no Super Bowl ad? Is Warner Bros. nuts?

[Hollow Crown]

www.variety.com/article/VR1117998229.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

I just don't see why they're not doing it. More people will be watching the Super Bowl than they will the Oscars, that's for sure. I just don't see the logic behind it.

[Erika]

Because Superbowl ads are wicked expensive.

[cyadon]

It's between 2 and 3 million per thirty second spot this year. That's just crazy.

[Hollow Crown]

So? Warner has the money to do it. They're not exactly hurting after the big 2008 they just had.

Plus, the Super Bowl is like an annual televesion event. It's the most watched event year in and year out.

This makes no sense, at all. Sometimes you gotta spend money to make money.

[k8ie]

FYI guys, this article is three weeks old. WB may have since bought spots - at a lower price.

WB had a good 2008 but... they also just laid off 800 people, the stock market is in the toilet and the economy isn't going to bounce until at least the third quarter of 2009. WB and most studios probably have a very serious liquidity problem at the moment, which makes shelling out 3 million for 30 seconds for a movie that has curbside name recognition anyway bad business.

Furthermore, the movie doesn't preem until May. Why blow 3 mill for 30 seconds in the first weekend of February when come April that money will buy you exponentially more spots on more networks.

[Hollow Crown]

Jan 26, 2009 17:28:14 GMT -5 k8ie said:

FYI guys, this article is three weeks old. WB may have since bought spots - at a lower price.

WB had a good 2008 but... they also just laid off 800 people, the stock market is in the toilet and the economy isn't going to bounce until at least the third quarter of 2009. WB and most studios probably have a very serious liquidity problem at the moment, which makes shelling out 3 million for 30 seconds for a movie that has curbside name recognition anyway bad business.

Furthermore, the movie doesn't preem until May. Why blow 3 mill for 30 seconds in the first weekend of February when come April that money will buy you exponentially more spots on more networks.

Who isn't laying off people these days, though? Even huge market NFL and other professional sports teams alike have to lay off people right now. Plus, if Fox can do it for Transformers 2 (which comes out on a later date, I might add), then why shouldn't Warner do it for Terminator.

I'm not saying they have to, but it's very stupid not to. A lot of people watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials, so it's likely that this TV ad would be much more effective now than what it will in April.

[rossbondreturns]

3.7 Million to be precise.

The cost of airing an Oscar Night trailer is LESS.

Man many many people still watch the Oscars regardless of the sometimes ratings sacrificing choices they make.

Also airing a commercial during the Oscars assures of us one special thing.

ALL NEW footage.!

Due to rules stipulated the 30 second to 1 minute spot must show scenes EXCLUSIVE only to that trailer.

It is also the first time that movie trailers have been allowed to be show during the Oscar telecast.

[k8ie]

^^ New footage is a big deal. $3.7 million to show the same footage that's available on the web right now is foolish.

That said, WB has Watchmen in March. They don't need the Superbowl.

FOX, which had a disasterous 2008 needs word-of-mouth on their summer tentpoles for 2009. Warner Brothers doesn't right now.

[Hollow Crown]

I see what you're all saying and you all raise great points. I just think it's dumb not to have a spot during the Super Bowl. I mean, why not use that new footage for the Super Bowl as opposed to the Oscars? The Oscars aren't going to be even close in the ratings department when being compared to the Super Bowl. And as I previously mentioned, Warner is one of the few companies that can afford to do an ad. It just doesn't make sense, IMHO.

[rossbondreturns]

The last two advertising spots were sold tonight.

We'll know soon enough.