Yes, that's right. It will cost advertisers 2.3 MILLION DOLLARS for a thirty second ad on the Super Bowl this weekend.
Doesn't that figure astound you? The Super Bowl is considered to be the most watched time period on TV, based on statistics from previous years. The volume of viewers in the past is the basis for determining the cost for ads for the current year. I wonder if the teams playing this year will generate as much interest as previous competitions? Or, is it possible that people now tune in just for the ads?
There's a limit to the number of slots available, and it's the big hitters who already have well known names who vie for those slots. They know they need to keep their names in the spotlight, to keep generating sales. They want you to remember frogs in a lily pond, or Jordan and Bird drawing up the guidelines for impossible basketball shots. You can see that those images stay with us for years.
But....how many others can you remember? And were are all those dot.com companies who spent that kind of money two years ago??
Wouldn't it be lovely if they chose to donate their $2.3 million to Habitat for Humanity, or a food pantry, or Head Start? It's too bad that we don't give them as much acknowledgement for generosity of that kind as we do for goofy ads.
I can tell you that I'd be more likely to support a company that did good deeds than was just all talk. What about you?