Even though officially I was rooting for the Indianapolis Colts, that was a very enjoyable Superbowl game. Both teams really deserved to be at the game and it was, overall, very well played.
But wow were many of the commercials I saw awful. (To be fair, I was making Lester LeBlanc’s jambalaya and was distracted as well by my children. I missed many ads.)
Anyway, we were midway through the first quarter when my husband and I were aghast at the misogyny and the portrayal of men as bumbling idiots. Now that I’m a mother, I actually worry about the messages some of these advertisements impart. They teach children that woman’s only value is sexual and that men can only resent women, not respect them. One ad actually took the position that adult behavior (e.g. picking up after one’s self) is so odious and emasculating that it means men can fight back by picking out their own mid-level car. Sad.
To be sure, there were some positive messages in commercials — this Dove ad portrayed men in a positive light and this Google ad strongly supported marriage and children — but by and large advertisers seemed to be aiming for an audience of subliterate haters of ladies. But hey, I’m married to a man who values me more than his tires (yep, one company actually tried to sell tires by having a husband choose them over his wife).
I actually think that respect between the sexes is an important topic fraught with religious ghosts. My own views on the respect that should be accorded to men and women are religiously based and my religious tradition encourages strong men and women and encourages the sexes to honor each other. But I doubt we’ll see much discussion of whether advertising should aim higher than this year’s Superbowl advertisers did, much less whether such a discussion would include religious voices.
The Associated Press wrote up an overview of the commercials with a much more favorable view. Marketing reporter Emily Fredrix said the overall message of the advertisements was humor:
The commercials got off to a funny start Sunday night on CBS, with companies like Anheuser-Busch and Coca-Cola going straight for chuckles. … But not every commercial was strictly humorous. Automaker Toyota aired several pregame ads to reassure worried owners after its recalls connected with accelerator problems.
And a commercial by conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, perhaps the most anticipated ad of the night, hinted at a serious subject although it took a humorous tone too. Heisman winner Tim Tebow and his mother talk about her difficult pregnancy with him and how she was advised to end the pregnancy — implying an antiabortion message — but ended with Tebow tackling his mom and saying the family must be “tough.”
Um. Wrong. You can view the Focus on the Family ad above. Tebow and his mother do not talk about her difficult pregnancy or how she was advised to end it. It didn’t end with Tebow tackling his mom but that did happen in the middle of the 30-second spot. Speaking of, how hard is it to correctly report on a 30-second commercial? And you’d think the reporter would be highly incentivized to report accurately, considering that hundreds of millions of people watched the ad. There was also a pre-Superbowl ad featuring the Tebows. But that ad doesn’t mention abortion or advice to end a pregnancy either. You can view that one here. Our colleague Brad apparently watched “the rest of the story” at the Focus web site and even there, he said, the discussion was about the special plan God had for Tebow’s life.
Here’s the actual text of the Superbowl ad, if you’re interested.
The New York Times didn’t mention the ad in its wrap-up piece but the advertising reporter did write extensively about it in his live-blog of the evening’s ads. It’s apparent that he comes to his job with a particular angle. He, oddly, praised one ad that suggested pics of hottie Megan Fox could be so steamy as to come between gay lovers (he said it was an example of “inclusion” as opposed to the “exclusion” marked by CBS refusing to sell advertising to gay dating site ManCrunch.com.). But I thought this excerpt from his description of the actual Superbowl ad was interesting:
The spot was slick and well done; a casual viewer might not have any idea it was from an organization as opposed to abortion as Focus on the Family. It used a production style and tone that is typical of Oprah Winfrey: upbeat, seemingly free of ideology, including chirpy music.
The appearance of the spot has opened a debate on whether advocacy and issue ads belong on a Super Bowl, which has become an unofficial midwinter American holiday. If the answer is yes, there may come a time when watching the Super Bowl will be like watching TV in a swing state like Ohio or Florida the Sunday before a presidential election, with commercials taking sides showing up every couple of minutes.
Now, I know that other advocacy and issue ads aired during the Superbowl. This political ad for Rick “The Nerd” Snyder ran in Michigan. Here in DC, we got one from the Employment Policies Institute decrying the national debt.
And yet even though actual Superbowl viewers have been treated to actual advocacy ads all the time (even if sold through their local networks), this seems to be the meme that folks are running with. Here, for instance, is Yahoo! Sports’ Jay Busbee saying that until yesterday, all Superbowl ads stayed very far away from the “charged worlds of politics, religion and morality.” I would argue that all marketing and consumption decisions are moral decisions but even if you don’t take such an expansive view, I’m sure we can all agree that Superbowl ads (mini-movies, really) frequently deal with moral issues. This Audi ad that aired yesterday, for instance, took on the environmentalist movement even as it touted a pro-environment message. Moral and political messages, there.
The Yahoo! article raises some interesting questions about whether Tebow can be an effective spokesman in the post-Tiger Woods-scandal world if he only appeals to pro-life consumers. Many of the questions raised would make for good articles:
Certainly, one of America’s most fundamental rights is that every organization has the right to speak its piece. And if said organization happens to have the millions necessary to buy airtime during the Super Bowl, there’s a valid argument for allowing them to do so. But what about the many millions who look at the Super Bowl as an escape from the thorny political and moral issues of the day, who want nothing more than to watch some football and laugh at a few amusing ads along the way? Should money and political ambition trump the original purpose of the game? Do we need to have moral and ethical discussions involved in every corner of our lives? Or is that exactly what we need?
You know, I’m not sure I see much of a difference between being treated to ads featuring the objectification of women, the emasculation of men, and the glorification of consumerism — and issue advocacy ads. Fact is, I might prefer the latter, no matter who they’re from. Still, it’s funny to see so many in the media treat the former advertisements as pure and holy and the latter as somehow corrupt.
What were your favorite ads? Have you seen any good or bad media coverage of the Superbowl ads, paying particular attention to moral or religious issues?
 | Posted at 5:06 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (18) |
February 8, 2010, at 12:07 pm
The Tebow/Focus ad was really much ado about nothing. Tacking his mom was weird, but nowhere near the hue and cry that NOW raised.
How come NOW didnt protest women stripping or half-clad girls in beer commercials?
I blogged about this here:
http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2010/01/super-bowl-ad-tim-tebow-christian.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 12:11 pm
If this post were a Facebook note, I would “like” it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 12:31 pm
I agree with David that the Tebow ad was a fizzle if people were expecting a shot in the culture wars. Considering all of the controversy pre-game about the ad, I was wondering if the ad was toned down compared to all of the hype about what the ad was going to say. At our Super Bowl party, someone suggested that it was toned down, and the driving force behind toning down the message was Tim Tebow’s agent, who was worried about his marketability. If the ad was toned down, I think it would make for a good journalistic piece to explore why.
As far as Superbowl ads, I appreciate Mollie’s take - I hadn’t really thought about the memes in the ads and I think David is also right in questioning why NOW wasn’t protesting the blatant misogyny being advertised. (Or is that part of the experience “designed to bring Americans together”?)
Finally, my favorite ad was the Betty White Snickers ad, although I guess it could be considered age-ist. (Poor Abe Vigoda!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 12:46 pm
Thank you, Mollie, for pointing out which ads really were controversial. It never ceases to amaze me what idiocies people will perform for beer even before they’ve filled themselves up with it (at least according to the ads that are supposedly trying to encourage us to buy their brand).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 1:30 pm
Given the state of what advertisers find works, the successful pandering to our lower natures which we find in full flower in commercials says something about where we are as a nation. I would like to see more coverage of this larger issue in the media, of course, but that’s asking media organizations to bite the hands that feed them (even PBS).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 1:45 pm
Since I did not, never have and never intend to watch the Super Bowl, I depended on journalism to tell me about the ads. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Focus on the Family ad lacked sharpness as an anti-abortion message, which sharpness it gained second-hand from the campaign against it; and the tizzy over the rejected ManCrunch ad has brought hundred of thousands of hits to view it on the Internet. So the new media rule.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 2:41 pm
David and Jonathan S.— well, of course NOW did and does protest those things. No need for the snide remarks. (Or do you just assume they are hypocrites because you don’t like them? For heaven’s sake, that kind of thing is NOW’s bread and butter.) The lead on their webpage is still, today, the live “Jock-ocrisy Watch” they did, which was supposed to be a play-by-play of sexism and bias in Super Bowl ads.
But misogyny in Super Bowl ads is not news, nor is NOW protesting it. The Focus ad was new and much higher-profile— because abortion is high-profile, because Focus has never done this before, because Tebow is a famous but polarizing figure, etc.. The story was getting covered by both the blogs and the mainstream press before NOW and the other organizations were even issuing statements (as far as I can tell, the news about the ad broke around 1/16 and was covered broadly and the statements from organizations like NOW showed up a week or so later…)
Now as for ManCrunch— does the media have an obligation to cover what is so obviously a ploy for free publicity? There’s no way ManCrunch ever expected to have that ad accepted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 3:06 pm
Clever name, Liz.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 3:18 pm
The ads for this year’s Super Bowl had to be among the trashiest of all super bowls. Dumb guys, bimbettes and a bimbette who flashed racy photos on her phone - wow. I did like the Cydesdale and the bull - apparently Budweiser’s apology for the Bud Lite adsm I hope.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
February 8, 2010, at 3:31 pm
Chris— yeah, I used to get teased. just my actual initials, though, and sadly I turned out straight.
Seems to me like Focus won this battle— lots of free publicity, an ad that makes people go “aww. what was the fuss about? those over-sensitive feminists”. I want to read a story on what NOW etc. thinks about how the PR battle played out (and whether they regret their course of action). Of course instead Terry O’Neill is complaining about the “domestic violence” in the ad, which just comes off as desperate IMO!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
February 8, 2010, at 6:21 pm
Thanks for bringing up the issue of what’s to be included in “morals”.
As a retired lawyer, I’m very aware that I could get my license pulled for matters of “moral turpitude”. That’s describes what was traditional involved in “morals clauses” for contracts and various scandals. Here’s some of what Wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude
That’s a pretty good description of a secular sense of “morals” that is from a California court case. Why does much of the press limit “morals” only to be things related to sex?
Wikipedia has a long list that describes offense thought to be and not to exhibit moral turpitude - from the Department of State relating to activities meriting deportation.
Here are the main categories
Crimes against property involving fraud or evil intent
Crimes against the government
Crimes committed against person, family relationships and sexual morality [includes Abandonment of a minor child (if willful and resulting in the destitution of the child)]
Attempts, Aiding and Abetting, Accessories and Conspiracy
“Morals” seems to take in a lot of territory beyond sexual misbehavior. What sticks out in the list is trustworthiness, truthfulness, dangerous of persons, serious disregard of others’ safety and rights.
Perhaps “morals” came to be associated primarily with sex when advertising of books and movies with sexual themes became so sleazy in the 50s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 6:24 pm
With all the media controversy, FOCUS wouldn’t even have needed to pay to run the ad.
Think about it. Rather than spend several million dollars for a controversial ad spot in the Super Bowl, just produce the commercial (which is fairly cheap to do), then make sure everyone knows you were “going to run it,” but decided (for whatever reason) not to do so; then make sure the ad shows up on YouTube, where it will get lots and lots of views. Boom: you’ve just spent a few thousand dollars getting massive coverage of an ad that you never even paid to have run.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 6:24 pm
Should have read that one over before submitting.
Wikipedia has a long list of actions thought to exhibit moral turpitude, along with others that don’t reach that level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 6:24 pm
Frankly, our family could have done very nicely without the near naked men in underwear ads—“oooh Gross!” was the youth comment.
It was the very worst year for Super Bowl ads all around. …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 7:48 pm
I agree that the ads were the worst (at least that I’ve seen) in my lifetime (22 years).
Also, the Audi ad was way more truth in advertising than I’d like to see…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 8:20 pm
The Audi ad was the best, and hopefully Cheap Trick got a nice royalty for the twist on “Dream Police”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 8:30 pm
That’s disingenuous to say the least. The meme is that the network airing the Super Bowl has not accepted issue ads before, and their decision to do so involved accepting one from a pro-life group while rejecting another one that they thought some viewers might see as being pro-homosexuality. Everybody loves a story about hypocrisy. If CBS had run an ad from a liberal interest group, the controversy would have surely been much more muted.
I also wonder if Focus on the Family changed the ad after the controversy. If they did not, I don’t know what they were thinking. Why would anyone bother to go to their website to hear the rest of that story? It seems like it would have been a big waste of money without the controversy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8, 2010, at 11:56 pm
Obviously, they were counting on it being controversial for some people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0