who will win the super bowl? and who will lose?

Discussion in 'General' started by fruitality, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. it costs 4 million dollars for 30 seconds of tv advertising during the super bowl.
    the NFL makes money, FOX makes money, and advertisers make money when you buy their shit.
    you spend 4 hours watching tv, FOX sells YOU to the advertisers (Ford, Coors, Budweiser) for a profit, you are treated to several hours sports and advertising, then YOU pay the 4 million back when you purchase beer or cars. 
    so who REALLY wins a super bowl?

    • Like Like x 2
  2. Whichever team is more stoned Happy toking ✌️
  3. Who gives a shit? Those guys did life right and we get the Super Bowl. Everybody wins. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
    • Like Like x 1
  4. #4 fruitality, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2014
    lol! you think you win? the brainwashing is so complete that you are getting killed and you are begging for more.
    wall st journal wrote that the ball is only in play for around 11 minutes during a typical 3 hour football game.
    \naround a third of the time is commercials. (which consumers pay for in the form of higher priced products)
    \nthe rest is just the players standing around or in huddle, (paid again by you in the form of your cable bills, football tickets, and merchandise) 
    \ni hope you really enjoy those 11 minutes for 16 times a year.
  5. Simmer down Turbo...who do you think wins GC?

    It's all for advertising. Buy shit, sell shit, shit the bed, round and round we go.

    I bet alcoholism and traumatic brain injury win though.
    • Like Like x 2
    you evaluate who wins by who gets what.
    for example, if i buy a steak for 50$ the restaurant wins, but i also win because i ate that steak.
    in football, the flow of money is obscure enough that many people do not even realize they are paying. and they receive almost nothing in return.
  7. Did you watch that youtube video on the AlexJonesChannel, or from infowars? I did, it made a damn good point. I'm with you bud.
    We do
    It's good to have things in life that bring you pleasure
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Death wins every time. gg.
  10. Are they not receiving entertainment?

    Some folks like to watch sunsets or cartel decapitation videos....some wanna see burly dudes in tight pants and flamboyant shirts/headdresses smash each other into dementia
    • Like Like x 1
  11. #11 fruitality, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2014
    well its the trade off between the entertainment and what they pay too.
    yea you can say entertainedness is not a real word and subjective, but how much is 11 min of entertainment worth?
    a movie is 100 minutes costs 20$
    that's .2$ per minute or you can watch the sunset or decapitation vids for free. 
    superbowl = 75 minutes of ads for 8 million per minute, 100 million viewers.
    that's 6$ per person for 11 min of game time. this does not count the component you pay for cable. this is assuming budweisser doesn't make a profit. (obviously if they invest 1$ they expect more than that in return, so the real cost is way higher)
  12. I will win, you will lose. 
    • Like Like x 1
  13. I don't think I won lol I think the suits won and I will one day be a suit so I hope to become a Winner one day. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
  14. Advertisements are everywhere, I'm not sure I'm getting your point.  I hope the Seahawks win.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. #15 nativetongues, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2014
    Wow, you mean sporting events and tv's advertise to people and they subconsciously buy their products as a result, shocker. I don't see why everyone who doesn't enjoy watching the Super Bowl feels the need to take a shit on it. It's a game and sometimes they're interesting, sometimes they're boring, end of story. If you're someone with half a brain you don't buy products based on what dumb animal they put in their commercial.Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
  16. SeattleDonkeys'Too blessed to be stressed'
  17. #17 sky dog, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2014
    An article on Forbes' website reports that the average cable bill (excluding Internet and telephone) was $86 in 2011. Over a 30-day month, that's $2.87 per day. Since football games are mostly aired on network television, even those with basic cable can watch the games. Say basic cable is $20 per month (and that's a generous estimate), that's still less than a dollar a day.
    Advertising rates are affected by the number of people watching. That's why a fly-by-night company that makes collapsible hoses can air a commercial for two full hours at 3 AM on a local channel. It's also why Coca-Cola will spend millions for sixty seconds in prime time on network TV. If a company has to increase the price of their product to offset their expenditures on a television ad, well, that sucks but I doubt it'll be enough that I even notice.
    If I were at the stadium shelling out thousands for a ticket, hundreds for a parking pass, and untold dollars on beer, snacks, and souvenirs, then I'd agree. Few life experiences would be worth the money that gets spent on a trip to the Super Bowl. But when my out-of-pocket expense for the game is about fifty cents (that's $2.87 for a day of cable service, divided by 24 hours, and multiplied by the four hours spent watching the game), that's hardly getting taken for a ride. Yeah, add in food and drinks if you want, but come on. 
    Bottom line is that advertisers know they're guaranteed to reach the largest television audience of the year during the Super Bowl. If they have to pay exorbitant sums for a commercial but they know it's going to reach the maximum number of eyeballs, they'll pay it. And now because of the Internet, if they have a particularly good ad or just a zealous PR agency, there will be buzz for days or weeks about the commercial.
    It sounds like OP's argument is that there is no budget allocated for Super Bowl advertising and that the entire cost of the commercial is passed on to the consumer. Maybe the $6-per-viewer figure is spread out over the course of a year until the next Super Bowl. In which case, if I spend six extra dollars on Coca-Cola this year, I can't imagine that amounts to much more than normal inflation.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. #18 fruitality, Feb 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2014
    im saying the cost of advertising is ALWAYS passed to the consumer. if budweiser has advertising budget of x dollars, it is budgeted with the intention of net positive present value.
    the cable bill is a per month figure not a "per unit of entertainment" figure. and i think that 20$ is not very representative, since the ads are targeted towards people with buying propensity, so even if people paying 20$ a month watch the superbowl, the marjority of buying is shouldered by wealthier people that pay 200 to 300 a month
    even if you are not at the game, and even if you are not watching, the end result is a flow of money, so every party partially participates.
    I just don't think there's a way to reasonably quantify that
    It could be the Super Bowl with the latest HD production quality and the highest paid athletes or it could be a rerun of Gunsmoke from 40 years ago, all I've done is turn on my TV. If you pay a flat rate for cable service, it doesn't matter what you're watching. If all I watch is HBO for a month straight, I pay the same as if I never turned my TV on at all.
    I get that there is business being done regardless of whether you care about the Super Bowl or not. I just think that taking those figures at face value, if there were a theoretical cost being passed on to the consumer, it ranks somewhere along with getting a Canadian quarter in your change.
  20. I am a seahawks fan but could give a flying fuck who wins or if it even gets played. Fuckers win by shithouse luck half the time.
    I would rather be on a sunny beach in Mexico eating fish tacos and listening the the waves.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page