Photo: Anheuser-Busch InBev
About 108.4 million people watched the Baltimore Ravens defeat the San Francisco 49ers 34-31 in the 2013 Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans last night.Ads cost up to $4 million per 30-second unit.
So, was it worth it?
For many brands — such as Budweiser — the answer is already a resounding yes. The early data shows their ads resonated deeply with viewers.
But for others, such as Go Daddy, it was a mixed bag. People noticed their ads but didn’t like them.
And plenty of companies just didn’t move the needle at all.
But Go Daddy really screwed up: Of these major brands, it was the only one to emerge with mostly negative sentiment among viewers.
All publicity is good publicity: Brands get social media mentions just for being one of the game's advertisers, even before the game.
Go Daddy sparked the most number of social media conversations after the game, nearly quarter of a million, according to Networked Insights.
This data from SocialBakers shows which advertisers dominated YouTube and Facebook video sharing. While Facebook, unsurprisingly, came in second to YouTube, it still did well with some brands. Twitter video sharing was minimal to non-existent.
Pepsi: was the clear number one in direct brand activity with more than 700,000 half-time or commercial branded social comments and actions.
Samsung: Advocates interacted with the content 300% more than their next closest rival during the Super Bowl.
GoDaddy: was one of the leaders immediately following the game with more than 900,000 new YouTube views in the hours just following the broadcast. They also triggered a good amount of conversation online, but unfortunately much of that was quite negative, and Go Daddy has the dubious honour of being the most negatively discussed brand this Super Bowl.
Most-shared videos: These are different from most-viewed videos. Only ads that were passed on in social media are counted. Unruly Media compiled this chart.
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.