If you aren't already doing something on Sunday night, February 3, there's a new network reality show you might want to see. The working title is Burning Money, and the premise is that 63 major global corporations will take turns trying to find the most interesting way to light a pile of $2.7 million on fire in 30 seconds.

Ludicrous, you say? Ok, you got me — I made that up. But have you ever wondered if that's essentially what advertisers who pay for a 30-second spot on the Super Bowl are doing? Are they really getting $2.7 million (yes, that's the correct amount) in effective, outcome-focused marketing?

Since I work at a marketing agency that believes in being good stewards of our clients' budgets, I can't help but wonder if perhaps that $2.7 million might be better spent targeting 2.7 million ideal customers with a direct mail piece? Or maybe buying 5.4 million Google adword impressions on search terms that are in line with their business? Or even taking 27,000 prospects out for $100 dinners?

Advertising on the Super Bowl has grown to become an event in itself, getting nearly as much attention as the pigskin action. But I've seen precious little documentation to show that the piles of money thrown at a few precious seconds during a game (that will be forgotten just days later) is the most effective means of marketing a company or a product.

Don't get me wrong. The commercials are great entertainment, and we may think fondly of the company sponsoring the ad. But we've all had the experience of recounting our favorite commercial during the Monday-after water-cooler discussion, and using phrases such as "remember that one with the beaver and the sky diver, I think it was for some insurance company, or maybe a bank..." (Check out this quiz about recent Super Bowl commercials and see how many YOU remember.)

And just how many of those viewings and retellings — and even the free publicity on pre- and post-game news programs — result in John Q. Public switching insurance companies? Or Jane Doe moving her deposits to another bank? Precious few, I surmise.

The media seems to recognize this disconnect with after-the-game polls that determine which ad was the most "memorable." While I think that's great, I postulate that what would be truly telling would be a study that would correlate the "memorable" commercials with sales increases at the 1-day, 1-week, and 30-day mark. I fear that the relationship would be tenuous at best.

(In fact, one of the companies that produced a very "memorable" Super Bowl commercial is no longer in existence. Does anyone recall who it was that seemed to think shooting small rodents from a cannon was the ideal way to increase sales for a particular dot-com company?)

Of course, there are exceptions. Apple's 1984 spot, widely credited as starting the creative revolution in Super Bowl commercials, was a piece of genius that led directly to a highly successful product launch in a category that many Americans didn't even know existed — personal computers. One could argue that the brilliant creative AND strategic mind behind the spot, one legendary Lee Clow, was the reason that ad was successful.

And GoDaddy won't let you forget that their risqué series of teetering on-the-edge-of-a-wardrobe-malfunction models is almost solely responsible for exponential growth in the web hosting market. (Oh, that, and that little thing they have about super-low prices.)

But for the Chevrolets, the Budweisers, the CareerBuilders, the Allstates (or was it State Farm? Or Nationwide? Or Farmers Insurance?) out there, the Super Bowl looks to me to be just another creative exercise not directly tied to results.
Maybe I'm being overly simplistic here, and I'm sure there are dozens of valid arguments about why the Super Bowl IS the best place to blow $2.7 million or more. Let me say that I really do enjoy the commercials almost as much as the game. (I might even be moderately disappointed if companies started taking my advice and looking at their Super Bowl expenditures as I'm suggesting here.)

But creativity has a place, and I believe it's firmly rooted in sound strategy. If your company's marketing strategy will not be helped by spending piles of money to MAKE a commercial that may or may not get "remembered" but will cost you even more piles of money to SHOW, then maybe the Super Bowl isn't for you.

And the same thing applies to much more down-to-earth marketing questions. Do we really need to put an ad in that trade publication? Does it help us reach our core market? Or would targeted direct mail be better? Just because "everybody's doing it" doesn't mean we should — I'm sure we all remember our parents' admonition well.

So, enjoy the Super Bowl, and enjoy the creative bonfire of tens of millions of corporate dollars. And if Mark Burnett ever does take me up on my reality show idea, I'm sure he could sell some major product placements to match companies and lighter fluid manufacturers.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.