Close Super Bowl Boosts Ad at End

An ad right after a suspenseful game made a bigger impression on viewers than ads during the game. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Advertisers will drop $3.5 million for a 30-second spot during Sunday’s Super Bowl. But to get the most bang for their buck, they might want to play their ad right after the game ends—not during it. Because if it's a close one, the time slot right after the final gun should have the most sway with viewers. So says a study in the Journal of Advertising. [Colleen C. Bee and Robert Madrigal, It’s Not Whether You Win Or Lose, It’s How The Game Is Played: The Influence of Suspenseful Sports Programming on Advertising (forthcoming, no link yet)]

Researchers had 112 undergrads watch old college basketball games. Half saw a suspenseful match; the others, a landslide win. And each game had four randomly-inserted ads: two halfway through, two at game’s end.

Turns out the brand advertised right after a suspenseful game made the biggest impression on students. The authors say that's because a viewer's arousal builds during the game. And after a win, all that excitement gets transferred to the ad. But only if the ad itself is thrilling—like a dramatic Nike ad they played. A dull Sudafed infomercial fumbled in the same slot.

And it doesn’t matter whether you’re rooting for the Patriots or the Giants, either. As long as there’s a nail-biter, that final ad may be poised to score a touchdown.

—Christopher Intagliata


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The above text is a transcript of this podcast,] 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe