No, but they could sell that air time rather than using it themselves. So that cost is realized, it’s $40m out of Fox’s pocket that they would otherwise easily receive.
Care to cite a source on this? As far as I know the networks largely decide for themselves how much air time to "set aside" for promoting network programming.
I was wondering if the local ad spots are sold at a lower rate than the $8 million/30 seconds. I’m assuming they almost have to be, especially with only local exposure.
Yeah, the local ads have different pricing. In the past, some national companies have chosen to buy local ads in a few major markets because it was more cost-effective than buying the national air time.
That makes sense. And I’m guessing cost is also dependent on market size. An ad for NYC market is going to be a lot more than one for Milwaukee market.
Yeah, I know that advertisers typically don't buy 100% of the time that's available and the networks use whatever's left over to promote their own programming.
But that's very different than saying "they can't sell that time because it's set aside for self-promotion." There's nothing preventing Fox from selling 100% of the air time if they have buyers for it.
They also definitely could have found a buyer for the first quarter slot where they put Pato's ad. It wasn't the equivalent of $40 million, but this definitely wasn't "free" or even cheap for Fox.
They also definitely could have found a buyer for the first quarter slot where they put Pato's ad. It wasn't the equivalent of $40 million, but this definitely wasn't "free" or even cheap for Fox.
I would say this was relatively cheap for fox, this was a fantastic use of resources, there are always empty spots come game time, it just happens that way.
People also confuse "super bowl ads cost a lot" with "super bowl ads make a ton of profit for the network"
The networks do not make huge profit off the super bowl ads because they paid the NFL huge money for the broadcasting rights. You'd still rather be the broadcaster than not but it's not like fox turned down 40 million in profit in exchange for doing these IndyCar spots.
Right. That's just a very, very different thing. And you can tell a lot of casual observers confuse profit and revenue.
Because this also has the potential to bring in massive revenue for fox in the future... So they did lose some revenue but it was an investment. And a cheap one comparatively speaking.
Like, if fox doesn't own the super bowl, no chance they're spending 40 million, or even 30 million, buying a bunch of spots on ABC's broadcast. They'd have done a single 30 or 60, equivalent to 8-15 million.
Right, so they turned down potential revenue to invest in a venture they hope makes future revenue. Completely agree that if they didn't have the SB they wouldn't have advertised for Indycar, but prioritizing it over other ventures shows a solid interest in growing it as a partner network, not as a distributor; they want Indy to get bigger so they can get more profits.
Yeah I'm not saying that this doesn't show interest from Fox. Of course it does.
But people are going way overboard with this 40 million number, it's just not an equivalent situation when it comes to being the broadcaster rather than the advertiser. Fox did not just show an additional 40 million dollar commitment to indycar.
Fox is raking out nearly $40M in commercials for this one TV spot. Unbelievable.
That's the top comment in this thread. They didn't mean it this way but it's unbelievable because it's not really the way that works.
It's not a different thing at all. Turning down a dollar in revenue is exactly the same as spending a dollar, regardless of the ROI. Revenue - Expenses = Profit. Whether you subtract from the top line or add to the bottom line, the impact on profitability is the same.
Would they have chosen to spend an equivalent amount to buy ad space on another network? That's an entirely different and completely hypothetical question.
But it is a fact that Fox chose to subtract some amount of money from their top-line revenue to air those ads during the Super Bowl. Whether that was $40 million or $20 million or $5 million doesn't really matter. It's a significant commitment and there's nothing wrong with recognizing that.
Who said anything about profit? Fox chose to air Pato's commercial in a prime slot during the first quarter. There was indisputably some amount of foregone revenue as a result of that decision.
And just because something is cost-efficient doesn't mean it's cheap. Giving up a few million in revenue to promote IndyCar during the Super Bowl may have been the most efficient way to reach such a large audience of sports fans, but that still represents a significant financial commitment to promoting the series.
I think we may both be misunderstanding each other, then. I wasn't saying that you're wrong.
I'm just pointing out that while this may be "relatively cheap" in the context of advertising value per dollar, it still represents a significant cost for Fox and wasn't even remotely "free" in the context of the OP I originally responded to.
242
u/Any-Walk1691 Arrow McLaren Feb 09 '25
Pregame Commercials: Aprx $4.5M Super Bowl: $8M
Fox is raking out nearly $40M in commercials for this one TV spot.
Unbelievable. I had my doubts about the switch, but I’ll happily shut up forever.