More Videos
- These Poker Stories Are No Bluff
- Did Matsui Make Contract Money Last Night?
- Adidas Out At UCF After MJ's Son Wears Jordans
- If Yanks Win, Merchandise Will Fly Off Shelves
- Final World Series Games Big Money Makers
- What I Got Wrong About Keflezighi
- Marathon's Headline Win Is Empty
- New Cubs Owner Tom Ricketts Goes One-on-One With "SportsBiz"
- Roger Federer Signs With Chocolate Brand Deal
- Marshall Fogel: A Collector's Profile
RSS FEED
- Tamminen: Why Does Oklahoma Want To Drown New York?
- Food Network, HGTV Drive Scripps Networks' Upside Surprise
- Tommy Lee, Medical Tourism and Nasty Santa, Your Emails
- U.S. Markets Gain 3% for the Week Despite 10.2% Unemployment
- Disney's 'Carol' Tests Widest 3-D Release Ever
- Stimulus II? Jobs Tax Credit=Cash For Clunkers
- Rockwell Automation Earnings: What Options Are Saying
- Gold Will Touch Higher Lows and Higher Highs: Analyst
- Is Misery Alive And Well in Your Office?
- US Health Care Reforms Face Tough Path in Senate
- Obama Delays Start of Asia Trip to Attend Memorial
- BofA Board in Civil War Over Lewis' Succesor
- For the Jobless, 10% is Harder Than Before
- Week Ahead: Stocks Search for Catalyst in Quiet Week
- Outlook: Dollar to Ride Higher on Bleak Jobs Report
- Geithner: More Stimulus, Not a Bank Tax
- Cramer: Earnings, IPOs Dominate Next Week
- Windfall is Seen as Bank Bonuses are Paid in Stock
Sports Biz
Text Size 
 |
CNBC.com |
] 60-second ad would cost approximately $5.4 million. (They definitely paid less than that for a first quarter ad, by the way.) As of 9:30 am this morning however, that ad apparently has cost Under Armour $596 million. That's about $10 million a second, for those that are counting. Why? Because largely on news of this ad, the stock has plummeted from $42.08 at open yesterday to a $29.80 open today (last time it closed below 30 was March 15, 2006). So that's your $596 million loss, folks.
A Super Bowl ad must really have a negative connotation because there's not much more news on Under Armour to report that would cost this stock to go down so much. In fact, the company said yesterday that its 2007 will show net revenues up 40 percent to $605 million--better than its previous projection.
 |
Sure, Under Armour officials admitted that they'd be frontloading their advertising this year to help promote their cross trainer that comes out in May, but the ratio the company is spending on advertising (12-13 percent) will not change throughout the year and that type of spend is normal for this industry.
If you don't believe this company can make it in Europe, fine. If you don't believe this company's cross trainers will be successful, fine. But to penalize UA so much for a Super Bowl ad? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Questions? Comments?
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes