Lessons Everyone Should Have Learned From The 2022 Super Bowl As We Approach The Big Game on February 12
This year’s Super Bowl will be played between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Kansas City Chiefs on Sunday, Feb. 12 at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, home of the Arizona Cardinals, a team that will not be playing in the over-hyped so-called Big Game.
But as usual before the first snap of the ball there are many lessons that PR people and sports marketers should have learned from last year’s game and the 56 ones preceding it.
Among the lessons are three that that should be learned from occurrences that are always related to Super Bowl media coverage. They are:
Numerous articles detailing the injuries to football players – some telling about the tragic deaths and altered life’s caused by concussions, and
A bevy of pre-Super Bowl articles detailing the squalid off-the-field activities by players and other members of the NFL family, and
The other being the differing opinion of marketing experts whether the multi-million dollars commercials are worth the money. This year a 30 second commercial can cost as much as $7-millon.
But Super Bowl advertisers were probably most upset not by the repulsive actions of the Football Family but by a Seton Hall Sports Poll of 1,520 adult respondents with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent conducted February 4-7, shortly prior to last year’s February 13 game. Questions were asked only of those who said they would be watching the game. Asked if they were likely to buy a product advertised or watch a program promoted during the game, only 27 percent of the general population said yes. (That’s a much better outcome than my unscientific survey of people I know, none of which, including me, ever bought a product because of a TV commercial.)
The media coverage to the lead-up to the Super Bowl is similar to what flypaper does to flies – it acts as a magnet for negative coverage, which in many cases detail how playing football causes the death and life altering injuries of players.
But media lead-up to the 2022 game also included an abundance of articles detailing how the NFL (as do all sport leagues), team owners and networks have lovingly embraced betting from your couch. According to American Gaming Association research Super Bowl betting was expected to reach $7.6, billion, which includes bets by 18% of Super Bowl viewers, with an aggregate increase of 35% from 2021.
(“The results are clear: Americans have never been more interested in legal sports wagering. The growth of legal options across the country not only protects fans and the integrity of games and bets, but also puts illegal operators on notice that their time is limited,” said Bill Miller, AGA President and CEO. What Mr. Miller failed to reveal is that individuals who gamble are not playing on a level field. The house always has a mathematical edge over the player. Also missing form Mr. Miller’s upbeat comment was that the New York State Office of Mental Health said, “One in five problem gamblers has attempted or completed suicide and that the suicide completion rate among those with a gambling disorder are higher than any other addiction.” Also, a Public Health England study concluded that more than 409 suicides a year in England are associated with problem gambling. I heard a spokesperson for Draft Kings talk up all the different options a person had for betting on the Super Bowl, like betting on the coin toss, which team would score the first touchdown, etc. Two he didn’t mention was wagering on how many people would not be able to pay the rent after losing their bets or how many would commit suicide.)
At one time articles about the dangers of playing football mostly were limited to the lead-up of a soon-to-be-played Super Bowl. But that changed in the past few years and they now are published throughout the year.
Here are several from 2022.
On February 8, the New York Times reported a story written by Ben Shipigel about Tim Krumrie, a two-time All Pro, who played nose tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals, The story told how Krumrie wears a helmet-like device that transmits infrared light into his skull to improve blood flow to his brain; how before he goes shopping he takes pictures of what he wants to buy so he can remember them, and how he writes Post-its as reminders. It told how his wife Cheryl said, “He has stayed pretty steady. And I’m happy with that because there’s no getting better….there’s no making the brain right again.”
On February 9, the Times ran a huge story beginning on page one and continuing for a page and a half inside. It was headlined, “N.F.L. Accused of Failing to Fix How It Treats Female Workers.” The headline alone tells the story.
On February 13, Ken Belson authored a full page story in the Times detailing the tragedies suffered by members of the 1972 Super Bowl champions Miami Dolphins. The article told how chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.T.E.), the brain destroying disease caused by repeated hits to the head, led to the change in behavior of three N.F.L. stars and eventually resulted in their deaths.
On December 31, an article on line and in the Times print edition on January 1, 2023 told about how difficult it is to diagnose a concussion on the football field. It was headlined, “Without Updated Tools, N.F.L. Is Still Finding Concussions Too Late.”
Just a few of the 2023 articles were:
On January 3, in his Sports of The Times column, Kurt Streeter wrote about football players who were seriously injured a few days prior to Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin needing CPR on the field to restart his heart after a tackle.
On January 4, the Times DealBook (Business) column reported, “Violence is increasingly the focus as football participation rates fall. The N.F.L., which has set an annual revenue goal of $25 billion by 2027, has spent millions trying to shift the narrative from the more violent aspects of the game amid a string of high-profile player injuries. The league recently opened an investigation into the handling of a concussion suffered by the Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa; Hamlin’s teammate, the Bills cornerback Dane Jackson, was immobilized after hurting his neck in a game.”
On the same day, in an exceptional example of comprehensive reporting, the Times devoted more than a full page to the Damar Hamlin story. Two articles began on page one and the reporting continued for a full inside page in the main news section, covering the on-field incident that threatened Hamlin’s life, the brutality of football, Hamlin’s off-the-field charitable giving and the medical aspects of the situation.
Also on January 4, the Wall Street Journal devoted two stories that were related to the Damar Hamlin incident.
On January 11, an opinion article the Times published was titled “Football Is Deadly, but Not for the Reasons You Think” by Chris Nowinski, a former college football player who is a behavioral neuroscientist and the founding C.E.O. of the nonprofit organization Concussion Legacy Foundation. The essay told of the many retired N.F.L. players who were prone to heart and neurological disorders at an early age.
And on January 30, only hours after the Super Bowl teams were decided, the Times published a page one article detailing how difficult it is for seriously injured players to qualify for N.F.L. health benefits.
(Space limitations prevent me from listing more examples.)
Of course, no article about the NFL being both the “physical and addiction” league can be complete without mentioning its legitimate bookies partnership.
On February 13, Times Op-Ed columnist Ross Douthat opined on the legal betting situation, writing that the symbiosis between big time gambling and professional sports is now all but complete. A crosshead in the article read, “Society’s rules for gambling become more consistent but more socially disastrous.”
Of course negative articles about how players’ brains are wrecked and the newer concerns about people becoming addicted to gambling on football and other sports events is not new. But allowing gaming advertisements during telecasts of sports events, which allows people to wager from their couch, is still in its infancy.
A Politico article published on February 13, 2022, the day of the Super Bowl said, “According to the Wall Street Journal, the National Problem Gambling helpline (1-800-522-4700) received an average of more than 22,500 calls a month in 2021, up from a monthly average of 14,800 the year before. Problem gamblers carry an average of $55,000 in debt and more than 20 percent end up filing for bankruptcy.”
But stay at home gamblers, addicted and otherwise, got a reprieve from losing their money when bets on the Cincinnati Bengals - Buffalo Bills game, on January 2 (the one in which Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest) were voided when the game was cancelled.
As long as there has been a Super Bowl there has been a glorification of the advertising industries self-proclaimed superlative commercials that aired during the game. The adoration of those commercial are by the ad agencies that created them and the brands that paid multi-million dollars for a: 30 spot. (As someone who has been a participant in promoting mega sporting events for brands and games organizers themselves, I know that what some sponsors says publicly about the benefits of sponsoring are not what they thinks privately.)
But nevertheless, below are a few comments about last year’s commercials from less than unbiased individuals, some that made me wonder if what I was reading was an attempt at humor, that was missing from so many of the Super Bowl ads:
“It made sense to see health and wellness reflected in the Super Bowl ad roster following two years of a pandemic,” Air Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University,” was quoted saying in the February 14 Wall Street Journal. But some realists, including me, think that commercials attempting to make viewers laugh or care about their health are duplicitous when aired during the televising of the Super Bowl, an event long known to allow unhealthy junk food to be hawked to viewers at home, and also to cause serious injuries to the participants’ playing the game.
In the same article, written by Megan Graham, Lee Newman, chief executive of the Interpublic Group of Cos. advertising agency MullenLowe U.S., was quoted as saying, The ads delivered the tried and true approaches that have always worked in the game to entertain people and engage them and be effective. They’re babies, they’re puppies, and they’re big physical humor, cinematic productions, nostalgic music, and those sorts of things. In my opinion, “those sort of things” included ads that were devoid of humor, physical or mental, and left viewers wondering if the ad creators were attempting to show their creativeness at the expense of educating viewers about the benefits of a product. (More on this later.)
But perhaps the most ludicrous commercial alluded to in the article was an add comparing the recovery of an injured horse to the problems facing America. An ad titled, A Clydesdale’s Journey featured a horse becoming injured, then eventually recovering enough to run again, and concluded with the words, “In the home of the brave, down never means out.” Daniel Blake, group vice president of marketing for Budweiser and Value at AB InBev, was quoted as saying, “… the company wanted to use the Clydesdale as a symbol of strength and perseverance. I don’t think there’s any more unifying and hopeful message for Americans than reminding them that we always bounce back in this country.” (My good advice: If that horse is ever entered to compete in the Kentucky Derby, or even in a claiming race, don’t bet on it. Silly, you say. Not as silly as Mr. Blake comparing the fictional recovery of a horse to the nonfictional problems of the United States.)
My opinion of the commercials after sitting through their alleged humor that makes Saturday Night Live seem funny – and that’s difficult to accomplish –make me wonder if the individuals creating them were a bit high (not an uncommon occurrence in the ad business) is that I had a better time having root canal treatment, because after it was over it made me feel better.
Perhaps Tiffany Hsu, a media reporter for the New York Times business desk who focuses on advertising and marketing, said it most kindly when she reported on the Big Game commercials on February 14: “Companies aimed for laughs, though not always successfully.”
Her article included the following: “As states and sports leagues embrace sports betting, a surge of ads for betting apps has followed. The Super Bowl will showcase several commercials, including one from DraftKings involving a daredevil Lady Luck. Caesar’s Sportsbook filled its ad with actor JB Smoove as Julius Caesar, actress Halle Berry as Cleopatra and the Manning family of football stars as their dinner guests.
“The category is starting to play on a national level, whereas historically, based on the rollout of legalization, it was more of a local play,” said Jeremy Carey, the managing director of the sports marketing agency Optimum Sports. “Now they’ve gotten to a threshold where there’s efficiencies to be had on a national level.” What Mr. Carey failed to say was that the strategy of sports books was to entice individuals into becoming gambling addicts, who are “only one bet away from hitting it big or getting even” or that a research study by Academics at Lund University, Sweden, who monitored more than 2,000 people with gambling disorders, found significantly elevated risk of suicide among participants compared with the general population over an 11-year period. The study found that suicide rates increased 19-fold among men between the ages of 20 and 49 if they had a gambling problem and by 15 times among men and women of all ages. Or that an article in Behavioral Health News said that “problem gambling has the highest suicide rate among all addictions.”
After every Super Bowl marketing experts ponder the same questions: Is the money spent on an ad in the Big Game worth it? And are the commercials attracting the desired audience?
Of course, ad agencies, whose bread and butter comes from producing Super Bowl commercials, and their brand clients are always going to say the ads are worth the considerable cost. But unbiased marketing experts aren’t so sure.
Spencer Ross, an assistant professor of marketing entrepreneurship and innovation in UMass Lowell’s Manning School of Business, where he co-directs the Manning Behavioral Research Hub, wonders how many members of Generation Z, who were born between 1997 and 2012, and are about 20% of the U.S. population, will be watching the commercials, some costing $7 million for 30 seconds of airtime.
Prof. Ross, an authority on digital marketing, branding and consumer engagement with new technologies, says: “I feel like the question we need to ask is where is Gen Z in all of this? I've been speaking with students informally in class about their media consumption habits over the past year and I’ve been seeing a bit of a collapse of interest in TV watching. I don’t know that shared cultural moments like the Super Bowl are as resonant with them and I’m wondering if we’re going to see more engagement through social media,” Ross said.
24/7 Wall St., a financial news and opinion company, reported, “It can be extremely hard to gauge the effectiveness of television ads, especially in comparison to targeted online advertisements that can be backed up with plenty of data.” In addition, “While the price of ads has gone up, Super Bowl viewership has continuously gone down for more than five years straight,” reported 24/7 Wall St. (Which might explain why some former Super Bowl advertisers decided to skip the Big Game and advertise on digital media.)
An article in the September 26-October 2 Sports Business Journal by Terry Lefton quoted David D’Alessandro, the former CEO of John Hancock. Said Mr. D’Alessandro, in part: “A fair amount of sports sponsorship has always been questionable to me.”
“What I’d really want to know is what would my share be if I didn’t do this sponsorship and what else could I be spending the same money on with a more definable return,” he said. “CEOs should demand bottom line measurement – or no deal.”
“…I’d be thinking, can I put the same money into the best digital and social marketing talent instead? That’s where consumers under 35 are getting most of their information,” he said.
But there was a bit of good news/bad news for NBC and its advertisers: Viewership of last year’s game increased about 14% over the previous year’s match. However, there was also more than a bit of bad news for at-risk viewers: “The Super Bowl is the biggest single day for American sportsbooks, and this year didn’t disappoint,” said Chris Grove, a gambling-industry analyst at research firm Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, adding that the level of sports betting around this Super Bowl cemented it as a mainstream activity for sports fans in the U.S. “It seems like legal U.S. sportsbooks will easily eclipse a billion dollars in total wagers on the game,” he told the Wall Street Journal.
Also a March 1 Wall Street Journal article was headlined, “Super Bowl Audience Larger Than Estimated.” That was more good news for advertisers. The bad news was that the story said “As many of 208 million Americans watched “some or all’ of the game,” meaning that brands that spent more than $5-million on ads might fall into the none viewing “some” category. Oh, well. Since the N.F.L has endorsed gambling, brands might as well spend several million dollars on a bet that viewers were watching when their ad was shown.
For many years, I was the PR agency liaison with two major ad agencies – BBD&O and Y&R. The PR agency was told that a major BBD&O client was going to sponsor a new series and I was sent to preview it. After watching the program, the ad agency account supervisor said, “What do you think of it, Arthur?” “I think we can get a lot of space for it,” I replied. “No, not the program. Wasn’t it brilliant how we worked in the selling points of the new commercials we created for the series,” was the response. What was missing from too many of the Super Bowl commercials were selling points, and also a lack of humor in those attempting to be funny.
For people with a life, by that I mean human beings who did not follow the Olympics or the Super Bowl, both televised by NBC during the week of February 13 and promoted as a “Once in a Lifetime” experience. My take-a-way from that experience was that the only thing that could be more excruciating than watching all the commercials on both events was to listen to IOC president Thomas Bach and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell make back- to- back speeches.
Oh, in addition to the ads, there was also a football game. Who the teams were and who won really doesn’t matter to the brands that paid up to $7-million for 30 seconds of mostly lack luster commercials. The only people who really care who won the game were the players and team owners involved, fanatical fans and people who bet on the outcome. However, for the record, the Los Angeles Rams defeated the Cincinnati Bengals 23-20.
Last year’s Super Bowl was played on February 13, right in the middle of the Beijing Olympics. Both events received continuous negative media coverage. And, perhaps, they provided the most important lessons that PR persons and sports marketers should learn and remember: No matter how prestigious an event and how much money is spent to promote it there’s no way to limit negative coverage, and in the case of the “proud sponsors” of the Beijing Olympics they became part of the story and their PR arms were unable to limit the damaging coverage.
