Lnanaa
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
I have not been here for a while and there may have been a thread elsewhere about it already, if not, I just thought someone would be interested in this article which makes me feel pretty annoyed with these advertisers. :roll:
- Article 3: Super Bowl Advertisers Ignore Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Persons
By Cheryl Heppner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editor: Some things clearly make perfect sense the minute you
see them; some are uncertain; some clearly make NO sense. The
captioning of television advertising clearly falls in the third
category. Television ads are amazingly expensive to produce, and
the cost to purchase time on the major networks is astronomical,
especially during events like the Super Bowl. Not captioning any
television ad is economic insanity, and that goes triple for
Super Bowl ads.
The cost to produce a 30-second television ad is tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost of broadcasting that
ad during the Super Bowl was $2.4 million. So for something like
$2.5 million dollars, an advertiser's message was available to
about 117 million people (Of the estimated 130 million who
watched it, an estimated 90% or 117 million were able to hear
and understand the spoken message.) That's a cost per consumer
of about two cents.
The cost to caption that 30-second commercial is about $250, and
the captioning makes the commercial accessible to the 13 million
people who are unable to understand the spoken message. So how
many of these consumers does the advertiser reach for the two
cents he spent on a single hearing consumer? You better sit
down! The answer is over 1000! By that measure, the return on
the money an advertiser spends on captioning is over 1000 times
the return on the money he spends on producing and broadcasting
the commercial! Yet, less than half of the Super Bowl
commercials were captioned!
OK, enough from me. I'm getting off the soapbox, and Cheryl
Heppner of NVRC is getting on. Here are her thoughts from the
February 12 edition of NVRC News.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For me, part of the whole spectacle of watching the Super Bowl
each year is seeing what cool, crazy and creative new
commercials will appear. In my opinion, if they are going to
interrupt the main event so often, they should be spectacular.
It's hard to judge the quality of the ads I saw during the 2005
Super Bowl. I was stunned by how many did not have captions; it
seemed like far less than last year. I felt like I was at a
party where I largely saw the jokes and didn't get the punch
line.
captions.com confirmed my impression on Monday. Each year they
monitor the commercials during the Super Bowl to tally which
have captions and which do not. Their website claims that a
30-second commercial costs $2.4 million, and the cost to caption
an ad of that length was just $250.
I took a look at their list, and sure enough there were more ads
without captions than with them. Ford and Pepsi both had four
commercials and didn't caption any of them. Doesn't it make you
wonder if their marketing people are really ignorant, or whether
they don't think we have any buying power? Or perhaps their
advertising agencies aren't very savvy?
You can find the list of who's been bad and who's been good at:
http://www.captions.com/superbowl_content_frame.html
captions.com has provided links for many of the advertisers on
the list so you can praise them or chide them.
- Article 3: Super Bowl Advertisers Ignore Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Persons
By Cheryl Heppner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editor: Some things clearly make perfect sense the minute you
see them; some are uncertain; some clearly make NO sense. The
captioning of television advertising clearly falls in the third
category. Television ads are amazingly expensive to produce, and
the cost to purchase time on the major networks is astronomical,
especially during events like the Super Bowl. Not captioning any
television ad is economic insanity, and that goes triple for
Super Bowl ads.
The cost to produce a 30-second television ad is tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost of broadcasting that
ad during the Super Bowl was $2.4 million. So for something like
$2.5 million dollars, an advertiser's message was available to
about 117 million people (Of the estimated 130 million who
watched it, an estimated 90% or 117 million were able to hear
and understand the spoken message.) That's a cost per consumer
of about two cents.
The cost to caption that 30-second commercial is about $250, and
the captioning makes the commercial accessible to the 13 million
people who are unable to understand the spoken message. So how
many of these consumers does the advertiser reach for the two
cents he spent on a single hearing consumer? You better sit
down! The answer is over 1000! By that measure, the return on
the money an advertiser spends on captioning is over 1000 times
the return on the money he spends on producing and broadcasting
the commercial! Yet, less than half of the Super Bowl
commercials were captioned!
OK, enough from me. I'm getting off the soapbox, and Cheryl
Heppner of NVRC is getting on. Here are her thoughts from the
February 12 edition of NVRC News.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For me, part of the whole spectacle of watching the Super Bowl
each year is seeing what cool, crazy and creative new
commercials will appear. In my opinion, if they are going to
interrupt the main event so often, they should be spectacular.
It's hard to judge the quality of the ads I saw during the 2005
Super Bowl. I was stunned by how many did not have captions; it
seemed like far less than last year. I felt like I was at a
party where I largely saw the jokes and didn't get the punch
line.
captions.com confirmed my impression on Monday. Each year they
monitor the commercials during the Super Bowl to tally which
have captions and which do not. Their website claims that a
30-second commercial costs $2.4 million, and the cost to caption
an ad of that length was just $250.
I took a look at their list, and sure enough there were more ads
without captions than with them. Ford and Pepsi both had four
commercials and didn't caption any of them. Doesn't it make you
wonder if their marketing people are really ignorant, or whether
they don't think we have any buying power? Or perhaps their
advertising agencies aren't very savvy?
You can find the list of who's been bad and who's been good at:
http://www.captions.com/superbowl_content_frame.html
captions.com has provided links for many of the advertisers on
the list so you can praise them or chide them.