Good analysis of available data, but there lots of flaws in how the conclusion is drawn:<p>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.<p>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.<p>Believe it or not, effectiveness (and therefore "waste") of ad campaigns are not <i>just</i> how many eyeballs see the ad. I reckon most CMO's wouldn't take this type of napkin math very seriously.<p>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.
I'm not sure how well this metric works for Supercell and Clash of Clans. I sometimes play that game, and I can tell you that during the Superbowl, there was an in-app notification sent to all it's players to watch the youtube ad, which greatly increases the number of views of the ad beyond what the other company ads could do.
Recalls a SB ad years ago, during the original Internet bubble: E-trade showed a dancing monkey, then the text "Well, we just wasted two million dollars. What are you doing with your money?" <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQMq5wtZcg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQMq5wtZcg</a><p>Gotta wonder what that cost them in lost business (you gonna invest with a group that brags about throwing money away?).
Coke's #makeithappy campaign ended up being pulled thanks to an effort by Gawker, that's gotta have some marketing folks upset.<p>Here's wondering if the gossip mongers like Nick Denton might have to pay the price for their tomfoolery.<p><a href="http://www.jta.org/2015/02/07/news-opinion/the-telegraph/when-gawker-trolled-coca-cola-with-mein-kampf-messages" rel="nofollow">http://www.jta.org/2015/02/07/news-opinion/the-telegraph/whe...</a>
Seems odd to use Youtube views to determine whether the Super Bowl spending was worthwhile. You have to choose to watch a YouTube video, while the Super Bowl ads are pushed to everyone.
I've got a <i>major</i> disconnect with the "facts" at the beginning of this article:<p><pre><code> 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.
</code></pre>
But Wikipedia[1] (and countless other links e.g.[2]) claim that a 30 second commercial cost about $4.5 million for the most recent Super Bowl.<p>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)<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_advertising" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_advertising</a>
[2] <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2014/01/29/yes-a-super-bowl-ad-really-is-worth-4-million/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2014/01/29/yes-a-sup...</a>
TLDR: highest to lowest cost per minute <a href="https://superbowl.firebaseapp.com/s/watched/costminute-" rel="nofollow">https://superbowl.firebaseapp.com/s/watched/costminute-</a>
Is this an example of "professional trolling" ? Gawker trolled coke into cancelling their campaign, and the whole fiasco became a story in and of itself.
Sick, and tight as well. Interesting to see that this kind of data surface too often -- either no one is doing it or they're playing it close to their chest.
Has very little bearing and a lot of sample bias. How many of you actually viewed the commercials via Youtube?<p>The is a connection, and the data is applicable, but only casually.