Last word on these Super Bowl ads. You will now read dozens of defensive articles about why the dot-com ad spending made sense. You will read about dramatic percentage gains in hits, page views, whatever, vs. previous times. You will learn about astounding comparisons.
And it will all be wrong. And meaningless. And stupid. But what journalistic outlet can afford to be critical about ad spending? Oh yeah, church and state. I hear you. Get a life.
Join the discussion on
Message Boards. In fact, the only justification for the ad spending at all is because of all of the articles written about the advertisers by the sycophantic press. That's the hidden CPM that the advertising agencies are now justifying these absurd buys by.
Understand, as someone who has scrutinized these dot-com ad budgets nine ways to Sunday, if you are going to blow a quarter's worth of ad spend -- and that's what it amounts to for most of these guys -- on a 30-second spot, you better quintuple your regular users, because otherwise the money is a huge waste. Anyway, what are you comparing it to, some other insignificant Sunday for
? The "payoff" articles are so bogus as to make my blood crawl.
Let me level with you. I know how to get a one-time spike in page views. Heck, I was born to spike page views before there were page views!
This is not the way to do it.
James J. Cramer is manager of a hedge fund and co-founder of TheStreet.com. At time of publication, his fund had no positions in any stocks mentioned. His fund often buys and sells securities that are the subject of his columns, both before and after the columns are published, and the positions that his fund takes may change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. Cramer's writings provide insights into the dynamics of money management and are not a solicitation for transactions. While he cannot provide investment advice or recommendations, he invites you to comment on his column at