Yes, the Super Bowl Is Well Worth $3M a Spot

AdAge: Surely, spending $3 million on a Super Bowl ad in the midst of a crushing economic downturn is a foolish waste when chief marketing officers' jobs are on the line?
On the contrary, it's a bargain.
The Super Bowl presents not just a huge platform with astounding audience numbers where consumers actually lean forward to watch your ad. It also pays surprising ancillary dividends in awareness: reams of press coverage that drive word-of-mouth and stampeding traffic to websites. Most importantly, for the right company, it can establish a relationship with key consumers and sell product.

What is this guy smoking?
Was this guy in a coma for the last few years? Reams of press coverage, my ass. Leaning forward to watch your ad, BS.
I watched the Superbowl for the first time last year. I was excited to see the ad hoopla and talked about fantastic delivery- but you know what, it was shit. Really shit. And those advertisers could have saved a lot more money by going viral. They also could have given back to their loyalists instead of wasting their cash in adland.

The superbowl left a sour taste in my mouth and I know I'm not alone.
George Parker is the most vehement of dissenters. Pinny Cohen was largely disappointed, Futurelab had its 2 cents. A university professor has acknowledged the waste of cash.
Others here, here and here.

It may be a big selling week, but to think an advertiser is creating impact is delusional. Times have changed, people have shifted. It's not economical, nor worthwhile to spend such a large proportion of ad dollars on 30 seconds of ad time. That ad time may flow into viral and site hits, but I don't think the ROI is enough of a draw card. Long term benefits are nil. There is no longevity.

People want excitement and something different from superbowl ads, but everything's been done. Not to mention, nearly all the advertisers from last year are coming back for a repeat which means, same shit, different smell. Great.