Nerd Alert: When Sports Advertising Works

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Marketing Architects

Episode Title: Nerd Alert: When Sports Advertising Works
Date: November 13, 2025
Hosts: Elena Jasper & Rob Demars

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Marketing Architects explores the effectiveness of advertising around major sporting events, drawing insights from the academic study "Going for Gold: Investigating the Nonsense of Increased Advertising Around Major Sport Events" by Martin J. Heisenberg. Elena and Rob break down fresh research findings on when sports event advertising does—and doesn’t—work, challenge assumptions about "big game" ad buys, and translate nuanced academic concepts into actionable insights for marketers.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Assumptions about Sports Advertising [00:04-01:36]

• Opening Banter: Elena and Rob joke about their “nerd alert” credentials and their approach—demystifying research for practical use.
• Rob’s Initial Gut Feeling:

  “I don't think it's an all in strategy to go all in on the Super Bowl… but if you're a massive brand and you can afford it and it's a part of your marketing mix, it can certainly be impactful.” [01:14, Rob]

2. Introducing the Research Study [00:43-01:36]

• Study in Focus:
  Going for Gold explores whether increased advertising around sports events (e.g., Super Bowl, Olympics) is genuinely effective.
• Core Question:
  Should brands really ramp up ads during big sporting events?

3. Key Findings from the Study [01:36-04:55]

• Surprising Truth:
  Despite massive audiences, advertising effectiveness actually drops before and during major sporting events.
  • Short-term sales impact can fall by more than half.
  • Long-term branding effects also fade.
• Two Main Reasons Identified:
  • Clutter: “Every brand piles in, which creates more noise, less cut through, it's harder to be noticed.” [01:54, Elena]
  • Distraction: “The excitement of the event means people are paying more attention to the game than the commercial. So while the audience is big, the ads themselves work worse.” [01:59, Elena]

Study Methodology [02:18-03:12]

• Data: Four years of weekly UK panel data, 206 brands, 64 categories.
• Model: Error correction model separating short-term and long-term sales impacts.
• Event Timing:
  • Outside event period (baseline)
  • Two weeks before event
  • Event week
  • Two weeks after event

Which Timing Works Best? [03:12-03:52]

• Rob Predicts: Two weeks before the event will be most effective.

  “I was thinking that two weeks before the event would be the best because you had the benefit of the hype.” [03:16, Rob]

• Reality: Opposite result.

  “He found that ads were actually the least effective before and during events… The best time was actually the weeks after the event.” [03:41, Elena]

Effectiveness by Numbers [03:52-04:55]

• Short-term elasticity:
  • Normal weeks: 0.009
  • Before event: -0.004
  • During event: -0.006
  • After event: slightly improved from event week
• Long-term elasticity mirrors the same pattern.
• Even indirect benefits (halo effects from competitors’ ads) “dried up” during these periods.
• Brands with massive share of voice (e.g. FIFA sponsors) could “overcome the clutter,” but only with huge spend.

4. Takeaways for Marketers [05:00-05:52]

• Don’t follow the herd:

  “Just because every brand is advertising during the big game doesn't mean that it works. Effectiveness often collapses under clutter.” [05:16, Elena]

• Pick your moment:

  “Ads work best in the weeks after events when the clutter clears, but consumer attention is still elevated.” [05:22, Elena]

• If you go in, go big:
  Incremental spending gets lost; making a splash requires serious share of voice.
• Perfect Metaphor:

  “Advertising during a major sports event is like trying to talk at a concert. The music's blasting, everyone shouting. And no matter how loud you yell, nobody hears you unless you grab that mic and own the stage.” [05:41, Elena]

5. Practical Implementation Questions [05:52-08:33]

• Rob’s Clarifying Q:

  “I don't understand what it means… to be connected to the event after the event. Isn't that just basically saying when you normally advertise is more effective than when you advertise before and during a game?” [05:52, Rob]

• Elena’s Response:
  She agrees it’s tricky—after the Super Bowl, for example, there aren’t related games, but it seems linked to market clutter and media cost dropping post-event, making advertising generally more effective.
• Rob’s Practical Take:

  “If you can't afford it, you should… you have better ways to spend your money.” [08:23, Rob]

• Elena’s Final Advice:

  “If you're only focused on short term sales effectiveness, you probably want to ramp up your spend after events like this, not before. Maybe focus on times of years that are less competitive. …It must extend to all media…” [08:33, Elena]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The best time was actually the weeks after the event.” [03:52, Elena]
• “Effectiveness often collapses under clutter.” [05:16, Elena]
• “Advertising during a major sports event is like trying to talk at a concert… nobody hears you unless you grab that mic and own the stage.” [05:41, Elena]
• “If you can't afford it, you should… you have better ways to spend your money.” [08:23, Rob]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:43 – Introduction to the study and big question
• 01:36 – Key findings: Why effectiveness drops (clutter & distraction)
• 03:12 – Which timing is best? Big surprise in results
• 03:52 – By the numbers: short- and long-term elasticity
• 05:00 – Takeaways and advice for marketers
• 05:52 – Practical questions about “after the event” advertising
• 08:23 – When it makes sense to invest elsewhere

---

Summary

This episode dismantles the common belief that more advertising during major sports events always equals more impact. Instead, research shows most brands overspend during these high-clutter, low-impact periods—and often gain more by focusing media investment after the noise has settled. To truly win around sport events, either "go big or go home," or save your dollars for quieter times when your message cuts through.

Recommended for marketers rethinking sports ad strategies or defending their budgets from event-based FOMO.

Transcript

[A]

Nerd Alert.

[B]

Learning is important, right?

[A]

Yes, exactly. What a bunch of nerds.

[B]

Nerd alert.

[A]

Marketing Architects. Hello and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Elena Jasper. I run the marketing team here at Marketing Architects. And I'm joined by my co host, Rob demars, the chief product architect of misfits and machines.

[B]

Hello.

[A]

Hello. We are back with your weekly Nerd Alert. Every week I'll take a deep dive into academic marketing research and translate its complex ideas into simple, understandable language for Rob, and of course, for all of you. Are you ready to nerd out, Rob?

[B]

I just finished AB testing my excitement level and it's a winner. So let's do this.

[A]

Perfect. Let's get into it. This week I read a study titled Going for Gold, investigating the nonsense of increased advertising around major sport events. This is by Martin J. Heisenberg, published in the International Journal of Research and marketing in 2014. The paper asked a big question. Is it really smart for brands to ramp up advertising during sport events like the World cup, the Olympics or the Super Bowl? But before I get into the paper, Rob, what is your gut instinct? Do you think marketers should ride the wave of major sporting events?

[B]

Not if they want to reach me, but in general, you know, what if it makes sense for the brand? I mean, we've talked about this on the podcast before. I don't think it's an all in strategy to go all in on the super bowl, but if you're a massive brand and you can afford it and it's a part of your marketing mix, it can certainly be impactful. But I. I've never believed it's an all in strategy.

[A]

This study, I think, aligns with how you're feeling and I found it super interesting. So I think you're going to find some of these findings surprising. Yeah. So these events, we all know they drive massive audiences. But the research shows that advertising effectiveness actually drops before and during the events. So short term sales impact can fall by more than half and even long term effects take a hit. And there's two big reasons why. The first is clutter. Every brand piles in, which creates more noise, less cut through, it's harder to be noticed. And distraction. The excitement of the event means people are paying more attention to the game than the commercial. So while the audience is big, the ads themselves work worse. All right, so here's how the study worked. The researchers used four years of weekly panel data in the UK covering 206 brands across 64 consumer packaged goods categories. So that was everything from snacks and soft drinks to personal care and household products. Then he modeled the relationship between ad spend and sales using what's called an error correction model. This method separates short term elasticities, which are those immediate effects of advertising on weekly sales, and the long term elasticities, which are the new those cumulative. Cumulative effects that unfold over time as advertising builds memory and brand associations. To isolate the impact of major events, he defined four conditions. The first was outside the event period. So those are just normal weeks. Then he had two weeks before an event, the week during the event, and the two weeks after the event. Rob, take a guess. Which of these do you think was the best time for ads to drive sales and which was the worst? How would it land around the sporting event?

[B]

I feel like my gut's going to be wrong based on what you've already said. But I was thinking that two weeks before the event would be the best because you had the benefit of the hype that's going on. But you don't. But it's more cost effective than when you're trying to advertise during the event. And after the event, it's the party's over.

[A]

You'd be wrong. But that's.

[B]

It's the exact opposite, isn't it?

[A]

Kind of. So yeah. He found that ads were actually the least effective before and during events. When excitement and clutter were at their peak. The best time was actually the weeks after the event.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

When the buzz. Yeah, it kind of lingered, but the noise had quieted down. And he does put numbers to it. So if we looked at short term elasticity, so that's that sales left side in normal weeks, that's outside of the event, it was about 0.009, but it dropped to negative 0.004 before events, negative 0.006 during events, and only slightly improved after events. So that was like more than a 50% loss in effectiveness when it really mattered the most. And if we looked at long term effects, there was a similar story. So in normal weeks, long term elasticity was 0.014, but it fell to negative 0.007 before and negative 0.006 during events. After the event though, it rebounded close to baseline. Even the usual category lift from competitor advertising weekend. So normally if Pepsi advertises, Coke might see some sort of halo effect from their competitor advertising the category. But before and during events, even those spillovers dried up. Interestingly, there was one path to success. Brands that dramatically increased their share of voice over. Single sporting events like the FIFA World cup sometimes overcame the clutter. So their ads, they still dipped in effectiveness during the event itself, but they gained a bump before and after. But if you want to get that advantage, you have to spend a lot. So what does this mean for marketers? First, don't follow the herd. Just because every brand is advertising during the big game doesn't mean that it works. Effectiveness often collapses under clutter. Pick your moment. Ads work best in the weeks after events when the clutter clears, but consumer attention is still elevated. If you go in, go big, incremental spending won't cut it. To break through, you need a real share of voice advantage, especially if you're in a high fit category like beer, snacks, or soft drinks. For a raw GPT, advertising during a major sports event is like trying to talk at a concert. The music's blasting, everyone shouting. And no matter how loud you yell, nobody hears you unless you grab that mic and own the stage.

[B]

All right, Elaine, I need your big brain on this one. So I understand what it means to advertise before a big game, right? Like, hey, the big game's coming. Go buy your Bud Light. Right? And I get what it means to advertise during an event. Hey, it's the big event. Bud Light makes it all better. I don't understand what it means, though, to be connected to the event after the event. Like, how does that. So is it like, hey, you still, you know, get rid of that hangover with your Bud Light? Like, what does that mean, practically speaking, versus just going back to your normal baseline of advertising? Do you get where I'm going with that? Isn't that just basically saying when you normally advertise is more effective than when you advertise before and during a game? Do you get what I'm saying?

[A]

I do get what you're saying. That's a good question. And I was actually thinking the same thing. It's like, easier to think about for something like television, I guess you see a lot of advertisers putting out super bowl commercials prior to a big event, like prior to the Super Bowl. Then obviously the super bowl itself is like the big spot, the big show and then. But you don't see many people, like, continuing forward with it afterwards, so maybe. But it is a good question. Cause I was thinking about that too. Like with the super bowl, when the Super Bowl's done, there's not, like, NFL games anymore, so.

[B]

Right.

[A]

They're done.

[B]

Yeah. So what is the baseline after? Is it just your normal Advertising and then is that a really an. A fair comparison?

[A]

I guess what this found was like your, your advertising effectiveness drops before and during major sporting events. And this has to do with. This is not just tv. It's like just advertising investment in general. But after it, it rebounds. You know what I bet it is, Rob? Okay, this is what I bet.

[B]

I'm ready.

[A]

I bet it is that we know that there are certain times of the year in television where it's probably a better time to launch TV because there's less competition, prices come down. That has to be what it is.

[B]

It has to be.

[A]

Because if you think about that, it's most cluttered during, afterwards a lot of drop off market. That's when you want to. That has to be what it is.

[B]

That has to.

[A]

Everything works at zero, Rob. It's everything. Back to how, honestly, I mean, it has to be. That has to be what it is if you're a big brand. And also we're not saying that the super bowl is a waste of money for every brand. I think it can be smart and there are benefits. Absolutely. For brands. But if you're feeling like, man, I'm missing out on that. This shows that it's, it is so cluttered, it's going to be more expensive.

[B]

It's a very big lever to pull, but it shouldn't be your only lever that you pull. So if you can't afford it, you should, you have better ways to spend your money.

[A]

I understand there are a lot of reasons for brands to have you buying those types of earrings that go beyond just short term sales effectiveness. But if that's what you're only focused on, you probably want to ramp up your spend after events like this, not before. Maybe focus on times of years that are less competitive. We buy just TV here, but it must extend to all media. Kind of peaks and valleys of the year, I would think.

[B]

Makes a ton of sense.

[A]

That's it for this episode of the Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Taylor De los Reyes for producing the show. You can connect with us on LinkedIn and if you like the podcast, please leave us a review. Now go forth and build great marketing. Marketing Architects.