and looking forward to a new type of Superbowl commercial that left the name of the company in the minds of millions of Americans. I believe all the commercials are valuble to company stock, however the successful marketing and relative success of the commercial can have varying affects on short run spikes in company value.

I coauthored the study. I agree, that 1-second ad was hilarious. But let's face it, we aren't going to buy more H-Life b/c of the commercial. If we didn't like H-Life before the commercial, we ain't going to like it now. I discovered that liked Super Bowl commercials did not lead to more sales. But, it did seem to lead to higher stock prices. So, while beer consumers aren't affected by commercials, investors are. Weeeeeeeeird.

I knew that it was expensive to get commercial time during the Superbowl, but 3 million per 30 seconds seems like a ridiculous amount to me. It looks like it is worth it to the huge companies trying to get an extra boost in their company. The cost makes it really hard for an up and coming company to get air time. I feel like the commercial would need to be played more than a couple times during the Superbowl to make sure everyone sees it. This comes at a great cost, but seems to be worth it for some. I wonder about the companies that might lose money from posting commercials.

I feel that these commercials are way over priced and most of these companies will never see as money come back to them as they spent on these commercials. Sure you they reach millions, but who is going to use their product becuase of it? Who is their target market, they are reaching to too many people and I dont feel like it wil pay off.

At $100,000 a second for a Super Bowl ad you would think that it would be very hard to justify spending this much money on one ad. If you were, you would expect high payouts. The article spoke about Coka Cola's payouts gaining 3% after the ad where they concluded that 3% of thier net worth of 99 Billion would be a little under 3 Billion dollars so for Coka Cola this seems more than worth it. Assuming that your commercial was of the top 10 favored.

I feel that John Nofsinger has a point. Is it really worth it to advertise during the Super Bowl? I think that for some companies it would be, but that depends on the popularity already of those companies. I think after many years of watching the Super Bowl, that we all expect many of the same companies to run ads. There are always Pepsi or Coke ads, along with the ever famous Budweiser commercials with the horses and dalmation. It has become expected for certain companies to have popular commercials and others to be a big flop. Personally, I don't really feel that the commercials sway me towards a certain product. I am just looking for some entertainment. It is the one time of the year that I actually want to watch commercials instead of changing the channel. All in all though, I do think it is a good investment for major companies.

Yes of course it is worth it. For one just like it said in the article more people watch the super bowl then anything else. So by advertising on the super bowl your 30 sec. goes farther than any other ad. It states a 3% markup after the super bowl but it doesnt state how much a normal ad helps and i believe it is because it is insignificant(less than 3%) so by that i would say yes. in the business world when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of people, three percent is a significant amount. whith many people watching the super bowl primarily for the ads, i would say that advertising is a must with the big companies and corporations.

I'm not going to lie, while watching the commercials during the Super Bowl, I really wanted a Bud Light. I don't know if it was the Conan ad or the office meeting ad, both from Budweiser, but Super Bowl and beer just seem to go together. It just made me wonder how much Anheuser-Busch is willing to shell out for higher stocks. They had 7 ads total during the commercials breaks. At 3 million per commercial, this company spent 21 million at the very least. Would that then mean that their stocks would still only increase by roughly 3%, or would it be more of an exponential rise?

Miller High Life had an interesting outlook on the $3 million commercial for 30 seconds. They aired 1 second commercials which they paid $100K for. Considering the product, this might have captured their target market, but will it have the same 3% effect on stock prices?

I think that if large companies get any increase because of those ads its worth it. One reason is because that small percentage is actually huge when dealing with billions of dollars, and another reason is it is the Super Bowl where there is a tremendous amount of viewership that is watching your ad. If you're a huge company and can afford it, there is no reason not to advertise during that time. And I also think the reaction of the ad would have a link to it's stocks, so it's a investment or risk I think any company who can afford the air time should take.

The ads this year weren't as interesting as years past. I felt like most companies could have spent their marketing budgets better than leaving people scratching their heads wondering why that was the best they could come up with. Some of the companies were clever and to the point and really maximized the air time they purchased.

While Super Bowl ads may not immediately cause a stock to skyrocket, they do create an image in the consumer's mind. An ad in the biggest slot of the year will at least get me as a customer to remember certain products (Bridgestone tires, Miller Lite, etc) when I am at the store or car shop. Will I definately purchase those particular products? No. But it will make me look at them more closely, which is where it is the company's responsibility to market a product worth buying.

I do believe that the enormous cost of air time is reasonable. The reason I feel that the price of air time is so high in the first place is because of the demand for that air time. Obviously if no companies saw the value in having millions of people around the world seeing their ads, no one would bid for those time brackets and the cost would be extremely lowered, but companies do see the value. Like the article was saying, companies with good commercials beat the S&P500 index by 3%, and for large multimillion dollar companies that is a substantial increase. That is also why I believe companies try to make their commercials so memorable and hilarious, for example the next time you’re in the grocery store and see that bottle of Coke, or that bag of Doritos, you'll reference back to how funny that commercial was and it could be the deciding factor of what your taking with you up to the register.

I agree that good commercials will lead to good stock. The Superbowl commercials have become such a big tradition and part of the game, people remember the companies that have the really great commercials, and I think people are more likely to buy something from the companies they remember and like.

I agree also. The majority of super bowl commercials this year were aimed at being funny and entertaining. The crystal ball Doritos commercial was a good example. For me personally, I remember the "funny" ads better than the others. Companies are relying on this humor to get that extra "3%"

It always seems like there are commercials from particular companies people can not wait to see. Although these companies strive to make an entertaining and lasting commercial for the Superbowl experience, I am sure they would not be paying $3 million if it was not in some way beneficial for the company. If it is only the popular commercials that receive any return then it is nothing more than a competition.

I agree also. The majority of super bowl commercials this year were aimed at being funny and entertaining. The crystal ball Doritos commercial was a good example. For me personally, I remember the "funny" ads better than the others. Companies are relying on this humor to get that extra "3%"

I wonder how they measured the "10 most popular ads"? So they did a qualitative study on a sample and then only looked at the stock performance of these 10 companies within a certain time period that was around the time Super Bowl was aired? So does that mean the companies' ads that does not fall into the "10 most popular" category did not see a any rise in stock?

Anyway, I do not think market cap is a good indicator of a company's performance. As we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s, the overvaluation of the tech stocks had dire consequences. However, since Super Bowl usually happens around Feb., and a month after would be those quarterly earning reports starting to come out. It could well be that companies who ran Super Bowl ads had an increase in sales, investors took note of the increase in performances.

Regardless, if we take this study as is. A large cap company such Coca-Cola, whose advertising expense in 2006 ran approximately 2.6 Billion USD (Source: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/contactus/faq/advertising.html). And we project that the ad expense grow at a rate of 5% (in reality it is probably more than that, from 04 to 05, the expense grew by ~13.6% and from 03 to 04 it grew ~22.2%), so in 2008 their ad expenditure ran about 2.8865 Billion USD, then a 3 Million USD ad during a Super Bowl accounts for a mere 0.1039% of their total ad expenditure. Note it is NOT 10.39%, but 0.1039%. If you can spend 0.1039% of your total ad exp and turn that into a 3% increase in market cap, then I'd say sure, why not.

I can see how a good superbowl ad could spike sales of that product for a while. If there is a really funny beer commercial out there, people are going to buy that beer once or twice just because they see that ad. I think it will not be as much of a factor this year though since there were not really any good ads. No one really went all out this year and it will probably show when their sales do not increase.

It seems intuitive that a good ad will sell more product and in turn up the that companies stock. Since the super bowl is the most watched event on TV it doesn't seem to surprising that an ad that does well ups that companies stock