Sunday night I was talking this over with someone and we were debating the issue (during half time, of course. While I'm not really into football, I do know better than to try and have a little chat during the game); he was defending it and I was pointing out the flaws.

Now I'll grant that the potential is there to reach many people, but I think there's far more evidence to suggest that getting an ad during the Super Bowl ain't everything its cracked up to be. Personally, while I did catch snippets of the game itself, I didn't catch any of the ads at all. Of course, I realize people actually watching the game probably did see lots and lots of ads.

However, think about all the dotcoms several years ago. They banked everything they had for an ad during the game, and they got screwed of the very. I'd say that's pretty stong evidence all by itself that paying for Super Bowl ad space is completely insane.

Therefore, I honestly wonder why companies continue to pay such insane prices - 2.6 mill for a pitiful 30 second ad. Outrageous, especially when it appears to be such a crap shoot. So why do they do it?

Were the failures for the dotcoms just a fluke? Somehow I really don't think so, but it IS possible. So, outside of those poor companies, does advertising during the Super Bowl truly increase sales/profits for most? (color me skeptical) Or are the companies simply continuing to buy ad space because they've been deceived into thinking it will really help? When in fact it isn't really that likely to truly make a difference.

Seriously, I would honestly be interested in knowing how many companies have ponied up only to find themselves being screwed. I don't believe it is only those plunky dotcoms.