naruball said:
Who are you talking about? Also, I can't think of a single company which wouldn't benefit from a superbowl commercial break. |
I'm sure you dont. There is such a thing as efficiency and hitting your target with the least cost possible.
Let me explain the difference:
Using direct marketing, Nintendo has hit every one of their possible customers with each message sent, the ones that bought Wii's. Not everyone will get the message, but everyone that did is a potencial buyer of an Wii U. This action cost literally zero as it used the company's internal infrastructure and hit a large number of potencial buyers. The action delivers and insane profit to the company.
Using a super bowl advert, you spend a huge ammount of cost, and you may or may not hit your target audience of potencial buyers. One would assume that you will only hit the potencial consumers that would buy a Wii U and enjoy sports, and thus are watching the match. You only have estimates as to the target you hit, you wasted money hitting targets that will never buy a console. All in all the effectiveness of this methos is questionable, there is no garantee you hit your desired target and you wasted a huge ammount of money hitting targets that dont matter. The risk of this method is far greater and the returns more difficult to gauge.
Using such an advert is called in the business sometimes as using a cannon ball to swat a fly. It reveals imcompetence most often than not and its an unecessary drain on company resources.
So, yeah... hope you learned something with that. ;) Hitting more people doesnt mean hitting more of the right people.







