CommonGround: Political news and analysis by Chuck Raasch, Gannett national writer

If Super Bowl ads were designed by political consultants

By CHUCK RAASCH, Gannett National Writer
February 09. 2010 4:18PM

WASHINGTON - Sunday's annual Super Bowl ad competition was low on laughs for viewers accustomed to talking frogs and football-playing Clydesdales.

Imagine how worse it could have been if political ad makers had been in charge. In response to Snickers-maker Mars, which ran a funny ad with aging actress Betty White getting "tackled" while playing football in the mud, a rival candy company following the political advertising model might have run an ad that said: "Mars - so desperate to sell their candy bar they're willing to abuse the elderly." Or "Mars - down in the mud, against old people."

The first Super Bowl foray into advocacy politics, the much-anticipated Tim Tebow spot by Focus on the Family, was tastefully done. It affirmed a life choice, but was not smackdown political. Some pro-choice voices protested, but in reality the ad could also be seen as a subtle affirmation of their position.

If you followed the Focus on the Family Web link from the ad, you would have learned that the former Florida Gator quarterback Tebow really loves his mother, who ignored doctor's advice and carried the 2008 Heisman Trophy winning quarterback to full-term during a difficult pregnancy.

Who would doubt this woman's choice? Yet couldn't different circumstances present different choices for others?

Forbes estimates that the NFL gets roughly $2 billion a year from TV contracts, which the networks cover by selling advertising. Double that over the course of a two-year political campaign and you roughly match the $4 billion that some think could be spent on advertising in the 2010 political campaigns.

Wells Fargo Securities recently projected political ad spending of $3.3 billion. Others think a recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations and unions to spend money to elect or defeat federal candidates could add hundreds of millions more.

Some warn that the court's decision will open a wider spigot for special interest money, further eroding Americans' confidence in their government. Others applauded the decision as an affirmation of the First Amendment.

But corporations with shareholders or companies with well-known brands may be reluctant to jump directly into the political arena. Michael Jordan once famously said he did not take political sides because both Republicans and Democrats bought his shoes.

Is the problem with political advertising volume and spending, or the content itself? Shredding the integrity, morality, patriotism and intelligence of an opponent are staples of political advertising.

Mark McKinnon, a veteran political media strategist who has worked on the last three Republican presidential campaigns, argues that the Supreme Court decision "will result in a complete arms race" of campaign cash, with very little transparency and donor disclosure. He said the Tebow ad is an example: Focus on the Family is not disclosing the estimated $2.5 million it cost to run two pre-game ads and one during the game itself.

But McKinnon hit only part of the point. Focus on the Family did not attack abortion rights supporters, it argued FOR something.

During the first hour of the Super Bowl, Focus on the Family got 50,000 unique viewers on its Web site, 40 times a normal Sunday evening. Within 24 hours it had sold an additional 5,000 subscriptions to its magazine, "Thriving Families," according to Lisa Anderson, director of media and public affairs.

It did so without attacking anyone's integrity, patriotism, or beliefs. It was controversial, and people saw different things in it. But that's politics.

Contact Chuck Raasch at craasch@gannett.com, follow him on Twitter or join in the Facebook conversation.

 

©, Gannett ContentOne

Advertisement