The Hammock Blog

Christmastime is magical at Tryon Palace, the Georgian-style palace in historic New Bern, N.C., gracing the November/December issue of American Spirit, the magazine we publish for the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Once known as the finest public building in the Colonies, the palace, which was built around 1770 as the royal governor’s home and North Carolina’s first permanent capitol, hasn’t always been so radiant. It was reduced to ruins, until local preservationists launched a campaign to resurrect it. Thanks to their tenacity and the discovery of the original architect’s plans, the palace still enchants the public today, 50 years after its restoration.

Yesterday, I wrote about some of the year-long content marketing plans I'd execute instead of spending $3 million on a Superbowl ad. (If you read to the 5th point, my list of ideas had more than $2 million left over.)

But why do companies keep spending money on the hail-Mary passes that a $3 million Superbowl ad represents? In some cases -- Budweiser beer springs to mind -- an ad during the Superbowl makes lots of sense. Budweiser probably generates tens of millions in revenue during the game itself, making the ad something of a "Let's go out to the lobby" jingle from the old days at the movie theater.

But for advertisers who are using the ad to generate conversation about their brands or products, the venue and costs make little sense. So why do they spend such a significant portion of their budgets on a 30-second ad and not a year-long content marketing strategy?

So what do you get for that $3 million? Lots of eyeballs and, the theory goes, lots of people talking about you before and after the game. Lots and lots of blog posts and Twitter users talking about your ad and pointing to your YouTube account.

The PR bonanza is supposed to make the $3 million airtime seem like a bargain.

I'm sorry. I believe most Superbowl ads are a waste of money.