General Motors has announced that it does not plan to spend any money to run television advertisements during the pricey Super Bowl XLIII in February. GM, like many other companies, has long taken advantage of the expensive venue to promote products with especially memorable ads. The move comes as a result of significant cost-cutting and belt-tightening in the Detroit automaker’s budget that also saw no GM advertising during last night’s Primetime Emmy Awards, a notable departure from tradition.
GM has spent more than $77 million in the last 15 years to advertise during Super Bowl games, putting the automaker third behind Anheuser-Busch and Pepsico in terms of spending. Ford and Chrysler didn’t advertise during last year’s championship game, though neither automaker has officially announced its plans for the 2009 Super Bowl.
The automaker isn’t pulling out entirely from Super Bowl spending. The automaker says it will likely advertise during pre- and post-game coverage on television and it will provide vehicles to be used at the Super Bowl in Tampa, Florida.
GM also recently announced that it was cutting the star-laden GM Style event held prior to the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
09/22, 10:34 AM
posted by:
Z06ified
Smart move. GM could get much better bang for its advertising dollars by using that money for more conventional advertising, rather than 30 seconds of fame in a Super Bowl commercial.
While I like seeing GM super bowl commercials, and all car commercials for that matter, it is not necessarily money well spent.
09/22, 11:13 AM
posted by:
RaineMan
Does anyone actually sell cars with the TV ads anymore?
The current adds I remember most are for the Civic Si, CTS, and the Flex. But they are so abstract and overly artistic that it doesn’t do a very good job of showing the car itself… or telling anyone about its key features, performance, or economy.
09/22, 11:18 AM
posted by:
inspire
I think they used the Mellencamp song last year to promote sales. Guess they not going to use that this time around.
I think it’s better to use the funds elsewhere. (Agree with Z06ified).
Limited budget for advertising — better off spending on R&D or more ads elsewhere.
09/22, 1:14 PM
posted by:
howsmydriving
There’s a connection here to Janet Jackson, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
09/22, 1:45 PM
posted by:
Patriot
Not good. They should at least run one ad that promotes the most fuel efficient vehicles in their lineup, and then another ad that shows what’s coming down the pipe.
The super bowl would be a GREAT time for them to start the showboating of the Volt, since the production images have been officially released.
They don’t have to spend an arm and a leg, just enough to let people know they’re still alive.
09/22, 2:29 PM
posted by:
beatusmongous
RaineMan, you’ve seen a Flex ad? I haven’t, and I’m in the broadcasting business. You’re right, though, a lot of ads are looking for gimmicks rather than focusing on the product, which is what is more important. But TV advertising is still the most effective form of advertising, as nearly 85% of people who buy a product report that they were persuaded by the TV spot more than anything.
Patriot, I really don’t think the target audience for fuel efficient vehicles is as heavy in the Super Bowl as it is in other programs, such as Heroes and other prime time shows. Also, places like CNN and MSNBC would be a good target for the “fuel efficient” message. They would get a better response for their advertising dollars in those types of places, as opposed to Super Bowl. Not that Super Bowl isn’t a bad place to spend money, but the advertisers have to realize that as popular as it is, most people are having parties and drinking during the Super Bowl. That’s not a very responsive audience for “fuel efficiency”…
09/22, 4:33 PM
posted by:
tzu13
Ditto on the Superbowl would be an excellent place to plug the Volt comment. Maybe that will be one of the “provided vehicles”?