http://nypost.com/2014/12/08/kate-up...re-age-trailer
im sorry 40kk, still way off your suggestion of 1kk for Neeson.
Plus if you take into account they could have just gotten any blonde with nice cleavage to play the part, they still paid 40kk for her. In this case, they had to have Neeson or the Taken parody wouldn't have made sense. At minimum Neeson costs 5-6kk
either way, Super Bowl commercials arent there to really generate more sales.
Of course they are, why do you think commercials exist?
Who would spend upwars of a possible $20kk for 60 second commercial?
Obviously Supercell, that's a few days of revenue for them.
If you weren't into mobile gaming, it wouldn't have made you download it. If you are into mobile gaming, chances are you've already heard or seen (much cheaper i may add) commercials for it. It's usually suggested to anyone looking for games to download because its a top grossing app in the App Store.
No, Super Bowl add are a statement of your success as a company. To say your company had a sweet Super Bowl commercial is bragging rights on its own. And to have a celebrity endorsement for it adds icing to the cake.
Why not both (generating more sales and a statement of success)? You do have a point for more established companies like Budweiser, but I doubt 10% of the people that know Budweiser as a company know Supercell.
as far as knowing how parody works, chances are of two things. They didnt quote directly and could pass without having to pay a licensing fee or they did to prevent any problems. Parody on shows like SNL gets away with it because its for entertainment purposes. This was a commercial selling a product, not just for entertainment. It changes the rules a bit.
Entertainment is also a product and is being sold in an SNL sketch.
Either way, it was a funny commercial that we cant deny costs a lot of money!
hopefully theyre able to focus back into new content soon!
More new people, more nerfing. "So new players have a chance to catch up" SC.