The world’s largest provider of web-hosting and domain names has purchased two 30-second commercials for the 2012 Super Bowl.

Although Go Daddy is known for their faux-risque commercials, both commercial scripts have already been approved by NBC’s “Standards and Practices” division.

“After seven years, we have a good idea about what we can do that works for us and still be approved by censors – we know how to take it right to the very edge,” said Go Daddy CEO and Founder Bob Parsons, the man behind the company’s long-running, high impact and always controversial Super Bowl ads. (via Press Release)

Go Daddy has consistently seen positive results with their Super Bowl commercials in the past. Notably, their Joan Rivers feature in last Super Bowl’s Go Daddy ad led to a 466% increase in domain name registrations within 15 minutes of airing.

Go Daddy’s 2012 commercials will both feature NASCAR driver and Go Daddy endorser Danica Patrick. This is Patrick’s sixth Super Bowl ad campaign.

“Go Daddy knows how to have fun with its advertising and has truly mastered the art of driving website traffic with edgy commercials that push the limits – I can’t wait to see what happens next at GoDaddy.com,” Danica said.

Patrick will be joined in Go Daddy’s .CO ad (an ad promoting the .CO domain) with former Biggest Loser trainer/Go Daddy endorser Jillian Michaels.

The prices are directional indicators, not the price that every advertiser pays for a 30-second spot. The estimates are based on what advertisers paid for ad time during this year's upfront market, during which marketers commit to advertising months or weeks in advance, in exchange for locking down price guarantees. The market for scatter advertising, or ads purchased much closer to air date, has been robust, so prices are likely to have risen (and in the frenzied first weeks of the new TV season the networks have also moved or canceled some shows). And it's worth noting that most TV advertising is typically purchased as part of larger negotiations, not on a one-off basis. Prices often depend on the advertiser's relationship with the network, the volume of inventory being purchased and the presence of nontraditional advertising, such as product placements. Indeed, prices can vary by as much as 25% to 40%, depending on any number of factors, one media-buying executive suggested.

I received a very interesting press release from Nielsen today stating that the millions upon millions of Super Bowl viewers that watch the game every year?  They’re really only there for the commercials.

New York, NY – January 20, 2010 – The majority of Super Bowl viewers enjoy the game’s ads more than the action on the field, according to results of a survey released today by The Nielsen Company. Fifty-one percent of those questioned said they most enjoy the commercials that air throughout the game when compared to the Super Bowl game itself. Forty-nine percent said that they enjoy the game more than the ads. Results were based on a sample of over 25,000 households in Nielsen’s Homescan panel.

- Motion Pictures form the biggest category of ad spending, which leads to an immediate surge in online buzz for the advertised films. (via Nielsen)

“This survey reinforces the value of the Super Bowl as a marketing bonanza, featuring one of the most receptive TV audiences in the world,” said Randall Beard, executive vice president of Nielsen IAG. “With so many viewers waiting for the pitch, the pressure is on advertisers to create and place ads that will have a lasting impact.”
The poll was one of many new findings Nielsen released in a comprehensive study of the trends and effectiveness of paid Super Bowl advertising. Other Super Bowl insights uncovered by Nielsen include:

- Ads that run early in the game are better remembered and better liked than those airing later in the game.

- A “winning” spot can vary depending on an advertiser’s goals and target demographics.

- Traffic to advertiser Web sites spiked on the day after last year’s Super Bowl.

- In the last five years, the biggest Super Bowl advertiser is Anheuser-Busch, which spent over $100 million on its Bud   and Bud Light brands alone.

Its a pretty detailed release, but those are the highlights.  All of this information makes Pepsi’s decision to not advertise during the Super Bowl all that more interesting.  Pepsi was a yearly fixture at the game, so they obviously had some pull as to when their ad would appear (i.e. a premium position early on in the game).  But they still thought that their advertising dollars would be better spent on internet based marketing…even when, as Nielsen reported, web traffic spiked for those sites which carried Super Bowl ads.

Premium position. A guaranteed spike in web traffic.  At rates that were either equal to, or nominally higher than last year.  Yet they still chose to move in a different direction.  Sure, one can always make the argument that Pepsi doesn’t need to remind people of their brand; which is the goal of a lot of Super Bowl advertisers (think CareerBuilder, for example), but isn’t the “reminding of the brand” the purpose of advertising generally, barring a new product?  How many Pepsi commercial have featured Pepsi or Diet Pepsi or some other drink that has already spent years  embedded in the American consumer’s mind?  And yet we still had and will continue to have commercials for these products…

…just not during the Super Bowl.

I, for one, can’t wait to see Pepsi’s internet marketing campaign.  Sure, you can argue that the Super Bowl has lost some of its advertising luster, due to decreased ad prices and the like, but its very hard to argue that it still won’t have a enormous impact on the American consumer.

Although, if you’re in the Pepsi marketing department, you’re thinking your internet campaign will have the same, if not larger, effect.

I received a very interesting press release from Nielsen today stating that the millions upon millions of Super Bowl viewers that watch the game every year?  They’re really only there for the commercials.

New York, NY – January 20, 2010 – The majority of Super Bowl viewers enjoy the game’s ads more than the action on the field, according to results of a survey released today by The Nielsen Company. Fifty-one percent of those questioned said they most enjoy the commercials that air throughout the game when compared to the Super Bowl game itself. Forty-nine percent said that they enjoy the game more than the ads. Results were based on a sample of over 25,000 households in Nielsen’s Homescan panel.

- Motion Pictures form the biggest category of ad spending, which leads to an immediate surge in online buzz for the advertised films. (via Nielsen)

“This survey reinforces the value of the Super Bowl as a marketing bonanza, featuring one of the most receptive TV audiences in the world,” said Randall Beard, executive vice president of Nielsen IAG. “With so many viewers waiting for the pitch, the pressure is on advertisers to create and place ads that will have a lasting impact.”
The poll was one of many new findings Nielsen released in a comprehensive study of the trends and effectiveness of paid Super Bowl advertising. Other Super Bowl insights uncovered by Nielsen include:

- Ads that run early in the game are better remembered and better liked than those airing later in the game.

- A “winning” spot can vary depending on an advertiser’s goals and target demographics.

- Traffic to advertiser Web sites spiked on the day after last year’s Super Bowl.

- In the last five years, the biggest Super Bowl advertiser is Anheuser-Busch, which spent over $100 million on its Bud   and Bud Light brands alone.

Its a pretty detailed release, but those are the highlights.  All of this information makes Pepsi’s decision to not advertise during the Super Bowl all that more interesting.  Pepsi was a yearly fixture at the game, so they obviously had some pull as to when their ad would appear (i.e. a premium position early on in the game).  But they still thought that their advertising dollars would be better spent on internet based marketing…even when, as Nielsen reported, web traffic spiked for those sites which carried Super Bowl ads.

Premium position. A guaranteed spike in web traffic.  At rates that were either equal to, or nominally higher than last year.  Yet they still chose to move in a different direction.  Sure, one can always make the argument that Pepsi doesn’t need to remind people of their brand; which is the goal of a lot of Super Bowl advertisers (think CareerBuilder, for example), but isn’t the “reminding of the brand” the purpose of advertising generally, barring a new product?  How many Pepsi commercial have featured Pepsi or Diet Pepsi or some other drink that has already spent years  embedded in the American consumer’s mind?  And yet we still had and will continue to have commercials for these products…

…just not during the Super Bowl.

I, for one, can’t wait to see Pepsi’s internet marketing campaign.  Sure, you can argue that the Super Bowl has lost some of its advertising luster, due to decreased ad prices and the like, but its very hard to argue that it still won’t have a enormous impact on the American consumer.

Although, if you’re in the Pepsi marketing department, you’re thinking your internet campaign will have the same, if not larger, effect.

For those few who haven’t heard, corporate sponsorship has finally invaded the jerseys of American athletes (that aren’t in the MLS or NASCAR).  The culprit?  The WNBA’s Phoenix Mercury.  As reported by a select few on Sunday night, and widespread on Monday, the Mercury have signed a 3-year deal with the Arizona based LifeLock company.  The deal is worth at least $1 million annually.

“I think the league and all our owners embrace innovation,” Donna Orender, the W.N.B.A. president, said. “We’re constantly looking at ways to showcase the value we bring to our partners. And when the Mercury and LifeLock connected, it rang bells.”

During an off-season when one franchise, the Houston Comets, folded and the remaining 13 cut their rosters to 11 players from 13, the W.N.B.A. authorized its teams to let companies place their names on the players’ jerseys as part of broad sponsorship agreements. At least one other team is close to a similar deal.

Davis said that although the Mercury and the W.N.B.A. did not have mass appeal, they had “fanatical” followers who appreciated the role of sponsors in the league. (LifeLock is also the title sponsor of two Nascar Sprint Cup races.) “Mercury fans have a real affinity for the sport,” he said. “They just go above and beyond to support it.”

Obviously, this deal seemingly was completed because of the financial troubles of the WNBA teams, but it does raise questions about advertising and different streams of revenue for sports teams.  Of course, this isn’t the first time the WNBA marketed their jerseys out to a corporate sponsor,

The Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) and McDonald’s today announced a new marketing partnership that will make McDonald’s the presenting partner of “WNBA Tip-Off 2008 presented by McDonald’s.”

As part of McDonald’s presenting partnership of WNBA Tip-Off 2008, the McDonald’s logo will appear on the front of all player jerseys during WNBA Tip-Off games, marking the first time a logo other than the uniform manufacturer will appear on the WNBA uniform during the regular season. WNBA Tip-Off 2008 games include each WNBA teams’ home opener as well as nationally televised games on ABC (May 17 and 24) and ESPN2 (May 20).

Also during WNBA Tip-Off 2008 presented by McDonald’s, McDonald’s will display its logo on the court, on poll pads and on team chair-backs. McDonald’s will also promote its brand through courtside signage, in-game advertisements and a variety of in-game promotions, along with prominent exposure on WNBA.com and NBA.com during the promotion.

And there had also been previous talks of corporate branding on NHL jerseys, although it apparently never came to fruition.  So what exactly will we see in terms of advertising and branding in the future?

THE FUTURE OF SPORTS ADVERTISING

The future of sports advertising is so hard to predict because advertising trends are so fickle.  This year’s trend is hated by the next year, only to be deemed “retro” and popular again, five years later.  But, there do seem to be a few things that can safely be assumed.

Corporate Branding on SOME sports jerseys will increase

The move by the Mercury was just the beginning of what should be a trend regarding advertising on players jerseys.  Of course, I don’t see every sport jumping on the bandwagon.  Will other WNBA teams jump on the bandwagon? Of course.  They need money, and anything they can do to increase revenue seems pretty likely.  But sports like baseball (they’re are too traditionalist, and sponorships would sully the game) or football (more than enough revenue that they wouldn’t viably have to look at this as an option) will probably not go the way of corporate sponsorship.  The potential problem for any sport that does go to corporate branding on uniforms will be merchandise sales.  How many kids are going to want that Kobe Bryant jersey if “Chico’s Bail Bonds” (Bad News Bears rules!) is written across the front of it?  And how many corporate sponsors would be willing to have the athlete wear their jersey with the branding on it, but have a blank jersey sold in stores?  Corporations would push for their logo on all sold merchandise so they can have millions of walking billboards.  I’m just not convinced that major sports leagues are willing to risk the loss in revenue to get what would be a smaller piece of the action from a corporate sponsor.

Holograms will be prevalent

The most recent use of holograms at a sporting event was the fairly obtrusive Subway ad that appeared behind the net at a New York Rangers hockey game.  Sure, that ad was a failure, but does that mean we’ve seen the end of holographic advertising? certainly not.  Holograms can be easily created and can be easily changed, making them of great interest to advertisers.  How long before we see a hologram on a football field during half-time analysis?  Or across the news desk during the pre-game show?  Or maybe a hologram greeting fans as they enter an arena?  Its not as far off as one might think.

Advertising on mobile video will improve

Monetizing the viewing of videos is a problem for which many business models are still being altered.  Some video strategies include showing ads at various intervals, similar to commercials on regular television shows.  This works fairly well for videos on your computer, but what about people watching videos on their phones or hand-held devices?  I don’t know if advertisers are willing to bet their money on a user watching a 30 second video commercial on their iPhone before being able to watch the video.  That’s why, I expect advertisers to utilize the idea of small, unobtrusive advertising to invade mobile phone viewing.  Whether it be a border surrounding the video (which would obviously limit full screen capability) or a small logo in the bottom corner, I do expect it to be a staple in mobile phone viewing in the near future (Think advertising on the YinzCam for example)

Social Media Outbreak

Advertisers are just beginning to tap into the world of advertising through social media.  Range Rover used twitter as a promotional vehicle to discuss their 2010 line of vehicles, Facebook offers advertising options, most sports teams at least have a twitter feed to promote ticket sales and deals, etc.   But the surface has just been scratched as far as social media advertising, and I look for more companies to jump on the bandwagon in the coming years.  Social media advertising has practically no cost, and as more people “go digital” what’s to stop an increase?

This, obviously, is just a small look at what I think advertising will look like in the future.  Again, as I mentioned earlier, advertising, and advertising practices are fickle.  So who’s to say for sure.  If nothing else though, you’ll notice that there seems to be a conscious effort to shift towards cutting edge technology for advertising.  So, if nothing else, I think we’ll start to see, not necessarily a move away from traditional print and television media, but a move towards digital/social media  as companies continue to hawk their wares.

NY Post — WNBA Team’s Jersey Sponsorship Could Set Standard

Get Naked, of course!

Well, its not really as simple as that.  These athletes are scantily clad to begin with…its AVP beach volleyball time!  From the New York Times,

That is what the association, the AVP (Association of Volleyball Professionals), is doing in its campaign for the 2009 professional beach volleyball tour. Print, online and outdoor advertisements present AVP players dressed (or undressed) for work, among them Phil Dalhausser, Holly McPeak, Mike Morrison, Todd Rogers, Sean Scott, Tyra Turner and Kerri Walsh.

The photographs in the ads offer close-ups of the well-developed stomachs, shoulders, backs, chests and arms of the players in action. Oh, yes, there are some face shots, too.

The campaign, with a budget estimated at more than $500,000, is being created internally at AVP and by Project Design, an agency in Torrance, Calif. The ads suggest that if enduring the recession is no day at the beach, come spend, well, a day at the beach.

“We are dealing with a down economy, and people are not wanting to spend money on anything other than necessities,” says Kristine Lefebvre, vice president for business development and legal affairs at AVP in Los Angeles, who also oversees marketing, merchandising and public relations for the association.

The AVP, like any other sport that had athletes compete in the 2008 Summer Olympics, is looking to capitalize on whatever interest was garnered in their sport a few months ago.  Definitely the right idea, although its a sell that is certainly harder than usual when people are choosing to spend less money, or not spending money at all.  As a side note…$500,000+ to realize that it might be a good idea to put half-naked people in your print advertising?  I admittedly haven’t seen a lot (read as: Any) AVP advertising before now, but honestly, I’m pretty sure that if you put…well, anyone in a room for 5 minutes, let them watch beach volleyball, and then ask them their thoughts about advertising; you’d get a similar ad campaign (but not with all the cool colors!).

In all seriousness though, if there was ever a time for fringe sports to try and increase their standing in the American consciousness, it is now.  With every major sport currently suffering from the recession, albeit some more than others, this could be the perfect time for a fringe sport to come in with a low price point, a good product, and some flashy advertising, and steal away or gain some new life-long fans.  On the other hand, and I’m sure the AVP has realized this as well, you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip, especially not during an economic downturn.  Not to say that the AVP has reached the height of their popularity, but I am saying that the AVP’s popularity does have a ceiling, and once that ceiling is reached, no amount of scantily clad athletes can raise demand for any sustainable time period.  But I don’t think anyone is willing to concede that a ceiling has been reached.  And until that point is conceded?  Well…have you ever heard that old adage that “Sex Sells”?

New York Times — Campaign Spotlight — Beach Boys and Girls Volley for Attention

If there is one thing I love, its the media completely beating a story into the ground.  Enter Olympic Swimmer/President of the Tommy Chong fan club, Michael Phelps!  Rather than re-hash the dilemma of how harshly a 23 year old should be disciplined for the “bongger-gate” picture (he’s only 23! But companies are paying him millions of dollars to be responsible! What to do?!?!?!), I think its more interesting to look at Phelps’ sponsorships deals.  The first, and apparently only, sponor to fall off the Phelps bandwagon?  Kelloggs cereal.  More info from Ad Age,

Kellogg will let the swimmer’s contract expire at the end of the month.

“We originally built the relationship with Michael, as well as the other Olympic athletes, to support our association with the U.S. Olympic team,” a Kellogg spokeswoman said in a statement. “Michael’s most recent behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg. His contract expires at the end of February and we have made a decision not to extend his contract.”

Ah, morals clause! You rear your ugly head again.  Of course, Kellogg’s never hinted that they were going to re-up their contract with Phelps in the first place, so its even easier for them to come off as “high and mighty” in this situation.  And I know what you’re saying…”Who wouldn’t want to re-up with Michael Phelps?”  The answer?  Probably a company who doesn’t want their major endorsers endorsing competiting products.

Those other products which use Michael Phelps, Speedo, Omega Watches, Subway, etc., will continue to work with the swimmer in the future (although Subway is putting Phelps’ newest nation-wide campaign on the backburner for the moment).  The lesson to be learned for those companies paying money to people?  They aren’t perfect;  never have been, never will be.  Even the most wholesome of characters has the potential to let you down at some point…especially when they’re only 23 years old.  Liquidated damages and morals clauses are, and should be commonplace in most deals involving nationwide product endorsement.  At the end of the day, it all comes down to whether or not the damaged party feels that the breaching party has materially breached the contract.  If nothing else, Kellogg’s wants the general public to know that 23-year old Olympic swimmers that smoke weed is not the image they want to use to promote cereal (again assuming that they were planning on re-upping with Phelps in the first place).  On the other hand, if Kelloggs is looking to change their marketing scheme, I could totally see someone photoshopping a picture of Tony the Tiger with a bong on a Frosted Flakes box.  “Frosted Leaves…They’re G-R-R-R-E-A-T!”

Eh, maybe the world isn’t quite ready for that after all.

Ad Age — Kellogg to drop olympian Phelps

Sports Business Digest — Slingo. The Morals Clause

Flash-forward! In May of 2008, he was awarded the NBA’s most valuable player award. Welcome back endorsement deals! From Darren Rovell,

Well, despite the cry from marketers at the time that Bryant wouldn’t get another blue chip deal again, Bryant–who will pick up his first MVP award tonight–inked a small deal with Sony to be on the cover of their basketball video game, NBA ’07. And there’s chatter that Sony execs are currently exploring a bigger deal with the Los Angeles Lakers star.

Add to that the fact that one of his old standbys is giving him a second chance. Bryant is now endorsing Vitaminwater, the Glaceau brand which was purchased from Coke for $4.1 billion last year. Bryant’s first appearance for Vitaminwater was on the inside cover of last week’s Sports Illustrated.

Rovell goes on to say that other endorsement deals may be in the works, including a special edition MVP Wheaties box. Now, I’m not here to pass judgment on Bryant, because at the end of the day, that situation is one that needs to be worked out between himself and his wife. My issue, or my question is with the nature of advertisers. Do they just come off as low-lifes or are they really as greedy as they appear to be? I mean, it seems that they distanced themselves from Kobe in the first place because they were protecting their interest in their product (who wants an alleged sexual assaulter promoting their product?), not because of some moral quandry they had with his actions. The fact that Coke, or a Coke subsidiary, is now using Kobe to endorse their product five years after they parted ways seems to imply that Coke was merely waiting for Kobe to become “socially acceptable” or profitable before they could use him to endorse their product. Basically, as long as you are able to stay at the top of your game, you can always find someone to use you to endorse their product, regardless of what you’ve done. Am I all for giving second chances? Of course. But more than second chances I’m more concerned with consistency. Kobe was accused of rape for goodness sake. And I’m definitely not saying he was guilty, but it seems that Coke was, based on the actions they took afterwards the allegations came out. If Coke really believed in Kobe as a person and as a marketing tool, why did they play the role of “fair-weather advertiser”?

…a better question. If/when Mike Vick comes back in the league and leads a team to the Super Bowl, will advertisers momentarily lose their “alleged” moral compasses?

Sports Biz w/Darren Rovell: Kobe’s Marketing Mojo Returns

Oh, did I mention it will cost at least $3 million dollars? From the Wall Street Journal,

NBC Universal, a unit of General Electric Co., plans to announce next week that $3 million will be the entry price for a commercial at the 2009 Super Bowl. While individual slots have sold at that level before, it’s never been the starting point for negotiations for the dozens of 30-second ads sold for the game. It represents a price increase of more than 10%, roughly double the usual annual rise.

$3 million as a jumping-off point. For the the 2008 Super Bowl, Fox charged $2.7 million per 30-second spot, and Super Bowl ads usually only increase $100,000 to $200,000 per year, so the increase isn’t that large, but more importantly can NBC pull it off? According to the WSJ article, several media buyers declined to comment on NBC’s announcement. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything, including the Super Bowl; at some point the cost for an ad won’t be worth the benefit received. Is $3 million dollars the ceiling? Probably not, but it will still be interesting to see what happens to Super Bowl ads as we approach next February’s Super Bowl.

Wall Street Journal: NBC Super Bowl Ads to cost $3 million