DLJDirect.com summed it up pretty good, "Why would we want to waste money buying ad time during the Superbowl, when we could invest that money in our clients?" So, they offered free trades for the duration of the Superbowl.
Something just tells me that if maybe half the people watching the event can even acces your "store" and then if even fewer of those people can actually use your investment service, that my ad money is better spent elsewhere.
The only thing that will make it worthwhile is if they can generate more than 2 million worth of new sales directly related to those ads. Brand Recognition is probably one of the biggest things a company can get.
What are the first companies to pop in your head when you hear the following words:
soda, chocolate, beer, cars, potato chips, delivered pizza.
For most people in the US its going to be:
Coke, Hershey's, Budweiser, Ford or GM, Lays and Dominoes. Of course there are runner-ups as well such as Pepsi, Nestle (actually owns half of the brand name groceries in your supermarket), Coors, Toyata, Ruffles (Owned by Frito-Lay, which in turn is owned by Pepsi) and Pizza Hut (Also owned by Pepsi).
The point is this, Coca-Cola is Number one is Soft Drink sales and has several good name brands (Coke, Sprite, Minute Maid). Pepsi is number 2 in Soft Drink sales but is a much larger company and overall has more well known products including Pepsi, Doritos, Lays, Ruffles, Fritos, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried chicken and others. Pepsi spent billions building up a series of brand names and Coca-Cola spent billions of dollars refining their product and relying on their trademark signature. Which is more profitable?
Those two million dollar commercials are only going to generate profit and name brand recognition if they are continually shown to the public in the next six months, otherwise they are a waste of advertising dollars because no one will remember them in six months.
Internet Media Provider
[This message has been edited by wluke (edited February 10, 2000).]