Two major health systems decided to capitalize on the millions of viewers, purchasing television advertisement slots during the big game.
However, those ad slots did not come cheap. A 30-second ad slot during the football game runs an average of $7 million to $8 million, according to a Feb. 8 report from The Sporting News.
While over a 100 million Americans likely viewed the advertisements, run by New York City-based NYU Langone Health and Charleston, S.C.-based MUSC Health, some physicians have publicly doubted whether these ads were the best use of system finances.
Brian Gantwerker, MD, a neurosurgeon at the Craniospinal Center of Los Angeles, told Becker’s that the system may face questions moving forward over how it chose to spend its money.
Question: What are your thoughts on health systems running ads during the game?
Dr. Brian Gantwerker: I believe that, just like physicians, health systems are supposed to be good stewards of healthcare. We are all responsible for spending money responsibly. Obviously, NYU knows that advertising during the superbowl will get a lot of eyes on their product. The unfortunate thing is, the same people who pay for these ads then turn around and tell nurses and workers at hospitals they can’t afford to give them a raise, or they cannot afford to pay them more. To me, that is not good stewardship, not good business practice and a very short-term and myopic way of looking at how you deal with your workforce.
You have to lead by example, and spending $8 million on a Super Bowl ad, even when you are a regional, and successful, healthcare entity, you need to think again about how you spend your money. If this was a publicly traded company, they wouldn’t be looked upon so kindly to be advertising nationally when a majority of the country does not use their services. That’s not to take away from their reputation, but it is not money wisely spent. It will also reflect poorly to their talent and talent they want to acquire.
People may be looking at jobs at these systems and they’ll get an offer, and they’ll look at the offer amount and say, “You can afford $8 million on a one-time advertisement, but here I am asking for X$ and you can’t afford that.” If you amortize the costs of what it costs to hire anyone, from nurses to people who paint the door frames, the work there because they love it. If you amortize the cost of hiring someone who is good, it is better than spending $8 million on a Super Bowl ad.
It shows a general feeling that the system doesn’t care about you. Going forward, I think health systems should be smarter about how they are spending their money.
Q: Do you think these ads are an effective marketing strategy?
BG: This is something that will come back to bite them. It is something I would say will be looked at very very poorly. While on face, it’s amazing that a healthcare system can afford $8 million to be on the most watched program on TV the whole year, it shows a lot of chutzpah on their part to justify spending those kinds of dollars. Is it a good use of money? Maybe. Will it increase their overall profile in the nation? Debatable. Does it show how poorly they can spend $8 million? I think so. I think it will really be problematic for them in the future, and people who work there will be asking questions. If they can afford to spend $8 million, why can’t they afford new computers, or new technology? Those things would offer a much better return on investment than spending $8 million on a national TV ad slot as a regional health system.
