1. Using YT as a proxy for overall attention. There are so many variables here at work, it's hard to begin to start why this number isn't a perfect science.
2. Advertising isn't a straight line number of attention to sales (even though most geeks in the FB era seem to think so). There are many of factors at play here (branding, image, communication, loyalty, engagement etc) and many are immeasurable.
Believe it or not, effectiveness (and therefore "waste") of ad campaigns are not just how many eyeballs see the ad. I reckon most CMO's wouldn't take this type of napkin math very seriously.
Note - I understand this type of content is for inbound marketing for Embedly, so this is probably quite effective. I'm personally pedantic about the data science behind it so others don't feel betrayed by it.
>1. Using YT as a proxy for overall attention
'Overall' attention is never a claim. This is simply building upon the views data with what is measured around how far people watch in a video.
>2. Advertising isn't a straight line number of attention to sales
There is no mention of sales in the post. It is comparing the price of the superbowl spot with the number of attention minutes. There are many factors which can serve as a measure of success, in this case it is looking at how people are watching the video after the ad spot.
>most CMO's wouldn't take this type of napkin math very seriously
Attention minutes is a fairly powerful measure. Ex. Upworthy uses it to determine which videos are most likely to be shared. The goal here is to show one way it can be used. In practice, it would be used among other measures an agency or company has- as you describe above.
If this is the case, then why is the conclusion that their super bowl ad dollars are a waste?
> We’re going to use this to see who got the most bang for their buck, and more importantly — who messed up and what lessons there may be to learn.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic about your misleading title and lede....
PS - I assume you're the author. This is very good inbound marketing for your company...I do applaud you for that.
This doesn't mean that the youtube analysis isn't useful, but it does highlight a difference in the mediums.
Mobile platforms really need a way to report spam. Notifications to watch an ad should get apps removed from the push notification system.
Gotta wonder what that cost them in lost business (you gonna invest with a group that brags about throwing money away?).
I don't buy Belkin products either, for comparable reasons a decade after. (Made routers that would randomly inject ad pages. I still won't so much as buy a cable from them.)
Here's wondering if the gossip mongers like Nick Denton might have to pay the price for their tomfoolery.
http://www.jta.org/2015/02/07/news-opinion/the-telegraph/whe...
It's one thing for 4chan to come in and ruin the day, but for an actual company with actual managers and employees to ruin another company's advertising campaign by quoting Hitler? That's crossing a line, unfortunately one that Gawker has crossed many times in the past. How have they not been sued out of existence...
Not really sure where you're pulling the gay thing from.
Super Bowl ad spots are expensive —
ranging from $20M to $135M.
...
The cost refers specifically to the
Super Bowl ad spot, and not to production
of the commercial.
So how does an ad cost $135 million? Did I sleep thru a 15 minute ad? The numbers just don't add up. (pun intended)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_advertising [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2014/01/29/yes-a-sup...
The only thing that matters when putting forth a Superbowl commercial is that the viewer stood around long enough to figure out who sponsored it, even if they didn't stay for the whole thing. On air this is complicated by several factors.
The Youtube attention statistics are a nice proxy for it but it didn't take into consideration the likelihood that a potential viewer lost interest before they knew what it was 'about' (a particularly poor example of this would have been the Nationwide commercial-- people tuned out before the reveal and if they did find out who sponsored it after-the-fact, they heard it in a negative context).
And of course none of this translates directly into brand awareness, but having a talked-about Superbowl commercial is usually the point; the question is did you achieve the buzz you were looking for.
I feel a better measure of the utility of the commercial (answer the question: "what was my bang for buck vs. competitors?") would be to measure the trending of hashtags / mentions / youtube views of the commercial in the days following
>The Youtube attention statistics are a nice proxy for it but it didn't take into consideration the likelihood that a potential viewer lost interest before they knew what it was 'about'
Great points, and agreed. This is what the attention plot ventures to take into account
>measure the trending of hashtags / mentions / youtube views of the commercial in the days following
This would definitely be useful to see.
The is a connection, and the data is applicable, but only casually.
Disclosure - I run a competitor to Embedly
The Budweiser and Clash of clans would have had roughly $3-$4 cost per minute on Youtube views. Where as Weight Watchers was at $1233 per minute for Youtube viewers.