We’re happy to report that General Motors isn’t spending $3,000,000 for a Super Bowl commercial this year. But what about other advertisers?
Is it wise to spend that much money on one commercial in this economic downturn? Surprisingly, many advertisers say, “Yes, it’s a bargain.”
Their rationale? The Super Bowl draws an immense audience and is, perhaps, the only programming on television that causes consumers to “lean forward” and watch the commercials.
No one will be leaning forward and watching the attached PETA commercial because it was rejected by the television network. Talk about your wardrobe malfunction.
This post was last modified on November 28, 2010
View Comments (3)
Sarah Palin and the newsbabes at FOX are still hotter.
Coffee,
Yes, I think it was brilliant marketing. For a savings of several million dollars they most likely will get more publicity than had they run it. I'm sure it was intentional.
ironically PETA is getting more publicity from the fact that their ad was banned than they would have if it was approved