Subscribe on

Enjoy this episode? Leave us a review.

All Episodes

Episode 152

When is Premium Media Worth the Price?

Marketers love the idea that premium media makes brands premium. But the research is surprisingly mixed. High involvement content can change how ads land, sometimes helping attitudes, sometimes hurting recall.

This week, Elena, Angela, and Rob tackle the debate between premium media and efficient reach. They review mixed research on media context effects, break down the extreme cost differences between premium and standard TV placements, and share when high-profile media genuinely outperforms. Discover why sacrificing reach for prestige might hurt more than help.

This video is hosted on YouTube and requires cookie consent to display.

Topics Covered

• [02:00] Super Bowl advertising performance data

• [04:00] The history of premium media and costly signaling

• [09:00] Cost differences between premium and standard TV placements

• [14:00] When premium media actually performs better

• [18:00] Creative requirements for premium placements

• [26:00] Playing "Worth the Premium" game with real scenarios

Resources:

Norris, Claire E.; Colman, Andrew M.; Aleixo, Paulo A. (2003). Selective Exposure to Television Programmes and Advertising Effectiveness. University of Leicester. Journal contribution.

Hartmann, W. R., & Klapper, D. (2016). Super Bowl Ads (Working Paper No. 2139). Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Today's Hosts

Elena Jasper

Chief Marketing Officer

Rob DeMars

Chief Product Architect

Angela Voss

Chief Executive Officer

Transcript

Angela: We haven't seen any evidence that the brand surrounding an ad break meaningfully changes the sales outcome. We consistently see that what matters most is how many people you're reaching and what you're paying to reach them.

Elena: Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research-first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions.

I'm Elena Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects, and I'm joined by my co-host Angela Voss, the CEO of Marketing Architects, and Rob DeMars, the Chief Product Architect at Misfits and Machines.

Rob: Yes, you are.

Angela: Hello.

Elena: We're back with our thoughts on some recent marketing news, always trying to root our opinions in data, research, and what drives business results. Today we're talking about high profile media. Marketers love the idea that premium media makes brands premium, and sometimes it does, but the research is surprisingly mixed. High involvement content can change how ads land, sometimes helping attitudes, sometimes hurting recall, and clutter can erase advantages. So today we're gonna try to sort what's true from what's just plain old expensive. So when does a high profile placement actually outperform something like efficient reach, and when is it more of a tax we pay for bragging rights?

I'll kick us off, as I always do, with some research, and there is a lot of interesting stuff when it comes to this topic. The evidence is a lot more mixed than I thought it would be, but let's begin with media context. That's basically how the content surrounding an ad affects how that ad works, because that's an argument that's made a lot — that if it's around premium content, that changes the effect of the advertisement. I did find a study that looked at this. It's titled "Selective Exposure to Television Programs and Advertising Effectiveness" by Claire Norris and Andrew Coleman. What they found is that when people were really engaged in what they're watching, when it's content they actively chose, maybe they care about it, they often feel more positively towards the ads and the brands that they see. So yes, premium or high engagement environments can lift brand perceptions, but there was a trade off.

Other work in the same area shows that ad recall and message takeaway can actually suffer in highly engaging content. So people are so absorbed in the show or the event that the ad doesn't fully break through. So you might be improving how people feel about the brand while reducing how much they remember about the brand. Now let's move to the ultimate high profile placement as an example, which is the Super Bowl. There is a study in Marketing Science called "Do Advertising Events Pay Off: The Case of the Super Bowl." This is by Wesley Hartman and Daniel Clapper, and their findings were mixed. They found that Super Bowl ads can drive meaningful short-term sales lift, especially in categories like beer and soft drinks. They also found that when multiple major competitors advertise in the same event, a lot of that lift actually gets competed away. And if you zoom out to the bigger picture, there's the work from the IPA Databank led by Binet and Peter Field, which looks at thousands of real campaigns over time.

And one of their most consistent findings is that reach is one of the strongest drivers of effectiveness, especially for long-term growth. Their work doesn't say that premium media never works, but does show that sacrificing reach in order to pay for high quality impressions might hurt us more than we expect. And that's what we're gonna unpack today. When is premium media actually worth the cost? And when would you be better off investing in more reach instead? So this debate is near and dear to us as a television agency, but I think we could also apply it to other, quote unquote, premium media channels. Let's start by defining what we mean by high profile or premium media. Rob, could you give us a quick history lesson on high profile media? I'm curious if there's always been a concept of premium placements or advertising, or is this more of a modern idea?

Rob: I'm glad you asked, Elena, because it's definitely not a modern idea. In fact, you could argue that premium was actually a default setting for the first golden age of advertising. If you go back to the 1950s, brands didn't just buy ads around premium content, they actually owned the content, right? So you had the Texaco Star Theater, the Hallmark Hall of Fame, General Electric Theater that was hosted by none other than Ronald Reagan. That was the ultimate form of premium. The brand wasn't an interruption. The brand was actually the benefactor. You weren't just renting eyeballs, you were borrowing the equity of the show itself. Then in the 1960s and 70s, TV costs skyrocketed, so we moved away from sponsorships to the scatter market, buying 30-second spots.

That's when premium shifted from ownership to scarcity. It became about prime time versus daytime and it became about the Super Bowl. But here's the effectiveness angle that often gets missed. Historically, buying premium media wasn't just about reach, it was about costly signaling. That's what you were talking about earlier. In behavioral economics, we talk about how customers use heuristics — mental shortcuts to judge quality. When a consumer sees a brand on the Super Bowl or in Vogue or during the Oscars, they aren't just seeing the product. They're unconsciously processing the financial signal: this company can afford this slot, therefore they must be successful, stable, and selling a product that isn't going to disappear tomorrow. So premium has always been seen as a proxy for trustworthiness. The debate we're having is really whether or not that expensive signal is worth the price tag in a fragmented world. And that's Rob's history lesson for today.

Elena: Love it. So this is not a new thing that

Rob: Not a new thing

Elena: marketers have debated.

Rob: Since Ronald Reagan.

Elena: Since Ronald Reagan.

Rob: When he was an actor, not a president.

Elena: Oh,

Rob: You know, he was an actor.

Elena: I did know that. Yeah. Okay.

Rob: Okay. This is long, but you got it.

Angela: Careful. You're gonna take 'em down another history lesson. We gotta —

Elena: I was gonna say, that's not the history lesson I signed up for today. Okay. Ange, when marketers talk about this idea of premium media, what do you think that they're actually trying to buy?

Angela: Yeah. I think there are a lot of options that they could be trying to buy. I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're all trying to buy growth in some capacity, but I think that path to growth might be a little different. They could be trying to buy the credibility that you speak to. So just the belief that appearing in these high profile environments makes the brand feel more legitimate, more trustworthy. And I think that's probably fair. But I would say too that TV in general, if we're talking about TV versus premium TV, TV itself is just a bit premium in the scope of all marketing options on the table. In some cases we see brands are trying to buy internal confidence within their organization — maybe reducing anxiety in their organization with the board, or they find it easier to defend in a meeting or easier to explain.

I think it depends on who you're working with. In some cases it might be harder to explain to a board. We've been witness to some of those conversations too. Or they might be doing something like status signaling — being seen alongside other big brands or in culturally important moments signals that we belong. And so then it's less about the consumer and more about the category optics. So I think there's a lot. And I think there are brands too that are legitimately going after premium placements trying to drive immediate sales today.

Elena: A lot of different reasons for it and a lot of different ways they look at it. One thing that I was thinking about was that internal confidence that you mentioned. Is that a big driver of this? Because they feel like the board's gonna see it and it's gonna be so high profile and visible. Their friends are gonna see it. Does it feel like no one's gonna question it? Even if it's not the most efficient option or maybe the best option for the business? Does it feel just safer internally?

Angela: I think it might, to some brands. I also think that sometimes when brands are working with a limited budget, I think we're gonna talk a little bit more about this later, but they're like, well, I only have so much. So whatever I have, I really want to go big with it and make sure it has an impact. And there are breakdowns in that strategy too.

Rob: Remember the old line, "nobody ever gets fired buying IBM"? You probably don't remember that, but Ange, can you work with me on that one?

And I think that's a lot about how people can feel when they say, hey, I'm gonna go buy the Super Bowl. And you tell your board that and they're like, oh, that's great. That's safe. If it doesn't work, you can blame the creative, but the strategy sounds good. Nobody ever gets fired buying a Super Bowl spot. Versus taking that same budget, putting it in a bunch of things that maybe aren't as sexy and fragmented. And then you're like, ooh, that could feel more risky.

But I also think at the same time that's such an outdated statement, isn't it? Kind of ironic — nobody gets fired buying IBM, 'cause you probably would get fired if all you bought was IBM these days, right? So just because it feels safe doesn't mean it's gonna age well. We have to stay current on what does "safe" even really mean, and is just buying the Super Bowl actually really a safe bet?

Elena: Agreed. One thing I wanted to talk about, Ange, was just the cost difference, because I think a lot of marketers, especially when they haven't invested in something like TV before, they might not be aware of just the extreme cost difference between different types of TV. Because we've talked about how TV in general is a nice way to do costly signaling — you see any brand on TV and you automatically assume they must be somewhat legitimate. They've got an ad on television. So would you mind helping us break down the cost difference between these sort of premium high profile placements and then just a more regular — I know there are a lot of different types of placements — but more of a regular category?

Angela: There's a lot to consider there. Are you buying in the upfront? Are you buying scatter? And then these premium placements — so of course it depends a lot on how well you're buying your non-premium content, right? Some brands are paying $30 CPMs for their normal schedule. And so if they go out and pay $60 or $50, they're like, well, yeah, it's 2x. But you know, I'm in front of a lot more people. I'm alongside this content that I really like. Some brands are buying at $20, some at $10, some at $5 or less. So if you're buying your normal media in television — well, say between $3 and maybe $8 across linear and CTV — the cost difference can be easily 10x. So it's a really meaningful decision.

Elena: Yeah. It's almost like the better you're buying TV, the tougher it's gonna be to justify something like this. We talked a little bit about when marketers think about investing in this type of media. One argument I've heard a lot is seeing their brand in the context of a certain show or like premium content — and we've talked about that, the costly signaling. There are mixed feelings and the research on that. One other thing that the research brought up that I've also heard brought up is the context of the ad break itself.

So is there a difference when your ad or your brand is surrounded by different calibers of brands in the ad break itself? I'm curious, from what we've seen, have we ever seen that to be true? Because I know we do analysis sometimes to show brands, hey, here are the brands that surround you. Have we seen that influence results?

Angela: We haven't. No. We haven't seen any evidence that the brand surrounding an ad break meaningfully changes the sales outcome. We consistently see that what matters most is how many people you're reaching and what you're paying to reach them. So everything works at zero. We've said this before, and I think a lot of what we're dealing with here is you can run a study with 200 people and get one outcome in terms of how they feel or think about a brand when they see it's in this type of programming or around these ads. But even in the old days of consumer research, you would find that consumers would tell you that they might be more likely to buy A over B, and then in market that wouldn't actually play out. So it's a long way around the barn to get to a place of tying sales impact to ad placement and the context in which it exists.

Rob: Can we just spout off though, since we don't have any data, and say what's our opinion on this topic? And Elena's gonna go, "no," because we're about looking at the research. But I guess I would just assert — couldn't a case be made that if you wanna truly stand out, you could be in a pod full of other brands that are just like you with high production value? Wouldn't it actually be better — if you've got a great high profile ad — to be next to the My Pillow guy and maybe some dumpster fire of a local spot? You would stand out more in the pod. Because you could kind of think, geez, I want to go with the peers, I wanna be with the cool kids, I wanna be in the pod with all the cool brands. But to the point of the Super Bowl study, could that actually just bring it down versus, hey, the pod could matter if you are truly being memorable because you're different in the pod. I know we have no data to support it.

Elena: Yeah. I've usually seen marketers argue the opposite, like they wanna be with the nice brands. So that's an interesting take. You could almost think about it both ways.

Rob: I'm wondering if it's actually the opposite. And I don't know, it's just my opinion.

Angela: It's a theory. So you should probably cut it out of this podcast, because based on —

Elena: We do have data, like Angela was saying — we do have data that shows it doesn't really seem to make a difference.

Rob: Yeah, true.

Angela: Either way, I think whether you're against brands that you think of as lesser and therefore you're standing out more, or brands that you'd like to align yourself with being a little more premium, I don't think we have data either way to support that it helps or hurts.

Rob: That's a great point. We do have the data, and so far the data shows there is no effect. That's —

Elena: Yeah. So you probably don't need to overthink it. But as Rob just said, you could make a case for either, it feels like. So you could feel good about it either way.

Rob: Doesn't that feel like marketing? We can make a case either way.

Elena: Sad but true. Okay. Speaking of the data and what we've seen with our own clients, have there been cases where premium or high profile media genuinely performed better?

Angela: "Performed better" is the key point there. How do we define performed better? Here's what we've seen: premium or high profile media performs better when it delivers incremental reach to audiences that otherwise aren't watching TV. And so what I mean by that is it's reaching people that might be light or almost non-TV viewers. And if that is the definition of performance, and for some brands it is, then it can add real value. Outside of that, we don't see consistent evidence that premium context improves sales.

We have seen that response rates might look higher. So because those are in theory kind of fresh eyeballs, your response per thousand might look more advantageous. But usually — almost always, I would say — unless you're getting like a screaming deal because something goes unsold and you're able to negotiate a lower cost, once you factor in cost, performance usually falls to worse than your standard campaign performance looks like.

Elena: When do you think a brand should invest in that type? Because we buy it. It's not like we don't think it's ever worth it. How would you recommend a brand uses that sort of high profile media?

Angela: I think when it's additive versus substituting what you're doing today. So strategically, if you have an always-on campaign delivering efficient reach, it might make sense. If you're spending enough in TV that incremental reach is becoming harder and harder to attain — which probably depends on how efficiently you're buying — you've got brands that are spending $300 million in television that are capped out in terms of what they can reach in television, where a Super Bowl might matter. If you're buying really efficiently, you might be doing that for $50 million.

I think the placement reaches that audience that you can't efficiently access elsewhere, or at least in the video environment. The other things that I think of might be if timing is critical — so maybe there's seasonality, launches, maybe short competitive windows. Again, I would pair that with you've got a kind of always-on or mostly-on campaign running anyway. Those are some of the ways that we see where we're like, yeah, this could make sense. And assuming that we go about it the right way, it could be additive and therefore helpful to the brand.

Elena: So then what would be your biggest red flags if you were evaluating a brand's premium media spend that wasn't being done strategically?

Angela: I think sometimes, like I said before, sometimes you'll see brands that aren't working with a ton of television budget, and so they go straight to premium versus trying to be as efficient as they possibly can. Hitting the right people — of course we're about right reach, not just all reach — but just going right to that premium, and they think of it as, I need to go big with the budget that I have, versus it being additive to what they're already doing. Beyond that, there are good reasons that are very nuanced and individual to brands that might be tied to investor confidence.

There might be good reasons to do it where it's not necessarily measured by immediate sales or even long-term sales, but they're trying to signal something. We try to not be super binary on this. We are research-based, but we have seen that those outcomes can be really meaningful in terms of trying to raise funds for the organization or something like that. Could be — maybe not the Super Bowl, but there's a lot of premium content that's not the Super Bowl as well that it might make sense for.

Elena: Yeah, I was thinking too, even things like a premium influencer — maybe they invested in the company, or there could be many different reasons why a brand might wanna show their support or be associated with a certain influencer. Rob, let's talk about creative. Because one question I had for you is: if I'm a brand and I'm going to spend money on a premium placement, I'm just gonna do it — what do you think has to be true about the creative for it to be worth it? Do you recommend doing something like a celebrity? I mean, now it feels like every Super Bowl ad has a celebrity in it. Or having a certain creative quality or making a big swing — what is necessary from a creative standpoint?

Rob: I had a knock-down, drag-out debate on this topic with myself, because instinctually — and for good reason — when you're talking about premium inventory, you don't want to be the designated driver showing up to the frat party, right? You want to go in there ready to party. You wanna wear the right clothes to the Super Bowl, the Oscars, the season finale of The Bachelor, right? You need to be tuned up and ready to go and look like you're ready to have fun. Now that being said, high arousal creative doesn't mean high budget creative. We all love to point to the Coinbase ad a few years ago on the Super Bowl — looked like it cost about $12 to make and it broke their website.

So that was high arousal creative. That was smart creative. So I think it's probably not a big revelation to say: yeah, if you're gonna go to the party, you should bring some big thinking. Here's where I challenge myself though. Why is that supposed to be reserved for premium? If you're going to bring your smartest thinking all the time and not reserving it for some particular placement — so that's sort of where I fought myself on this question. Well, why? Why only for premium inventory? Especially if it's not about price, it's about thinking and creating memorable work. So absolutely bring your smartest thinking, not necessarily your most expensive thinking, but then go, gosh, is this just a premium placement idea that we're excited about?

Elena: It does pain me when brands spend a lot of money on a Super Bowl spot, and I know there could be reasons why they can't continue to air that spot, but it pains me when I don't see it for the rest of the year. I saw — I can't remember what brand it was — but a brand last year did a really nice job of building on their Super Bowl spot. Like, say you have a celebrity and you have a license for the Super Bowl but they won't let you use them the rest of the year. Could you still put some ads out there that are similar in vein to your commercial in the Super Bowl? Like, can you make it work harder? And that's a good point too — if you're going into TV, it is already a big stage no matter where you're buying. So maybe you should think about how do I have big swings in all my creative.

Rob: If what you're doing for the Super Bowl isn't extendable beyond that one event, you gotta really challenge your strategy. I mean, that goes against all the things we've ever talked about on this podcast, right? So in some capacity, how does that support the bigger ship — your brand strategy?

Elena: Yeah, that's a good point. Should you even pursue that idea if there's no way to continue it? Alright. If we could give marketers just one piece of advice, one rule of thumb about premium media versus more efficient reach, what would it be?

Angela: I would say it's just a redefinition of "go big" in my head. So we talked a little bit about the media cost side and, you know, if this premium placement is a trade off with you being able to get efficient impressions against the audience that matters for you, then that's not good versus "go big" being a really smart play that gets you a 10x advantage over doing it the quote unquote premium way. I would also say that if you're a brand that might be considering a Super Bowl placement three years from now, we should be thinking about that now so that we don't get to a place where it's time to do it and we're hiring a big celebrity and really departing from the distinctiveness that we've been trying to build. You're gonna take the big stage and there's gonna be a lot of people there and yeah, I get it — it needs to be sort of overdone probably, just because you do wanna get buzz.

If we can create some buzz around it, then that's helpful. So you might have to be a little more crazy during Super Bowl time or during premium placement time, during an NFC Championship or something like that. But let's think about that now so that we can carry whatever that campaign distinctiveness has been into that spot and dial it up. And then to Rob's point, when you're negotiating celebrity deals and things like that, we absolutely should be considering how to extend it for at least six months, if not a year. So that's just where the cost really grows — it becomes a really big decision.

Rob: Would you both agree — this kind of goes back to Ange — that there really is no such thing as bad media. There's only bad math. And you've mentioned everything works at zero. So is the idea of premium versus efficiency as a debate actually kind of a lie? It's not a question of strategy, it's a question of negotiation. If you're getting a good value and it generates an ROI, that's the math that supports whether it's a Super Bowl spot or a late night spot. Or am I off base? I'm throwing something out there, a little left field, but I'm curious to get your opinion.

Angela: I mean, I think there are big caveats that we would all agree with. Is there bad media? Yes. Like we're talking really not brand safe —

Rob: Brand safe. Yeah. Good point. Good point.

Angela: But I think there's a really wide definition of what brand safe media is, and there's a lot of untapped opportunity in that too. But yes, I think everything works at zero. Take the non-brand-safe stuff off the table, and if you've got data to support that — not just your hyper-targeted bullseye target, but secondary and tertiary influencers might be in the overnight, late night, early fringe, weekend, weekday — like if you go look at what Liberty Mutual is doing, there isn't a minute of the day that they're not airing. Overnights. Everything. That's how you grow — is reaching a lot of people that now know who you are, so that when they decide it's time to shop for car insurance or home insurance or whatever, they go to you.

Rob: Totally makes sense.

Elena: Ange made a good point, building on Rob's point, that if you're going to go there, it's kind of the same as dressing up for the Oscars. Like you might need to look a certain way, but I like the advice too of — if you don't have a base and a sort of always-on strategy, you can work your way up to stuff like that. But if you have the point of view that only that type of media is valuable, that's definitely not true.

And as we started this episode with — the evidence is even mixed on those extra effects you get from that type of media. They exist, but there's not definitive proof that that's the only media that's valuable for brands. That's just definitely not true. When we cover this topic, I think one challenge that marketers face too is that you're dealing with a lot of personal belief systems. So what do we hope CMOs walk away believing differently after listening to this?

Angela: From my viewpoint, premium becomes — not an afterthought, but it's like we go away from what we know to be true sometimes to do premium. We kind of jump out of the smart box and go into the emotion box. And to me it feels like premium could be done well if it's done at the right time and done effectively. It can be a part of the playbook, I guess is what I'm saying. Make it a part of the playbook versus: we've got a playbook and it's what's driving our business, and now we're jumping out of that box and going over and playing in the premium space. Make it a part of the playbook. It can be done really well and effectively.

Rob: Yeah, I guess I would double down on a little bit of what I said earlier as well, which is really, creativity is the real premium. And that doesn't mean it's an expense, but it means an idea. And how is that idea living in really meaningful media placements that matter based on cost? But creativity is the premium placement.

Elena: Alright, to wrap us up, we have a little game. It is titled "Worth the Premium." So I'm gonna give you a situation a marketer might be facing, and you can tell me either yes, it's worth the premium, or no, it is not worth the premium.

Rob: Do we have buzzers? Do we go at the same time? What are the rules, Elena? Because I wanna break whatever rules exist for games on this podcast. Which is whatever happens, happens. And we just go with that.

Angela: No rules. Got it.

Elena: No rules. Okay. First situation: my competitor just announced a huge live sports sponsorship and I'm worried I'm gonna be perceived as smaller than them because I'm not a part of it. So I'm gonna go ahead and partner with a smaller, more regional team near me.

Rob: Hell no.

Angela: Nope. I think if you're working with a limited budget — and the competitor that's bigger doing the live sponsorship, to me, whether they were or they weren't, it doesn't really matter. Like if you're working with a lower budget and you're a smaller player, we should try to outsmart them, and I don't think this is the right way to do it.

Rob: Yeah, I agree. Pivot to something you can own. Don't be the me-too in a cheaper car.

Angela: Yeah.

Elena: I agree with you. It's probably actually gonna be less effective because if they're already owning that space, maybe you should think about a different space you could own. Okay. Second scenario: I'm already spending $50 million a year on broad reach TV. I'm worried that I'm gonna max out my audience and I need incremental impact, so I'm gonna buy some more expensive NFL football inventory.

Angela: Yeah. I think I exposed myself earlier on this one. I would say this sounds like a scenario where it could make sense to do it. There isn't infinite amounts of reach in television, so it might not be $50 million — you know, depending on how effectively and efficiently you're buying. But we have a lot of brands that are in this spot where it might make sense.

Rob: You lost me at NFL. I just don't care. Sure.

Elena: Sure. All right. I'm an established brand and I wanna use a celebrity because most of my category is partnering with some kind of celebrity, and I'm worried that if I don't do it we'll feel less relevant.

Angela: Oh —

Rob: Nope. Nope.

Angela: No. I'd say maybe on this one — it depends. Like, are they using B and C celebrities and you have the opportunity to really take the stage and do it well? Are you in a financial spot that might make sense? Does it have legs to it? I'm overcomplicating this.

Rob: We're not distinctive if our point is doing something distinctive. Being another celebrity brand — come on, put on your thinking cap. Don't be lazy. Celebrities are an expensive easy button.

Angela: I'm with you there.

Rob: Challenge your team to be distinctive. A cartoon character, maybe.

Angela: I was just gonna say, maybe go the character route instead.

Elena: Definitely. Like if you're gonna choose a celebrity, there should be a strategy behind it, not just because other brands

Rob: all have one,

Elena: so I want one too. Okay. My brand tracks well in awareness, but poorly on consideration. I'm considering premium placements to elevate the perception and trust of my brand.

Angela: No data to support that one.

Rob: You've got bigger issues than media placement if you're dealing with this. Come on now, we gotta get into your message. You're not gonna solve that by running a Super Bowl spot.

Angela: Yep.

Elena: Yeah. That's probably more of a product and creative messaging issue.

Rob: Yeah. Don't try to buy your way to success on that one. Go do your work.

Elena: You actually might put yourself out of business faster if you do this, actually. That's what it sounds like. Okay. I'm in a category where trust really matters and premium environments feel more credible to leadership. So I'm gonna consider a spring sports package.

Rob: I don't know what a spring sports package is, so I'm gonna pass this one to Angela.

Angela: Those would be sporting events that happen in the springtime, Rob.

Rob: Like what?

Elena: America's pastime. Baseball.

Rob: Okay. Baseball. Got it. Yep. Ange, what do you think?

Angela: This feels similar to the last one to me. And I think internal politics and emotions and feelings a lot of times weigh very heavily on marketing teams in terms of what they should go do or not do. But at the end of the day, this is probably not a move that supports long-term brand growth in a way that couldn't be outdone by some of the things that we talked about earlier.

Elena: I agree. I also think there are better ways to do this, like — should I invest in channels in general that are more trustworthy, rather than having to go as far as that kind of investment? Okay. Last one. My category is highly seasonal and I only have a short window to make an impact, so I'm gonna buy some premium college football inventory around Black Friday.

Angela: Nope.

Rob: See, I'm in on this one.

Angela: Why are you in on this one?

Rob: I'm gonna assume college football happens around Black Friday, so I'm just assuming that's a thing. Like that's when they play football.

Elena: Yes, they are playing football around Black Friday. Yes.

Rob: Okay. And this is the one case where I'm going, okay, this is obviously a retailer. You gotta go big. And I can see the value in going big for a certain period of time. We've sold products where you make all your money in that one quarter, right? And you gotta put all the bullets in the chambers. So I can support this one, where I was against some of the other ones for vanity reasons or for whatever. This one feels strategic to me.

Angela: I guess the only way I could go with you, Rob, is if they're working with a massive budget and they're going to reach levels of reach that might make it make sense. But otherwise —

Rob: Is it expensive to run during these football games on Black Friday?

Angela: These are premium content.

Rob: These are big games. Okay. Got it.

Angela: I would put the —

Elena: People are watching them.

Rob: Right? And is this when they put like four legs of turkey on the — that's just that time of year. Don't they do that at the football games? They put like four —

Elena: After some NFL games they do that.

Rob: Yeah, they make that really ridiculous looking turkey.

Angela: I would put the vast majority of that budget into highly efficient reach — just get a ton of impressions in a very short period of time. Since you seem to — I would actually argue that if you're jamming media in a very short period of time, that's probably not right either, but that's for —

Rob: Good debate.

Angela: A different debate. Yeah.

Rob: And I'm gonna go with Angela on that answer, because I don't buy media. So Angela, I'm buying your answer.

Angela: I don't buy media either.

Rob: Well, you're smart at it.

Angela: Oh —

Elena: You're smart at it. My issue with it would be that — two different pieces of data and research we've seen. One is that when most people go to buy, like they're in the buying mode, they've already decided. So if you're trying to capture people right when they're purchasing, you might be too late. And then two, we've seen in our own data that a lot of these holiday buying decisions happen actually months before. So if you cut all your spend to that time period, I think that's a mistake.

Rob: Right.

Angela: Agreed.

Rob: Doesn't Marketing Architects buy media? I mean, I just — Angie said, well, I don't buy media, but don't you guys buy —

Angela: I meant me.

Elena: What do you mean "you guys"? You work here.

Angela: Yeah.

Elena: You try to act like Misfits and Machines is just — I mean, you can work here, so.

Angela: He has forgotten what we do over here.

Elena: Right.

Rob: Oh. Or you did.

Angela: Or I did. I don't even know. What do we do?