The Super Bowl: why costly signalling makes messages more effective

In this episode, we discuss the influence behind Super Bowl ads and how
 concepts like costly signaling and cultural imprinting help consumers
 align with brands.

Transcript

MichaelAaron Flicker: [00:00:00] Welcome back to Behavioral Science for Brands, a podcast where we connect academics and practical marketing. Every other week, Richard and I sit down and we talk about the behavioral science that's powering some of America's most popular brands. Uh, I'm Michael Aaron Flickr. And I'm Richard Shelton.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Today we're talking the Super Bowl ads. And a return on investment. Let's get into it. Okay, Richard, we're talking one of the biggest advertising events of the year, the Super Bowl. Uh, I'll give a little history, but as a not sports fanatic, my history will be underwhelming to the sports enthusiasts in the room.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Uh, but the year is 19 sixty-four, uh, there are two professional football leagues in America. There is the AFL and the NFL and they decide that, uh, too much competition, unlikely for them both to win. And so [00:01:00] what they do is they decide, let's make a comp. Let's, let's both have the, our, our, our leagues and then let's have a crowning reigning champ, which eventually becomes the Super Bowl.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Um, but the Super Bowl more than a great. Sporting event, which it is, has become a cultural event, a moment for celebrities, for brands, and for music to really shine, uh, on, on this platform that the NFL has built. Uh, last year, twenty-Twenty-two, uh. 115 million people watch the Super Bowl and they're watching many of them live.

MichaelAaron Flicker: So they're in taking the ads in real time as they're having parties and events. And I would say for some, uh, very common here in America, I'm watching the Super Bowl for the ads. It's seen as a cultural moment. To take in brand [00:02:00] messaging, uh, average a, a ad cost. Fox reported last year, uh, between six and $7 million for a 32nd spot.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Very premium, very expensive, and there was a study on ad effectiveness that came out after the Super Bowl. It showed overall a six and a half percent increase across all viewers for intention to buy the brand. After, but it was a mixed bag. Women were up twenty-two percent men only up 1%. Gen, Zers down a percent.

MichaelAaron Flicker: So really it's a, there's a wide range of what's happening here. Um, but it's our industry's one of our industries most talked about, uh, cultural moments. So let's, we said, let's make an episode. Let's talk about what's going on here. Uh, where should we get started? 

Richard Shotton: Um, I think firstly I'm something mind blown by the scale of that viewership.

Richard Shotton: I knew obviously super was big, but that's almost exactly 50% of [00:03:00] the, the population in Britain. The closest comparison is when for soccer, you know, our football, when we get. Close to the end of a global or European tournament. These were every two years. Yes. You get a viewership in England, if England are playing on those last matches of about 20 million.

Richard Shotton: So that's less than a third of a pop population. So the scale you're saying, and 

MichaelAaron Flicker: in America we're talking about almost half Yeah. Are watching it and every year, every year. And comparative to other TV programming. Uh, we looked at the Nielsen numbers just, uh, towards the end of 2023. Top performing TV shows.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Monday Night Football averaging 15 million viewers. But outside of sports, 60 Minutes was about nine and a half million viewers. Uh, the Voice, which is a popular television show, six and a half million viewers, nowhere near the impact of the Super Bowl, 10, 

Richard Shotton: 20 times the size. Yeah. So I think, I think that's fascinating from behavioral science perspective for, for [00:04:00] three big reasons.

Richard Shotton: The first reason goes back to your point about the average, uh, did you say six 

MichaelAaron Flicker: or 7 million? Six to 7 million was the average cost of a 

Richard Shotton: 32nd spot. So that's fascinating because there is an idea, um, called costly signaling. Mm-Hmm. So the study that's worth mentioning, it's a 1989 study by Amna Kamani. Who was at Duke, uh, university at the time.

Richard Shotton: She recruits a group of people and she gives them what looks like a bit of magazine editorial, and it's about a shoe brand that's launching. So everyone gets the same basic content about the design of the shoe, what it looks like, how it was was made, but. She also drops in how much that brand is gonna spend on advertising.

Richard Shotton: And it's that fact that varies by reader. So some people here, it's the brand spending 2 million, some here, 10 some here, 20 some here, 40 million. Hmm. Everyone [00:05:00] has that number contextualized for them. They're all told the new Balance. Reebok. Nike, they spend about $10 million on this shoe launch. Everyone who reads this article is then asked to estimate the quality of the shoot.

Richard Shotton: And what she finds is there is a very clear pattern. So from two to 10 to 20 million, uh, perceived spend, there is a 14% increase in perceived quality of the shoot. Mm-hmm. Drops back slightly when you get, um, to the 40 million level now. Remember in this situation, no one is seeing those ads. So it's not about the actual advertising that's changing their mind.

Richard Shotton: It's not about the frequency. It's the belief that if a brand is prepared to spend lots of money on their products, it must be higher quality. Kumani's explanation for this is that the public recognized brands will [00:06:00] act in their own self-interest. So you are only gonna spend. Extravagantly on a product that you believe in.

Richard Shotton: Exactly, exactly. Yeah, because it's not gonna pay back otherwise, you'll go bankrupt if your product is shoddy. You might get people to try it once, but they're not gonna come back and buy it again. Again. They're not going to tell their friends. It's amazing. So if you've splurged all this money on advertising.

Richard Shotton: It isn't a great business model. The business model only works if people come back. They repeat by, they tell everyone how amazing you are. So, so she argues there's something about being perceived to be willing to spend extravagantly on advertising that makes that advertising very powerful, and that's what the Super Bowl does better than anything else because 

MichaelAaron Flicker: as a consumer.

MichaelAaron Flicker: I know Superbowl commercial paws are very expensive. So if I see a brand run an ad in the Superbowl right away, costly signaling will tell me [00:07:00] that this brand must be something they believe in. Yes, 

Richard Shotton: and of course, consumers aren't gonna have an in-depth, completely accurate knowledge of the different cost of TV spots, the different cost of media.

Richard Shotton: But they generally will be, will be able to rank things in a pretty. Uh, reasonable order. So I did a study a while ago where I asked people to guess what they thought buying, um, a thousand. Exposure is an ad would, would cost. Mm. And if you ask by media, they know cinema is more expensive than tv. They know TV's more expensive than YouTube.

Richard Shotton: The exact estimate might not be right, but they, they got the ranking. They get the ranking. Now, Extrapolating onto that, the Super Bowl is such a iconic event. There's enough stories about the expense. They might not know it's six or 7 million, but they'll know it's a very, very heady investment. So if you appear in that, people believe you as a brand have a genuine faith in your product, and the fact that act that acts as a screening mechanism.

Richard Shotton: The shoddy [00:08:00] providers won't have that faith. That's what imbues your product with this sense of, of, of quality. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: So right away, first thing we're taking away here is that because of costly signaling being, just being in the Super Bowl pod is gonna help your brand because it, it implies the, that the, that the brand is going to be successful or that people believe that this is worth the investment.

Richard Shotton: Exactly. And, and. Now Super Bowl's the extreme of this principle, but you can apply this on an ongoing basis. You can say, well, you can have that value with, you know, double page spread of magazines, ninety-second ads. You could even start thinking to yourself, why don't we try and discover what the perceived expense of various different formats are, or the perceived expense Yes.

Richard Shotton: Of different sponsorships. Then work out what the actual expenses. And what you really wanna do is pick media where there's a, a big gap. You want to go in things where you don't have to spend that money, but people think it's very expensive 

MichaelAaron Flicker: out-of-Home is a classic [00:09:00] example where, you know, a lot of out-of-home boards are not very expensive, but a high perceived value to have a 40 foot wide sign painted for you.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. Yeah. 20 foot sign. It's 20 foot sign wide. Um, the other thing to raise here that, um, marketers may not be thinking about is that. You also have to think about how costly signaling affects different audiences. We've spent this whole time talking about how it affects the consumer, the end buyer, but you have other stakeholders that are important to the business's health ownership investors, distributors, wholesalers, other people that wanna see your brand's investment.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Uh, into the products that you're pushing. So it may be just as much of a value to show costly signaling to a wholesaler group or to a, a set of distributors as it is to show it to the 

Richard Shotton: consumer. Yeah, very good point. Uh, I think that's an audience. It's very easy to, to [00:10:00] forget about, but again, that principle of you as a brand can say all these amazing things you're gonna do, but it's very different to actually.

Richard Shotton: Commit to, in this case, the Super Bowl ad actions speak louder than words would be 

MichaelAaron Flicker: the, the principles. And for the ninety-nine 0.9% of listeners who are likely not running a Super Bowl ad this year. Uh, how can we take this lesson and apply it, as you said to other media types where there's a big gap in perceived value and actual value, or into other places where we can show.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Practice actualize our, in our belief in the brand. Not just say it. 

Richard Shotton: Yeah. There is a danger sometimes the. Procurement becomes too dominant in an organization and people confuse efficiency and effectiveness, and there is a hidden cost for decreasing the length of ads, decreasing the size, trying to pick the format that is the smallest possible one that you can run in.

Richard Shotton: [00:11:00] Yeah. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: Only because it costs less. Yeah. 

Richard Shotton: But we'd lose the effect. There's still a role for extravagance, even in an era of efficiency. Absolutely. Yeah. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: Wonderful. Okay, so that's one big takeaway. Yeah. Let's move on to a second insight, behavioral science insight that our listeners can, can consider. The, the second 

Richard Shotton: insight is the power of a public statement.

Richard Shotton: You mentioned the phenomenal viewing figures. You've got half the population, 150 million people watching the, the Super Bowl. Saying something in public has a very different effect than saying it something in private. So I ran a study a few years ago where we asked people to undertake a thought experiment, said to people in the uk, imagine you've met your local politician, we call them mps, members of Parliament, and you've met them one-to-one, and you've been asking 'em about what they're gonna do about speeding violations.

Richard Shotton: Mm. And the MP promises that they're gonna spend 10% more next year on, uh, speed cameras. [00:12:00] We then asked people to say whether they believe that politician and 40% of people thought the politician was lying. Next group of people, exactly the same thought experiment, increased investment in speed cameras over the next 12 months.

Richard Shotton: But this time we told those participants that the politician had made that claim. Not on a one-to-one basis, but they'd made it at a public meeting of a hundred people. Mm mm In that setup. The proportion of people who think the MP is lying halves, it's now about 20%. Those two groups of people don't have a different view on the ethical nature of the MP.

Richard Shotton: You know, they're equally distrusting. But they believe the statement more in that public setting because they recognise that the self-interest of the MP and the politician will, will keep them honest. If you break a public, you've told, [00:13:00] uh, a promise, you've told in public to lots of people, you stand greater reputational risk than if you break a promise you've just told one person.

Richard Shotton: The more public you make a statement, the more believable it'll be. Yes. Again, the Super Bowl does that to extremes, but you can take that principle and apply it on everyday marketing. If you think people won't trust your message, well then make sure you put it into a broadcast medium, put it into outdoor or radio or TV rather than one-to-one media like or direct mail, or even a digital banner you want to be running where people know that message being overheard by 

MichaelAaron Flicker: others.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, that's, uh, I get, I guess one way you could take that is the medium as you just did. The other way would be in creative, you tell people that you've made this promise or that this is something we've done before. Because it makes it more believable when you've even claimed it. Yeah. In the creative.

MichaelAaron Flicker: And 

Richard Shotton: there's something similar here again, with the costly [00:14:00] signaling principle. You as a person, as a brand saying you're honest is no good because a dishonest actor and an honest one would both say the same thing. Exactly. But if you set up a situation in which it's in your self-interest to keep to that promise, then you become more believable.

Richard Shotton: So it's a, it's making these obvious. Cues that show it's in your self-interest to, to be trustworthy. That's the powerful 

MichaelAaron Flicker: thing. Hmm. Yeah. And I, and leaving aside the staggering number of people that won't trust the NP right off the top, it's an interesting, um, insight to play to more base human behavior.

MichaelAaron Flicker: You know, the, the, that to the, the mistrust can still be used to build trust. The, you know, the insight that they may always lean towards. This is always gonna be, they're only gonna say what's in their own best interest can still be used to build trust and, and, and build behavior [00:15:00] change. Absolutely. 

Richard Shotton: And I think you are right.

Richard Shotton: There's quite a worrying social piece here about That's right. The low trust in politicians. But if you are a brand selling something, don't delude yourself. People do not. Trust what you tell them because everyone is aware. Whatever a brand is selling, they have a vested interest to spend. And you're actually buying 

MichaelAaron Flicker: it.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. Yeah. They need 

Richard Shotton: you to buy it. They make their profit, they make their revenue by selling a product. So of course they're gonna say it's amazing. Any of those claims will be treated a degree of skepticism unless you use some of these counterbalancing messages about. Perceived expense of the message or making it the promise as public as possible.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. It's interesting because this same approach. It was absolutely usable by brands, but also nonprofits, also social movements. Yeah, it's the same, it's the same This belief that you can turn into, uh, a more believable, a more believable claim by doing these tactics. Yep. Yeah. [00:16:00] Okay, well, let's take a break and when we come back, we have a third.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Uh, behavioral science, uh, impact of advertising in the Super Bowl that we want to talk about, and we'll go deeper from there. 

Richard Shotton: Behavioral science for brands is brought to you by Method One. Method One builds digital first marketing systems that help brands grow. They are behavior change experts who solve business challenges by creating meaningful connections with consumers, with deep disciplines in many brand categories.

Richard Shotton: Reach out to them. If you'd like to be leveraging behavioral science in your marketing or 

MichaelAaron Flicker: advertising. Welcome back to Behavioral Science for Brands. Today's episode, Richard and I are going deep on the Super Bowl, but not just fawning over how big it is and how amazing it is and what great brands do, but really trying to take the insights from the Super Bowl and.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Saying, how can we apply them to all brands and all marketing and what can we learn from this cultural, you know, Phenomenon [00:17:00] that is the Super Bowl. Uh, and because it's so big, because it has so many people listening and everyone knows how many people tune in, there's some knock-on benefit to this. 

Richard Shotton: Uh, absolutely.

Richard Shotton: We've already talked about. If people know a claim has been made in public, it's more believable. But there's a second big benefit, which is sums up by, um, a brilliant writer called Kevin Simmler. So he has a blog called, uh, Melting Asphalt, and he talks about the power of ads. Being around an idea called cultural imprinting.

Richard Shotton: Mm-Hmm. So what he means by this is if Corona as a beer associate themselves with all sorts of imagery about relaxation and being laid back on the beach, be easygoing. People don't necessarily believe that. They don't think that they will become more easygoing by [00:18:00] drinking Corona, but. They believe that other people accept Corona's argument of face value.

Richard Shotton: So by purchasing Corona you can signal to other people that these are values that you believe in. Now, he argues that's the main way advertising works rather than direct persuasion. It's persuading an audience that other people believe that your brand exhibits certain attributes. So coming back to the Super Bowl, what's so powerful is not just that you've seen the ad for Corona, it's that, you know, everyone else has seen that ad for Corona.

Richard Shotton: Now, when I first read about Simla's argument, I thought it was brilliant, but he does it very much from a base of logic and sound argument doesn't support it with data. So it is quite a hard thing to test. But what I'm trying to do, and this was a while ago, so I've forgotten the exact numbers, [00:19:00] but I. I've got a sample of a few hundred people and I said to them, um, uh, are you influenced by ads?

Richard Shotton: Virtually everyone said, no. Of course it might be a 10, 15, 20% of people. Of course not. No, no, I'm not that silly. But how I ask people, do you think others are influenced by ads? And you got a completely different response. It was 75 or 80% of people saying they thought others are influenced. So does support this idea of, of similar, this more.

Richard Shotton: Indirect cultural imprinting argument. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. And so we are talking about it in the context of the Super Bowl, which is a, which which is signaling. Lots of people would be impressed or would receive that message a certain way. But as you were talking, I was thinking about how even small companies can use it, like fashion labels.

MichaelAaron Flicker: You know, you see somebody with a. Fancy bag. Uh, you and I would not be the experts in what are extremely, I'm a depth already here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. A Louis [00:20:00] Vuitton or a Hermé or a very fan, what does it mean to me is probably different than what I think it means to others who see me with it. It feels like it's in a similar 

Richard Shotton: space.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. Yeah. There is no argument that similar pushes forward, which is brands have gotta be very careful about over-personalization and, and tailoring of messaging. If Corona. Go out in the Superbowl and everyone sees the same ad, they can maintain this position of easygoing. And I will believe other people think that, but what brands tend to do is become greedy and they use digital targeted media to be all things to all people.

Richard Shotton: So maybe Kronos starts saying to you that it's easygoing to me, that it's sophisticated to someone else, that it's associated with the arts. That works brilliantly for a while, but. Sooner or later we start to talk and we realise that we are not actually giving off the signal that we want, uh, by buying Krona because it means all things to all people.

Richard Shotton: So there's an argument not just [00:21:00] about investing in, well-watched public spectacles like the Super Bowl. There's also an argument about don't be greedy. Don't personalise your message too far to audience. You've got to have a consistent thread that all people believe about your products, even if they're never gonna be buyers.

MichaelAaron Flicker: And I think the build the yes. And to that, to that idea is that the reason we want everyone to have some shared vision, some shared belief about the brand is because that's what creates momentum. If you think Corona is about the arts, and I think Corona is about being laid back, then when we have a conversation about the brand, there's nothing, there's no connective tissue and, and so the brand cannot get any momentum.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, the brand can't. To start building that spin 

Richard Shotton: wheel, the fly wheel, why would I buy this product? To signal a particular set of attributes if nobody else believes it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. If it doesn't mean that. [00:22:00] Yeah. I mean, it's just a, it's just a random noise. I, I could be saying completely the wrong thing.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. So I think, yeah, I think there's a couple of implications from that, that similar argument. Yeah. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: And, and bringing it back to media choice, 'cause we were talking about it being a media choice to be in the Super Bowl. Um, how can we tie that to media choice for smaller brands or other brands? 

Richard Shotton: So again, it's not just the Super Bowl where this works.

Richard Shotton: Yeah. Uh. I asked a group of people, um, you know, to imagine they saw a chocolate bar being advertised on tv. How many other people do they think had watched it? Then I did exactly the same thing about the chocolate bar, but said you've seen it in a, on a banner ad, and people have a pretty fair view of the fact that a digital ad is gonna be seen by a few people.

Richard Shotton: A TV ad's gonna be seen by a lot loads of people, so it doesn't matter the their exact estimate. Is wrong in terms of viewership levels. What matters is they have a pretty accurate ranking of [00:23:00] outdoor and TV being seen by lots of people At the same time, the same message and a recognition that social media ads and digital ads are gonna be far more tailored and viewed by smaller, discrete audiences.

Richard Shotton: So you can tap into this idea better with a broadcast medium than a one-to-One medium. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. I think a, uh, a final theme from me that's kind of come up throughout this conversation is to give the audience your buyers a little more credit. You know, they have a general idea of the value of different media.

MichaelAaron Flicker: They have a general idea. That running in the Super Bowl is a very expensive, a premier thing, and using and giving them that credit allows you to, you know. Create ads and create perception in a way that you would not, if you, if you think you're, you know, your brand is outsmarting the buyer. Yeah. You, that's a very fair way of putting it.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. Uh, okay. So let's, let's bring our episode to a [00:24:00] close. Let's, uh, go through, um, what are the big takeaways for our listeners 

Richard Shotton: today? Three big takeaways. We had the command experience. That's, right? Kimani Experiments. That sounds like a 1970s rock group. Uh, the Kimani experiment around costly singling.

Richard Shotton: Yes. The more people think. You've spent on your advertising, the more believable and high quality they'll believe your product will be. The second was around, uh, the power of public statements. That was the study with politicians that I did. The more people we think have heard a claim, the more trust we give it.

Richard Shotton: So there is a very different reaction to a claim made on a broadcast media than a one-to-one medium. And then the final area was the similar argument of cultural imprinting. Advertising doesn't influence us because we necessarily believe the set associations that brand claims. It works because we believe that other people believe those claims.

Richard Shotton: So there is a real power in using media [00:25:00] that other people know have been seen on a very wide scale. That's where the, the Super Bowl really hits. It peaks, uh, very, 

MichaelAaron Flicker: very cool. We'll be a little meta for a second. Yeah. Uh, Richard. Can you think of a category or a type of brand or a specific brand where cultural imprinting worked on you or where the perceived popularity motivated you more than the actual claims or the actual product?

MichaelAaron Flicker: Oh, that's 

Richard Shotton: a good question. So. I think it might work better on products that are consumed in public. Yeah. Like culture and printing is not gonna work with toilet paper. Yeah. Or your deodorant. Yeah. Right. But for fashion brands, I think it will be absolutely crucial around clothing, uh, beer in the pub, potentially.

Richard Shotton: Mm-Hmm. You know, in a, in a publicly consumed environment. So I think there is something really nice there around, there probably is a variance by category. Is this something that people will know? [00:26:00] What I'm using Or is it a private family-only purchase. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah. Yeah. And for me, I think probably the automobile industry has done a great job.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Absolutely. What does this car say about me? More than which one goes faster. Is it safer? You know, 

Richard Shotton: I think cars is a great one. 

MichaelAaron Flicker: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It has better fuel efficiency. Excellent. Well, until next time, uh, we invite you to send us a comment, reach out to us on social media. Richard and I's mission is to continue to keep this conversation about behavioral science and brand marketing connected, alive, vibrant.

MichaelAaron Flicker: Um, so please reach out to us and until we're together again. I'm Michael Aaron Flickr. And I'm Richard Shotten.[00:27:00]