|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
February 9, 2010 - Grand Rapids, Michigan The "Diarist" was tagged in this blog post written by Patrick VanderKolk. A bright young man who had an interesting interpretation of last weekend's Super AD Bowl. Enjoy! Last night I watched the Superbowl in a different way than I ever have before, and it wasn't the Superbowl itself that I was watching differently it was the commercials in between. The reason this year was different is because over the past year I have thrown myself full force into becoming a student of marketing/advertising/communication. I've read countless studies, books, articles, trend forecasts etc. and the one common thread they each seem to touch on is the power of the internet for the future of marketing. Most would argue that the internet is becoming (if not already) a more effective way of communicating with potential consumers or clients, than say television, print, and radio. And I would agree. The internet, whether it be through websites, or social media allows for consumers to have a voice when it comes to their interaction with marketers/businesses, creating more of a conversation, rather than an advertisement (which at this point most of us are desensitized to due to the 24/7 bombardment of information). It's for this reason, we've seen countless businesses revamp their marketing plans over the last couple years in order to devote more time, resources, and energy into internet based marketing, while slowly cutting back from the more customary marketing tactics. This is the reason you didn't see advertisements from some of the Superbowls 'usual suspects (Yesterday was the first time in 23 years Pepsi didn't advertise in a Superbowl. But it was all the buzz about the advertisements that got me thinking, MAYBE that wasn't the best plan for these companies. Internet marketing may be the new standard, t.v. advertisements still hold some of their influence, especially when it comes to an event like the Superbowl. Last night over 106 million people tuned in to watch the game making it the most watched t.v. program in history. I would argue that most nights, those 106 million people could care less about commercials they see during whatever show they're watching, but that is not the case during the Supebowl. And its more than just paying attention. I heard numerous people today make this statement: 'the game was great, but the commercials were not that good." People not only pay attention, but they talk about them!! My entire twitter feed for the night was consumed with commercial comments and critiques (at one point I was even ridiculed for posting about the football game itself rather than on an advertisement). And taking it one final step further, outside of ESPN, today on the news I saw more air time spent analyzing last nights commercials, or covering Hanon McKendry's Superadbowl, than I did actual football highlights. Is it crazy for a company to ween themselves away from t.v. media EXCEPT for big nights of t.v. like the Super Bowl? Is attention of 106 million people for 30 seconds worth millions of dollars, and chancing a dud commercial? I have no idea, just thought it'd be interesting to think about, andI realize that none of this isn't revolutionary information, and the Superbowl is an isolated incident, but something to think about nonetheless. And maybe it's a reminder to us all that internet marketing may be the new standard, but t.v. still has its place, even if its only one night of the year. Patrick VanderKolk If you are interested in blogging for the "Diary", please email us at: grandrapidssocialdiary@gmail.com Are you in? "Net Tweeps" ~ photography by Jennifer Wilson Diary Entry: February 4-5, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||
|
Grand Rapids Social Diary Copyright © 2010 - All Rights Reserved
Advertising With Us
