I used to think that a SuperBowl ad would be the way to go, if you had the money. But, anymore, I’m not sure if that would be the best use of your advertising dollars. I would think you could do a viral marketing campaign that could ultimately be just as effective but for far less money.

This year, a SuperBowl ad went for about $3 million for a 30-second spot. So, your 60-second ad would cost $6 million plus production costs. That ad would reach about 151 million people. But, that’s not a targeted audience.

Of course, you’re going for a mass audience in your example, but I don’t think you could rely on a SuperBowl (or other big event) ad as your one-shot. Let’s say that you could get a video produced for $1 million, so your total cost for the ad would be $7 million. If you can afford it, but that’s all you can afford, I don’t think it would be a good idea.

You would need to have the SuperBowl ad as part of your ad campaign and not the whole campaign. If you blow your ad budget on the ad, how are you going to keep yourself in the public’s mind a month later? I think you would still need to use viral marketing techniques to keep the buzz about your product going. The SuperBowl ad only gives you a kickstart; you still need to keep things going after it is done and forgotten.

Even with a SuperBowl ad, you can’t not do the other things you might like to avoid doing. Still, the bottom line remains the same. You’ll still need to do a marketing campaign outside, though inclusive of, the SuperBowl ad. If you can’t afford a SuperBowl ad, that just means you’ll have to do the same other things the big companies do, like press releases and viral marketing, except without the benefit of the big kickstart.

In my roundabout way, what I’m saying is that a SuperBowl (or other big event) ad is not a campaign in and of itself. You still need to do other things regardless.