View Comments
5th Feb 10
Jonathan Cavell
I bet I know what you’re going to be doing on Sunday. It’s Super Sunday and two high-powered offenses with star QBs are going to be playing in the biggest pro football game of the year. You’ll be watching it with a cold beer and your buddies or over fondue and a dinner party. I won’t be. If the NFL wants me to watch the Super Bowl, they had better put the Steelers in it. However, even I can’t bury my head in the sand far enough not to hear about the commercials. A few thoughts about the technology commercials (or lack thereof) and the whole Tim Tebow thing:
- I looked at the speculated list of advertisers in this year’s Super Bowl and noticed a few things. Only one advertiser (Cars.com) is a dotcom, though GoDaddy, Monster and e-Trade should probably still count.
- The only one that looks interesting from a social-media perspective is one for Motorola’s Motoblur. It’s interesting that a phenomena that’s as pervasive as social media will only show up once.
- (Warning: About to get on my soap box) There is much debate over the fact that Tim Tebow will be appearing in a 30 second anti-abortion spot. I don’t believe CBS should censor commercials either (as long as they’re ok with the FCC). The Christian Right’s money is just as green as anyone else’s. However, I do find two things sad about it. The first is that the Christian organization (Focus on the Family) that is sponsoring the commercial can’t find anything better to spend their $2.6 Million on. The second is that Focus on the Family is a legal 503(c) organization, which means donations are tax deductible. If we assume the national average tax rate is 20% (I have no idea what it actually is), then $520,000 of that Super Bowl commercial that 50% or so of America doesn’t want to see came out of the US Government’s pocket.
- As I mentioned, I don’t believe that CBS should be censoring commercials. With that in mind, I find it disturbing that they won’t allow a gay dating site to advertise during the Super Bowl. Are we saying that a pure issue-based commercial on a sensitive subject is more acceptable then a for-profit commercial on a sensitive subject? It should be illegal to turn down $2.6 Million based on the content of the commercial (unless of course it is banned by the FCC).
Bonus:
- The folks at SI took a look at the best Super Bowles ever. The Steelers’ wins come in at XLIII (#8), XIII (#4, which includes a great picture of a ticked off Tom Landry), and XIV (#2). I provided direct links to the Steelers wins so that you don’t have to see those of our arch enemies.
