Lessons That Sports Marketers, And Everyone, Should Have Learned From The 2020 Super Bowl As We Approach The 2021 Game

Arthur Solomon

As usual, there are many lessons for sports marketers and their communications arms to consider after a Super Bowl — the National Football League’s really big overly-hyped, overly- expensive advertising and publicity gimmick and overly-hyped football game. But the 2020 game added a new tutorial that I call the “Robert Burns Effect.”

Burns, as I’m sure everyone in the communications business knows, because they all majored in English, instead of easy PR, marketing or advertising courses, (sarcasm intended), is the legendary Scottish poet famous for his “To a Mouse,” which contains the lines, “The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men Gang aft agley.” (All you PR majors who never took a lit course know what the translation to English is because it’s famous. Right?)

Several days prior to last year’s Super Bowl, the tragic death of Kobe Bryant provided important lessons that sports marketers, ad agencies and PR practitioners should always remember: Like the mouse in the Burns poem that failed to find shelter from the December winds, one unexpected event can cause disarray among sports marketing plans.

Feared of being labeled insensitive because of Bryant’s death, some marketers hurriedly announced changes to their Super Bowl promotions. Ad Age reported thatsome Super Bowl advertisers paused their marketing efforts in the wake of Bryant’s death. Several brands, including Procter & Gamble’s Olay held back making public its Super Bowl creative. Planters, whose Super Bowl campaign centered on the death of its spokescharacter Mr. Peanut, also said it waspausing all campaign activities following the news, reported. Jeanine Poggi, Ad Age’s senior editor, on January 27 (2020). In addition, on January 30, Nat Ives reported in his CMO TODAY Wall Street Journal column that marketers had to make cuts and edits in their commercials.

Another lesson deals with using sports stars as endorsers. After the initial shock of Bryant’s tragic death, and stories portraying him as the greatest thing since the National Football League was founded, (yes, I know he was a basketball player but this is a football column) the media delved into Bryant’s past, and revived facts about him that basketball junkies and sports marketers would rather not read – his attitude toward others and, more important, a sexual assault charge, even though he seemed to be a changed person, giving back, as he aged.

The Bryant coverage was not unusual. It is now standard practice of most print journalists to tell the entire story about a sports star and not cover up their blemishes, as was the practice years ago when I was a sports writer. But, alas, coming clean about an athlete’s unsportsmanlike conduct is likely not to be heard from game day TV or radio commentators, especially game analysts who knew or played with the tarnished athletes. As Michael Powell wrote in his January 28, (2020) New York Times column, referring to Bryant being accused of sexually assaulting a young women in 2003, “Relatively few in the news media or basketball did themselves proud, and you are left to wonder if Bryant would have survived in a #MeToo age of awareness.” And a January 30 Wall Street Journal article said, “Bryant’s case never went to trial, but ended with him apologizing to his accuser “for my behavior that night.” Bryant had said the encounter was consensual, but his apology and subsequent silence about the details of the case left lingering questions about what happened. (The criminal case was dropped in 2005, when he settled with the woman.)

In his CMO TODAY Wall Street Journal column on January 29, Nat Ives led with, “Good morning. Americans are not looking forward to the presidential campaign ads coming to the Super Bowl on Sunday. President Trump and Michael Bloomberg are each planning minute-long commercials during the game, but 63% of Americans call the Super Bowl an inappropriate platform for political ads, according to a poll by Morning Consult for CMO Today. It’s not a partisan issue, either: Republicans aren’t interested in seeing the president’s ad during the game, and Democrats would rather not see Mr. Bloomberg’s. They may be a good idea anyway, given the extra attention that viewers pay to Super Bowl ads, marketing professor Aimee Drolet told me. Even if folks are annoyed at the time, their memory will be enhanced and they are more likely to retrieve the arguments these ads make, she said. The irritation fades quicker than their memory.”

If there was any doubt which of the two political commercials would receive greater news coverage it was decided a few days prior to the game, when it was announced that the Bloomberg ad would take on gun control.

Prior to the 2020 game, Ad Age reported on several aspects regarding the efficacy of Super Bowl commercials that marketers should consider. The most important one was to have an after-the-game program, meaning that the cost of a $5.6- million 30 second commercial, not including production and talent fees, which can add several additional millions to the price, is not enough to do its job, and even after the additional spending it might not bring the results marketers wanted.

Disproving That Any Publicity Is Good Publicity

There were four “big hit” articles about the Super Bowl, to use a term loved by TV football game announcers, that I saw prior to the coin toss of the 2020 game, two in the January 31 New York Times; another in its February 2 edition; the other in the February 1 Wall Street Journal:

The Times: One, in the business section, was headlined “These Brands have Better Uses for Money Than a Super Bowl Ad.” A few key points: Commercials messages lost in the clutter of other ads; the exposure gained by advertising during the game is not worth the cost, and marketers can learn a lot more information about consumers who click on online ads than by those who watch them on TV.

The second story was a full page article titled, “It’s Flawed. It’s Ugly. It’s Beautiful.” It had three of the Times’ culture journalists opining why 100 million people still watch the game. Early in the print discussion, it was pointed out that people watch the game despite its ugly side – brain diseases caused by repeated head hits, not only by concussions, which the NFL tried to cover up, the domestic abuse problems by some players and racial aspects associated with the NFL.

The third Times’ article was a continuation of its “football’s hold on America” series. It chronicled how three Miami Dolphin players from their undefeated1972 team – Earl Morrall, Bob Kuechenberg and Bill Stanfill had chronic traumatic encephalopathy. (C.T. E.), the degenerative brain disease associated with repeated head trauma. It said that another Dolphin star, Nick Buoniconti, who died in July, 2019, and suffered from dementia, wanted his brain donated to Boston University’s C.T.E. center, the leading research facility into chronic traumatic encephalopathy degenerative brain disease linked to repeated hits to the head. The article also told how other members of the team developed other health problems at a younger age than the general population, according to a 2011 study published in the American Neurological Association‘s Annals of Neurology.

Wall Street Journal: The Journal article, under the headline, “The Cloud Hanging Over the Super Bowl,” said, “Amid all the escapism, it will be interesting to see how much reality seeps into the proceedings. There’s plenty of it. The Chiefs have faced domestic violence issues the past couple years, including a case involving one of their most crucial stars, receiver Tyreek Hill. And of course, the last time the 49ers were in the Super Bowl, in 2013, Colin Kaepernick was the quarterback. A good bet would be an over/under on how many times he is mentioned on Sunday. I’ll take the under. (That marketers continue to shrug off stories like these that are published by the hundreds each year underscores their true nature – as long as their product sells, or they think it sells from sports associations, anything goes. Some of these same marketers are “proud sponsors” of international sporting events, like the Olympics, that are awarded to totalitarian governments and used as propaganda tools.)

Also, The New York Times, which year-round publishes articles regarding the negative health aspects from playing tackle football, with most of the articles in the paper appearing as the Super Bowl becomes closer, didn’t wait that long in 2020. On February 15, a lengthy column by Michael Powell told the story of a young college football player who killed himself because he feared he had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.T.E.), which scientists who examined his brain confirmed. After looking up the symptoms of C.T.E. the 21-yeatr-old shot himself.

And a full page article on August 26, detailed that former Black players sued the NFL for discriminating against them when deciding the amount of money an individual receives from the 2013concussion settlement case.

A lengthy Washington Post Magazine article on September 20, 2020, by Patrick Hruby said, “Scientists believe that repetitive brain trauma — not just concussions, but also less severe subconcussive blows like the hits football linemen absorb on every snap — is a precondition for CTE. Last year, Boston University researchers found that for football players, both the risk of developing the disease and its severity increase with the number of years playing the sport; athletes whose youth-to-pro careers lasted more than 14.5 years were 10 times as likely to have CTE as those who played fewer.” The article also reported that the NFL, which now admits damage to brains can occur from hits to the head, for many years denied that it was so.

As the date of the 2021 Super Bowl drew closer, so did the news articles regarding the health dangers to players.

A New York Times story on January 19, chronicled the story of two NFL quarterbacks knocked out of their divisional playoff games with concussion-like symptoms, with one broadcast analyst asking why are the rules against head-to-head contact not being enforced in the playoff games. The article also said, “Many concussions, though, go unreported, either because doctors and neurologists at the game failed to spot them or because the players masked their symptoms.”

The NFL has forever attempted to put a good face on its problems, ranging from originally denying that hits to the head would cause brain damage to finding reasons to excuse players for their anti-social behavior and breaking Covid-19 rules. There’s a Yiddish word “chutzpah,” one of whose meanings is gall, and that’s what I think of the NFL inviting Covid-19 workers as guests to the 2021 Super Bowl, given its history of denying the health hazards of the game. Question: Could the fact that only a limited number of paying fans will be permitted to attend the game have anything to do with the NFL’s decision?(Reminds me of the joke about the youngster that kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.)

Circumventing The Big Price Tag

Mega events – sports and none sports – are an easy target for cleaver ambush marketers and on, January 31, Ad Age reported that, “PETA seems to be up to its old tricks again. The organization was trending earlier today after it posted a tweet saying Fox banned its ad featuring animals taking a knee while the National Anthem plays to show solidarity with Colin Kaepernick. It’s a move PETA has made countless times around the Super Bowl: the organization creates an ad that has no chance of being shown on broadcast TV and then getting irate when it gets rejected.”

More Important Than The Winning Team

The most important part of a Super Bowl to the publics that really matter, the advertising community, TV networks and sport marketers (without whom the Big Game would be just another Small Game), is the reaction to the commercials by ad industry pundits; definitely more important than the game’s winner.

Jeanine Poggi, Ad Age’s senior editor, said, “This year (2020) failed to produce very many commercial standouts. The desire to not provoke controversy and steer clear of anything divisive, resulted in bland ads that utilized recycled material and quite literally borrowed from each other.” (Personal Observation: Bland Super Bowl ads are the norm rather than the exception.)

No review of the Super Bowl would be complete without opining on the reaction of the sports/marketing/advertising writers, because without their pre-game hype journalism, the Super Bowl wouldn’t be super.

Instead of just writing about their own impressions of the commercials, the ad/marketing writers reported the public’s reaction to individual 2020 ads. Ridiculous. The game was watched by more than 102-million viewers, so any report on viewers’ reactions reminds me of the 2016 polling that assured everyone of a Hillary Clinton victory.

But anyway, the following is what the self-anointed ad connoisseurs said about the popularity and effectiveness of the TV commercials: Ad Meter said the most popular ad was the Jeep commercial; You Tube said it was the Amazon ad; Twitter’s Brand Bowl crowned Google’s ad as the most popular; Salesforce said that President Trump’s commercial received 75.6 percent positive reactions, but Ad Meter voters ranked the same ad last. Ipsos said the Doritos commercials had the most emotional effect, based on measuring the reactions of 40 people out of an audience of more than 102-million viewers; however, a similar measurement by Unruly said the most effective ad was one by Google. (Is a puzzlement? “as Yul Brynner said in Broadway’s “The King and I”)

Alexandra Barasch an assistant professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, said, “…with so little agreement over how to measure effectiveness and impact, every one can find someway to claim success and advance their own interests.” Other marketing pros have often said that the results from a Super Bowl ad did not justify the cost of a commercial.

Writer’s Note: — The information in the above two paragraphs was taken from a February 6, 2020, New York Times article by Tiffany Hsu.

The N.F.L. Hype Allies

The sports writing community in 2020 did what too many of their craft still do. While covering up for athletes’ misdeeds are mostly a thing of the past, hero-worshiping stories are still too common, as is pack journalism. The sameness of the torrent of after the game stories could have been predicted before the first writer punched in a letter on a keyboard: “A new dynasty is born;” “Patrick Mahomes is the new face of the NFL;”and “Nice Guy Andy Reid finally wins a Super Bowl.” The PR staffs of the NFL and teams couldn’t have written them better. (The gods of journalism must be thankful for the New York Times’ coverage of the N.F.L., whose reports include the warts of the game.) Coincidentally, the same day the above stories appeared the Times published the obituary of Willie Woods, the Hall of Fame defensive back with the Green Bay Packers in the 1960s, who died the day after the Super Bowl. The article mentioned that he was diagnosed with dementia in 2006 and had undergone four major football-related operations.

Extra Points

The 2020 half-time show, featuring Jennifer Lopez and Shakira, was most likely an anathema to the person who did the most to insert politics into sports, the twice impeached former President Trump. Its creative included symbolisms that only a liberal could like: Two Latin super stars featured in America’s game, young backup singers performing behind metal bars that suggested the plight of the Dreamers, or maybe the children held in cages at the Southern border, and Lopez draped in an American flag costume that reversed to a Puerto Rican flag. As usual, more viewers –103-million – watched the halftime performance than the game. Not even Mahomes’ thrilling fourth quarter performance that catapulted Kansas City to a victory could match the moves of Shakira and J.Lo.

So now that the NFL has allowed a team to relocate in Las Vegas (after decades of saying the city is off limits), and has permitted some team owners to invest in betting companies, cynics might say that the league’s new motto should be, “Flexibility is our name.” Or maybe the league should dish its shield and replace it with $$$ symbols, adorned with gold lettering saying, “Bet Responsibly, But Bet And Don’t Forget To Drink.” Because in its February 10-18, 2020, issue, the SportsBusiness Journal reported that the NFL is searching for a candidate for the new position of “vice president of sports betting.” (Suggestion: Limit the search to senior executives at Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Ameritrade, etc.) On January 28, 2021, it reported, “The American Gaming Association (AGA) estimates that 26 million Americans will bet on Super Bowl LIV, up 15% from last year…, while about 5 million will place a bet on an online or mobile platform. The rest of the 26 million will bet with a bookie, in a pool or casually with family and friends.” And on February 2, The New York Times reported, “Online gambling sites are offering can’t-lose propositions, giving away easy money to attract new customers to a nascent multibillion-dollar industry. These come-ons should reach a peak just ahead of the Super Bowl.”

At one time sports was positioned as bringing out the best in the American character and its performers, and the league commissioner’s as protectors of that ideal, which was always a fairy tale promoted with the help of sports writers as everyone associated with the business of sports knows (as are the Halls of Fame). But because of relaxed betting rules, sports has contributed to a fast corrosion of American culture in a way that is now damaging to the well-being of people who don’t know a linebacker from a balk.

If there was one major take-a-way that sports marketers should learn from the 2020 Super Bowl, it’s that participating in it is as likely to result in negative publicity as it is to gain positive coverage. But it doesn’t matter. Because, unlike people associated with the advertising and PR agencies, the networks and the NFL, the game and the $5-million plus commercials will be forgotten in a few days by people who have a life to live, and the marketers will have to devise other strategies to get consumers to care.

Of course, there were other important takeaways during 2020 directly related to the Big Game that marketers should have considered before automatically writing a check to advertise on the upcoming 2021 Super Bowl. They include the public’s reactions to the unhealthy aspects of the game, the politics that are now ingrained in the game’s DNA because of President Trump using it as a political football and most important, how the public will react to “fun” or“solemn” commercials, because by the time the game is played this year on February 7 nearly 500,000 Americans will have died in the U.S. from the coronavirius. Because of these and perhaps economic concerns, some past Super Bowl advertisers are sitting out this year’s game. They include SodaStream, Sabra, and Avocadosfrom Mexico, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Hyundai, to mention a few that have decided to take a pass.

Budweiser, instead of running a drink and have fun commercial, in an attempt to be considered a “good corporate citizen,” will provide the funds to help raise awareness of the benefits of getting the coronavirus vaccine. But don’t be fooled.

They’ll still be advertising their other products, including one for Bud Light and Michelob Ultra. A January 26 Wall Street Journal article about the decision included the following “The corporate spot, a first for Anheuser-Busch during the Super Bowl, will include Budweiser and other company brands. We cannot talk about AB without Budweiser, said Marcel Marcondes, U.S. chief marketing officer at Anheuser-Busch, adding that the spot may even include Clydesdales.” (Sort of like, what are you going to believe, what we want you to believe or what you see?)

Obviously, the Bud announcement was an attempt to obtain good publicity from a crisis that has thus far killed nearly 500,000 Americans. Unlike, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and Dolly Parton, who didn’t make a big deal about their contributions to help fight the coronavirus pandemic, Bud decided to toast itself publicly for its decision. Joining Bud in this obvious crass publicity ploy was the NFL,(no surprise there), which all of a sudden discovered poetry by inviting Amanda Gorman, the young poet who gained sudden fame at President Joe Biden’s inauguration with her reading of “The Hill We Climb.” At the over-hyped football game, Miss Gorman will recite a new poem before the official coin toss recognizing an educator, a nurse, and a veteran for helping their communities during the coronavirus pandemic. Obviously, Bud and the NFL don’t agree with another poet, Alexander Pope who wrote “Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame.” in his “An Essay on Man.”

Several days before the game, another Wall Street Journal advertising story, on January 27, mentioned that some companies are resorting to ambush marketing to create a Super Bowl tie-in, rather than spend the increasingly higher costs of nationally advertising on the game telecast. Two companies that were mentioned were GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Boston Beer. (Despite the complaints of “official sponsors” of all mega sports events, ambush marketing efforts often receive the most free media coverage because of their cleverness. Ambush marketing has been around for a long time and is increasingly being used to circumvent the sky-high costs of becoming “official.”)

Unlike the missing brands sponsorships, one issue that will remain will be the political affects on the NFL that were super glued on the league by the former president. Even though he is gone from office, ex President Trump and NFL football are still joined at the hip. In his closing days of office, the twice impeached president sought to gain some favorable publicity but was thwarted when New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick announced that he is declining the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

While the winner of the February 7 game and the efficacies of the commercials are not known as of this writing, one thing is certain:

People will be watching for racial justice protests by athletes in the upcoming Super Bowl and in future NFL games. And not even the NFL shield can prevent those protests from receiving major media coverage. Example: A Sports of The Times column on page one of the January 25 New York Times urged fans and football players not to forget Colin Kaepernick’s willingness to destroy his career by protesting racism by keeling during the national anthem., This season, many teams stayed off-the field during the playing of the anthem.

As I write this on February 2, thus far in my two “must reads,” The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and on TV newscasts, there has been less Super Bowl coverage than in the past. That’s good, in my opinion. A sporting event should not dominate news coverage, especially this one that is a vehicle for TV commercials, even though I’m looking forward to seeing Dolly Parton make her Super Bowl debut in one.

Oh, before I forget. There was a football game last year. Kansas City defeated Miami, as if that matters to the marketers, the networks and the NFL. The score is unimportant, unless you bet the spread.

And there is also a game scheduled be played on February 7 this year between the Kansas City Chiefs and Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

The winner might be important to fans not associated with the marketing of the Big Game.

About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson- Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr (at) juno.com or [email protected].

What was the Effectiveness of the Super Bowl Commercials?

Arthur Solomon, Public Relations Consultant

Like past Super Bowls, there are so many commercials that’s it impossible to name the effectiveness of them, especially the most or least effective ones at this time, despite what the advertising pundits will say and write.That’s because the pundits would have to read the minds of all the marketers to know what their true objectives were — to increase sales or just to keep their product in front of the viewing public. Also, there’s a third reason that’s never mentioned: Advertising on the Super Bowl as a defensive move. I’ve had clients tell me that they advertise on mega sporting events, not because it will increase sales but to keep their competitors from being able to do so. If the reason for spending more than $5-million on a commercial was to gain sales, the effectiveness of the spot will not be known for some time. A short spike in sales, if any, doesn’t necessarily mean that it will continue.. And what’s the chance of a marketer saying publicly that, “What we did didn’t work”. Not great. More likely, regardless of the ineffectiveness of their ad they’ll say, “We’re very happy. It achieved our objectives.”

As for the commercials in the game: I didn’t see any that would make me switch from a product I’m using to one that was on the Super Bowl. Only two of the commercials caught my interest — Secrets commercial about women playing football, which I thought was the best of the night, and the Hyundai add about a self parking automobile, which I thought was the most informative. That’s something I didn’t know exists, and the next time I’m in the market for an auto I’ll check it out.

I thought both President Trump’s and Michael Bloomberg’s commercials were effective, but I give a big edge to Bloomberg’s, because he has a long track record of believing in the message of the ad. About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson- Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on theSeoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr (at) juno.com and artsolomon4pr (at) optimum.net.

How the NFL and NBA are Adopting Blockchain and Crypto

Wendy Glavin, Founder & CEO, Wendy Glavin Agency

With the upcoming Super Bowl, I’ve been thinking about the millions of people who watch sports broadcasts on television and livestreamed events on their smartphones, tablets and laptops. Despite lower ratings during the last decade, 98.2 million people watched the 2019 Super Bowl. Baseball rankings came in second, followed by basketball.

Overall, sports fans spend more than $1 billion dollars supporting their favorite teams through ticket sales, sports memorabilia, such as jerseys, hats, sneakers, t-shirts, posters, signatures and more. Then, there’s fantasy leagues, sports and prop betting and gambling. Roughly 60 million people play fantasy sports, and of those, 80% play fantasy football, according to the Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association. In our fast-paced digital world, consumer demands and habits have changed. First, people prefer to watch sports in their homes rather than go to live games which are expensive, inconvenient and weather-dependent. They also come with the uncertainty of who your seat neighbors may be. Will this be the day when you get doused with someone else’s 32-ounce beverage? Or worse? With Direct TV and NFL Red Zone, there are hundreds of channels and live coverage across the country, all of which has significantly improved the customer experience.

Where Does Blockchain Fit into Sports?

Like most industries, the sports business is a target for scammers, fraud and counterfeit goods. With mobile ticketing, distributors and consumers want to verify ownership and authenticity of their tickets in real-time. Other trust issues include the authenticity of team merchandise, sports memorabilia, online gambling, money laundering and corrupt practices by some players and coaches.

As a result, some sports teams and leagues are adopting blockchain and cryptocurrencies to tackle these problems. Blockchain’s core features are:

Both tangible and intangible assets can be recorded, encrypted and distributed across thousands of computers worldwide to ensure the data is secure. The network verifies transactions through cryptography and digital signatures. There are no intermediaries, such as a banks or governments. Bitcoin (BTC) is the most widely known cryptocurrency. Other highly ranked cryptocurrencies are EOS, Ether (ETH), XRP and Litecoin (LTC). Data stored in the blockchain is made secure and immutable using cryptography. Every block is referenced by a unique string of characters, generated by a cryptographic hash function. Data recorded in blockchain is further made secure by using private/public pairs of digital keys to maintain relative anonymity.

In 2014, The NBA’s Sacramento Kings became the first franchise to accept Bitcoin as a method of payment. At that time, the owners wanted to improve the customer experience by making it easier for them to purchase products and season tickets.

On January 15, 2020, the Kings launched the first-ever blockchain auction platform for authentic memorabilia with ConsenSys, a blockchain software development firm, for live bidding on in-game sports gear using Treum, a ConsenSys-backed supply chain product. Now, fans can securely purchase authentic game-worn merchandise with greater confidence than previously possible.

The digital era has drastically increased access and optionality for many consumers, but it has also decreased verifiable provenance. How can you be sure that the physical goods delivered to your door are legitimate and as real as advertised? How can you trust the authenticity and ownership history of something you bought online? As the Ethereum blockchain continues to gain traction as a new foundation for global collaboration by providing trust and transparency, we’re unlocking more profound ways to provide visibility into complex global supply chains and empower consumer behaviors.

– Bradley Feinstein, Head of Business Development, ConsenSys.

The Dallas Mavericks announced they would accept Bitcoin for tickets and merchandise in August 2019. Despite team owner Mark Cuban’s negative view of Bitcoin, he’s invested in blockchain applications for betting and gambling. Mavericks CTO David Herr said the team is interested in blockchain possibilities. “It’s crypto as a whole, that’s where we’re focused, not so much Bitcoin,” Herr said. “We want to make sure we have a platform that can engage with fans whatever currency they’re using.”

Before the current NFL season, the Miami Dolphins announced they would accept cryptocurrency payments in partnership with Aliant Payments and the Litecoin Foundation. Litecoin is the team’s official cryptocurrency. Attendees can buy 50/50 raffle tickets; half of which go to the Miami Dolphins Foundation and charitable causes.

In May 2019, NFL quarterback Matt Barkley of the Buffalo Bills revealed that he tried to get at least two of his previous teams, the San Francisco 49ers and the Cincinnati Bengals, to pay him in Bitcoin to no avail. Barkley posted on Twitter, that he’s mining crypto and he’s “all about @Ledger”.

Russell Okung, the Los Angeles Chargers left tackle and Vice President of the NFL Players Association is a huge Bitcoin supporter. After visiting his parents in Nigeria, he requested a bank transfer from his account in the U.S. When the bank refused, Okung began his journey into Bitcoin, tweeting that he wanted to be paid in the cryptocurrency. While the Chargers declined, Trezor. a hardware wallet distributor, got into the game by offering Okung a free wallet.

Okung explained:

Whether it’s been my own personal journey understanding my finances for representing myself, writing contract negotiations in the NFL or even my role in understanding labor and the average person and the issues that they run into the underlying premise of all of these interactions compound one another, because it all comes down to individuality and one’s own sovereignty and the ability to be in control of one’s own life. I always thought about that, but I never knew what it would mean when it comes to my money. – Bitcoin Magazine, September 2019.

Why Should Sports Fans Bet on Bitcoin?

Users can control their own money without being linked to a bank or government with fully traceable transactions There are no banking fees and low transaction fees to send and receive money from anywhere in the world with a wider range of payment options Purchases are made using a digital identity rather than a personal one to mitigate fraud, provide profiles of fans and create targeted digital content Fans can vote for their favorite players (voting is open for the 2020 NBA All-Star game) and trade digital collectibles Users can send and receive bitcoins using a smartphone or computer. By some accounts, there are two billion people on the planet without access to traditional banking systems Bitcoin sports betting is on the rise with low fees, fast transactions and a wide array of games available using Bitcoin and other altcoins.

Crypto Contracts for Pro Sports Players

A prominent advocate of cryptocurrency is Brooklyn Nets guard Spencer Dinwiddie who has been negotiating with the NBA to have his contract turned into a digital bond called an SD8 security token. The goal is to engage with his fans by enabling them to participate and share in the potential upside and for him to get money upfront. It’s a way to decentralize personal loans through bonds backed by contracts as collateral.

The SD8 coin will be a three-year bond expected to pay out 4.95% base interest on a monthly basis—much better than you’d be able to get at a bank—with the full principal paid out at the end of the period upon maturity in a bullet payment. The investment period will begin on Monday and end on February 10, with the bond notes maturing and paying out in full on February 10, 2023. According to a chart provided by Dinwiddie’s representatives, if all 90 coins were purchased, it would net investors just over $2 million over the course of the three years.

– Forbes, January 2020.

Dinwiddie’s DREAM Fan Shares website has not updated, but the NBA expressed concerns about gambling and other issues related to the third year of his contract so it was revised. I contacted the NBA on January 21, 2020 for an update. NBA Spokesperson Mike Bass said, “Spencer Dinwiddie’s advisors provided us with new information regarding a modified version of their digital token idea, which we are reviewing to determine whether the updated idea is permissible under league rules.

Dinwiddie and other athletes are advocating for the adoption of cryptocurrency in sports. Blockchain, crypto assets and smart contract technology can tokenize athletes brands and offer more access to their fans. The athletes say it’s all about removing the intermediaries, and there are many who believe that teams and leagues would reap benefits also.

Brian Finkel, Deloitte Sports Research, Deloitte & Touche LLP said, “The fewer barriers there are between athletes and fans, the more commercial opportunities that will materialize. The value in having fans relate to their favorite players is immeasurable.” What’s your game plan?

(Reprinted with permission from Equities.com)

About the Author: Wendy Glavin is Founder and CEO of Wendy Glavin, a NYC full- service agency. Wendy is a 20-year veteran of corporate, agency, consulting and small business ownership. She specializes in B2B2C marketing communications, PR, social and digital media. Her website is: https://wendyglavin.com/. Contact her at: [email protected].

Lessons That Sports Marketers, And Everyone, Should Have Learned From The 2019 Super Bowl (As We Approach The 2020 Game)

Arthur Solomon, Public Relations Consultant

A credible argument can be made that the Super Bowl craze began, not because it featured two teams battling for the U.S.A. Concussion Football Championship, but because it was touted by marketing, advertising writers, PR and ad agencies and TV commentators as featuring the best, most, enjoyable products of the advertising industry – TV commercials with superior creativeness and entertainment value – as well as shameful hype from sports writers. Cynics not associated with the promotion of the game and telecast believe that the commercials were never so superior. (Once in a while there was a brilliant spot). But what is actually responsible for the massive media hype is the cost of the commercials.

There have been many Lessons Learned by marketers who have shelled out the Big Bucks so their commercials can be seen during the Super Bowl and, hopefully, have enough legs to receive extended media coverage. Unfortunately for marketers, PR people and ad agencies, for the past decade or so more news worthy events than the cost of a TV spot have often over shadowed the commercials, as it did during the lead-up to last years telecast, when the cost of a 30 second spot was reported to be in excess of $5-million, as it will again this year.

Politics, violence against women by NFL players and health matters related to football are subjects that both sports marketers and the NFL would rather not be the subjects of news stories during Super Bowl week (or any other time). But as the football family and President Trump has learned the media doesn’t give into the wants of powerful people, either in the White House or in the NFL’s commissioner’s office, and all three subjects received major media attention in 2019, as they again did in the lead-up to the 2020 game between. the Kansas City Chiefs and the San Francisco 49ers at the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami on February. 2. As usual, there will be many lessons that sports marketers will learn from this year’s Super Bowl. But unexpectedly there was three idiosyncratic lessons learned just a couple of weeks after last year’s game, one that dated back to 2018. They concerned the relationships between employer, employees, public relations practitioners and the media.

Lesson 1 – Not even Bob Costas, the longtime voice of NBC Sports for nearly 40 years, could escape employer punishment for expressing his opinion about the concussion problem in the NFL. Because of his comments, he was removed from the 2018 Super Bowl, he said, and subsequently left the network in early 2019.

Lesson 2 – The second lesson should be remembered by employers: The more powerful you are in the business world, the greater the media coverage when a wrong doing is exposed. An example was the headline coverage on February 22-23 regarding New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft being charged in a sex sting, which he has denied.

Lesson 3 – This one relates to people in our businesses, who work for individuals or entities that have been involved in PR crises, like Mr. Kraft: Despite the work of self-designated PR crises specialists, once a reputation is lost, it will forever be remembered by the media in subsequent stories of the same nature. (Believe me, Mr. Kraft will long be remembered in football circles for reasons other than his team winning Super Bowls.)

Of course, there were loads of lessons that are more mundane than the above ones:

Despite not knowing what the efficacy of the mega-costly TV commercials will be, along with the number of concussions and other bodily injuries players might receive during the 2020 game, one thing is certain: The Super Bowl will always provide lessons for sports marketers. Here are some of the most important ones from 2019:

Arguably the most important one for marketers is that politics in now ingrained in the Super Bowl’s DNA, as it is in all entities and individuals who have experienced a PR crisis, because of President Trump’s S.O.B. remarks about football players who kneel during the National Anthem and the NFL’s obvious blacklisting of Colin Kaepernick for fomenting the kneel strategy as a means of highlighting racial injustice. Try as the NFL and marketers may, it’s now impossible to separate the NFL from politics. Even though Kaepernick was not on the field during the 2019 game, his presence was felt during the lead-up to and on Super Bowl day: A barrage of news stories contained quotes from entertainers explaining their positions about not taking part in Super Bow activities. And during the game, Kaepernick posted pictures of athletes and celebrities supporting him. All the hype didn’t stop the media from questioning NFL commissioner Roger Goodell about violence against women committed by NFL players, specifically, Kareem Hunt, the Kansas City Chief’s running back, and the San Francisco’s 49 ers Reuben Foster. While the NFL and its sponsors attempted to flood the media with “Super Bowl Fun Facts,” there are other statistics that they would rather not have received coverage: The mental and physical damage to their gladiators – the football players – both during their active careers and after. What has become a staple of the lead-up to the Super Bowl is media coverage detailing the physical dangers to those who play “America’s Sport.” And 2019 was no exception. Here are several examples:

The first major article I noticed regarding the negative life altering affects of playing football caught me by surprise because of where it appeared – not on the sports pages or medical columns, but as a huge lead editorial in the January 19 New York Times. The author, Alex Kingsbury, cited examples, of injuries to players and research from medical journals that should be required reading by every parent before deciding whether to let their child participate in what should not be called a game. Astonishingly, the article also quoted New England quarterback Tom Brady as saying, “Your body gets used to the hits…my brain is wired for contact. I would say in some ways it has become callous to the hits,”(making me think Brady took one hit too many). Then, surprisingly, a new element that described the adverse health affects from playing football at all levels was reported on January 20 in the NYT. It was about how high school, college and NFL coaches encourage linemen to gain weight so they can better protect the quarterback from pass rushing defensive players. The story, headlined “The N.F.L.’S Other Scourge: Obesity” described how coaches encourage obesity, a life- threatening condition, by telling linemen to bulk up in order to play in the NFL. Because of the “gain to play” requirements, NFL linemen have higher rates of hypertension, obesity and sleep apnea then other players or the general public. As the Times reported, “blocking for a $25-million-a-year quarterback, it turns out, can put linemen in the high risk category for many of the ailments health experts readily encourage people to avoid. On Super Bowl weekend, the Times published two articles that detailed the horrific nature of what is dishonestly called a game, when rightly it should be called legalized assault. On February 2, a two page article beginning on page one of SportsSaturday told how a former NFL player’s anxiety about his worsening C.T.E. symptoms caused him to commit suicide. The next day, beginning on page one of SportsSunday, another huge article told of how football players become addicted to painkillers, so they can continue playing, and then how the craving follows them when their career ends. (President Trump and football controversy seem as tied together as are laces and shoes. In a Super Bowl day “Face The Nation” interview, when asked if he would want his son to play football, he said “Would I steer him that way? No, I wouldn’t. I just don’t like the reports that I see coming out having to do with football. It’s a dangerous sport and I would have a hard time with it,” he said. Trump is the second president who voiced misgivings about having their sons play football. Obama said that if he had a son, he would not let him play football.) An article by nutritionists at the Mayo Clinic Health System in Mankato, MN, said pizza, fully loaded nachos and fried chicken wings are among some of the most popular, yet most fat-laden offenders, at Super Bowl parties. They all have around 800-1,000 calories and about 50 g of fat in a typical party-sized portion. For example, two pieces of all-meat pizza contain 940 calories and 56 g of fat. (A meal that only people who have stock in makers of cholesterol -lowering meds might endorse.)

As the above article revealed, the lead-up to the 2019 game showed how damaging to a person’s health football can be to individuals who never even played a down and watch it on TV. Instead of being subjected to the big life-altering hits on the grid iron, the food served at Big Game parties can do the damage to internal body mechanisms.

Football has been called “America’s Game,” baseball it’s “National Pastime.” Both have a checkered marketing history, which includes proud sponsorships from tobacco, all sorts of alcoholic beverages and foods that health experts deem unhealthy. So it’s only natural that the 2019 game ushered in another activity that is detrimental to many Americas – legalized betting.

“Now fans are able to play the game within the game,” Lisa Kerney, formerly of ESPN, was quoted as saying in a January 30 Times story. Now part of a sports betting show, Kerney, the Times reported, now “rattles off N.F.L. point spreads and money-line odds as easily as a CNBC host talks stock prices and P/E ratios.” Also during the 2019-2020 season New York’s Fox 5 shamefully sold time to DRAFTKINGSSPORTSBOOK, a half- hour tutorial on how to bet on-line. Missing from the show’s script is a line saying that “anyone who has bet at a casino or with a bookie knows the house always wins.” (I’m certainly not puritanical in my beliefs. I’ve done my share of gambling and enjoying an occasional drink. But I find it hypocritical and deceitful to have sports leagues hawk their charitable activities and position athletes as role models and then permit products that can be detrimental to viewers’ before, after or on game telecasts, knowing that a large part of their audience are youngsters or other impressionable people.)

As usual, there was the always debates over the goal of Super Bowl ads: Is it to build brand awareness or drive product sales? Leslie Zane, founder and president of Triggers Growth Strategy, argued in an op-ed for Ad Age that Super Bowl ads should lead to sales and that far too many advertisements during the Big Game aren’t built to actually change brand preference.

An article in the Wall Street Journal revealed that even self- designated marketing experts disagree about commercial strategy. Some brands think commercials are more impactful by keeping them under wraps until they are seen on the Super Bowl telecast. Other specialists advise releasing the ads before the telecast so the brand can get the most free viewings of them

Clients and the creators of Super Bowl TV commercials also hope that their multi-million dollar ads will long be remembered by consumers and the media after the game. That’s what Anheuser-Busch’s Bud Light brew ad achieved, ever since its commercial disparaged Miller Life and Coors Light for using corn syrup in its brewing process. The “my beer is better than your beer” ad battle resulted in MillerCoors suing Bud Light for misleading advertising.

Newspaper articles regarding negative aspects of playing football, like the ones above before the 2019 game, usually begin a few weeks before the Super Bowl. But in 2019, on November 8, months before the February 2, 2020 kickoff, the New York Times launched a series about “footballs hold on America.” which included articles about the dangers to players’ health associated with playing football and other societal aspects of the game.

Examples of negative football articles leading up to the 2020 Super Bowl:

The initial article told of the decline of participants in high school football and a meeting of NFL executives in 2017 that tried to create a strategy to save the game. The story said that “Over the last decade, the numbers of high school boys playing tackle football – the heart and soul of the sport – has dropped more than 10 percent.” On November 13, the Times reported on how “More Players Question Injury Treatment.” The story told how players are now questioning treatment by team physicians and are seeking second opinions. In an Op-Ed in the December 8 New York Times, Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown wrote that the National Football League is far behind the National Basketball Association in providing adequate pensions and medical insurance for players who helped build the sport, resulting in some past players not having enough money to cover their football associated medical bills. On December 12, the New York Times published an article about researchers at Stamford University who are trying to develop a football helmet filled with water that can prevent brain injuries. The story included the following quote: “My fear is that a better helmet will give false reassurance,” said Dr. Lee Goldstein, a psychiatrist and researcher with the T.E. Center at Boston University, which has carried out pioneering research on chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the degenerative brain disease linked to repeated hits to the head. “It’s like developing a better cigarette filter. It’s smoother and it might not give you a hacking cough. But you still get lung cancer.” “An exceptional special Times article on December 19, and updated on December 22, about the NFL at 100 by James Surowiecki included the following graphs: “Fans express outrage about the threat of brain damage to their heroes, so there must be at least a feigned effort at reducing hits. Where the league once celebrated violence, it now plays it down.” …“Of course, it’s impossible these days to treat the N.F.L. as simple entertainment. Watching football is necessarily an exercise in cognitive dissonance: Enjoying a game requires us, on some level, to ignore everything we know about brain injuries, the shortness of most players’ careers and the physical toll the game takes on their bodies, the team owners’ intolerance for some social commentary and the disregard for domestic and sexual assaults.” In its January 4, 2020, edition, the Times ran a feature about the how the NFL wraps itself around the flag. It detailed the history of how the NFL has attempted to make its product synonymous with patriotism, which is evident at every game. But the story included a few lines that the league, its networks, commentators and friendly sports journalists never mention: “Military personnel in uniform, fighter jet flyovers, field-size flags, and red, white and blue festooned N.F.L. jerseys have become part of the game’s landscape. Despite criticism from certain corners about politicizing the game, the league has continued to embrace symbols of patriotism. Certain teams even accepted money from the Department of Defensefor patriotic displays during games, with the league eventually returning more than $700,000 following an audit.”

The Times wasn’t the only pub to print stories about injuries suffered by football players:

A study in Annals of Neurology,by a team of researchers from the Boston University CTE Center, published on October 7 and reported in numerous publications, said that for every year of playing football the risk of developing chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) increases by 30 percent. And for every 2.6 years of play, the risk of developing CTE doubles, because of repeated head collisions. The December 2-8 Sports Business Journal ran a full page article on lower extremity injuries that “have plagued players for years.” Even articles extolling the virtues of football, like the one by Sam Walker in the December 21-22 Wall Street Journal, in which the author said that its “positive influence on kids will continue to outweigh the risks” if the right adjustments are made, noted the decline of high school participants in tackle football. The story included statistics from the National Federation of State High School Associations showing last season football “suffered its steepest loss of players in 33 years.” The pro-football article also mentioned the dangers of repeated brain concussions.

Even before the Times launched its “footballs hold on America”” series, stories about the negative health affect of playing football actually began in August, when a study published in Science Advances, a peer reviewed scientific journal, published an article regarding a study showing that even one season of playing football without a concussion can cause brain tissue damage. The results of the research, conducted with University of Rochester football players, received coverage in scientific and consumer pubs, including a August 20 New York Times article.

Of course, the above were only a fraction of negative football stories that were published.

(The sum of the negative articles? Football is not all fun and games. The message? With apologies to Waylon Jennings, “Mama’s Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be football players.”)

The Times also ran an article on January 17 about how the seamy side of football is whitewashed by the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The impetus for the article was the announcement, on January 15, that Paul Tagliabue, the NFL commissioner from 1989 to 2006, was voted to the Hall. To all but the most fervent football junkies, and, of course, the team owners, Tagliabue is remembered for his denial that football-related concussions can cause brain trauma and for having a non-brain specialist MD defend his position. The story also named past players that the Hall inducted, despite their having been suspended for unsavory conduct, or worse.

And in a new variation of the Hail Mary pass, the Associated Press reported that the New Orleans Saints are going to court to keep the public from seeing hundreds of emails that allegedly show team executives doing public relations damage control for the area’s Roman Catholic archdiocese to help it contain the fallout from a burgeoning sexual abuse crisis. This year’s Super Bowl telecast will unveil new twists for viewers – the “Three-card Monte” or “Flimflam” advertising approach. The Wall Street Journal’s’ May 6 “CMO TODAY” column reported that the telecast will reduce the number of national commercial breaks per quarter from four to five, but the total amount of ad time is not to be diminished. To put things in perspective: There were 49 minutes and 45 seconds of national commercials last year (2018).The actual amount of playing time in an NFL game is between 11- and 15 minutes.

Also, in addition to TV viewers getting soused and filling their bodies with unhealthy foods during the commercial special known as the Super Bowl, there will be a new destructive element added for viewers: They will be able to bet on individual plays while having “just one more” and maybe get cancer, according to Japanese scientific study reported in the New York Times on December 24.

As someone who has been involved in numerous mega sports marketing campaigns over the years – both nationally and internationally – but doesn’t bet on the outcomes, I can confidently predict, and be willing to put a few bucks on the following: 1 – Even before sales figures or audience surveys and attitudes are in, sponsors of the 2020 Super Bowl will say, “We’re pleased with the reception of our ads.” (Even if they’re not.) 2 – The Jennifer Lopez-Shakira half-time show will draw a greater audience than the commercial-laden few minutes of actual football play, and, 3 – Despite marketers spending more than $5-million dollars for 30 seconds of commercial time, all the ads will fall short of gaining the publicity that Michael

Bloomberg’s one- minute national ad criticizing Donald Trump will receive. Both Bloomberg and the president announced on January 7 that they will advertise on the Super Bowl. From what I saw, Bloomberg’s announcement generated much more media coverage than the Trump disclosure. As soon as the Bloomberg-Trump commercials were made public, other advertisers became fearful that their ads would be shuffled to the practice squad, according to various news reports. And they were correct, as the pre-game publicity showed. So Fox decided to run the ads in close proximity to their own promotional ones. (In football terminology, that’s known as the “prevent defense.” But as football fans know, it often fails.)

The politicization of sports – especially the Super Bowl – is not a new story. Neither is the news that Facebook profits from permitting political lies on its site. What is new is a story that CNN broke on January 24 saying that, “President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign has run more than 200 misleading political advertisements on Facebook in the past day claiming the “Fake News media” will attempt to block the campaign’s upcoming Super Bowl ad — despite federal regulations that require the TV spot be aired.” (Is it only a matter of time before Facebook will run NFL ads saying that new scientific proof shows that football concussions help improve cognitive ability.)

Advertising on the Super Bowl, or any mega sporting event, instead of doing more targeted advertising, is like shooting craps. You roll the dice and hope for the best.

A sure to happen discussion about whether the cost of producing and publicizing a TV commercial is the best way for a marketer to advertise will surely occur after this year’s game. But on January 14, one opinion was already in: In her daily run-up to the Super Bowl advertising column, Jeanine Poggi, Ad Age’s senior editor, reported that, “After advertising in both 2010 and 2000, the last two times the census was taken, the U.S. Census Bureau will not run a commercial in the 2020 game.” “It isn’t an efficient spend of tax payers’ dollars,” says Alex Hughes, census program director at VMLY&R, which is handling the bureau’s 2020 ad campaign. I’ve been told in confidence by some sports marketers who are pressured to advertise on sports mega events that they feel the same way as the census people. Before committing to advertise on next years Super Bowl at the very least brand managers should have their agencies present them with alternative options before agreeing to spend more than $5- million for a :30 spot.

About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson- Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on theSeoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr (at) juno.com and artsolomon4pr (at) optimum.net.

Strategy for Super Bowl Brands as Bloomberg Duels Trump

Henry C. Boyd III, Clinical Professor in the Marketing Department at the Robert H. Smith School of Business

Aspiring presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg’s timing is rather canny. On the eve of the 2020 Iowa Caucuses where he doesn’t appear on the ballet, Bloomberg — front of about 100 million Super Bowl halftime viewers — will unveil a political spot reportedly to attack perhaps the most polarizing president in U.S. history – Donald Trump. This decisive act imposes big implications for next-day discussions at the water cooler and over social media platforms. It also means the specter of presidential politics will now loom large – further fueled by equal time of Trump messaging. Hence, this classic battle of conservatism versus progressivism threatens to saturate an iconic pop culture milieu to the detriment of the other Super Bowl advertisers.

Pro football, along with these other advertisers, has been poised for a revitalized stage. Fox Sports in November reported that the network has sold out Super Bowl ad spots for the Feb. 2 game, marking the first time for such a bonanza in five years. This further bucked a recent trend of networks like CBS waiting as late as hours before kickoff to fill up commercial breaks.

Fueling the upswing has been this year’s strong economy along with especially-compelling regular season narratives that are helping the NFL make a comeback in a time when traditional and reality TV are struggling to keep up. Consider the nature of the game nowadays, especially the offensive side of it, where rising stars like Baltimore Ravens’ quarterback Lamar Jackson and Kansas City Chiefs’ quarterback Patrick Mahomes have helped to make it thrilling to watch football.

So how should brands position themselves alongside dueling Bloomberg-Trump campaign ads? First, avoid transparently political messaging used in 2017 spots by 84 Lumber (The Journey Begins) and AirBnB (We accept). I suspect that most viewers will have been inundated with political rhetoric. Instead, savvy firms ought to lean towards entertainment- infused commercials. Second, think in terms of drama-focused advertisements and aim to spark conversation on social media – broadly and especially among non-political junkies. I base this assertion on my doctoral dissertation research at Duke University, where I isolated key elements of drama-related advertising.

Super Bowl advertisers should approach their spots as 30-, 45- or minute-long mini plays or dramas. In each instance, the following ad elements need to positively stand out: the actors’ traits, the actors’ interactions, the dialogue, the delivery of the lines and the setting.

From the viewer’s standpoint, you naturally check all those boxes in your mind’s eye when watching a drama. If all the elements pass muster, the viewer experiences verisimilitude (i.e., a desired end state where the viewer buys into the performance). That’s a big win for any marketer. Audi’s 2017 “Daughter” spot exemplifies this – and significantly through delivering a glimpse of the future. This vision – about equal opportunity irrespective of one’s gender – significantly was portrayed in the ad between a father and daughter, making it relatable and subsequently inspiring to a large segment of viewers.

Moreover, for 2020, skip the lecture ads, especially, again, those making political statements, and go with something that draws audiences in and isn’t so explicit about the product. This will prompt viewers to draw and share their own conclusions via social media. Reward outweighs backlash risk when brands aim to inspire via social messaging. And, you have to entertain at a minimum. Effectively crafting inspirational and entertaining spots is never easy, but it’s paramount for a brand’s continued success.

About the Author: Henry C. Boyd is a Clinical Professor in the Marketing Department at the Robert H. Smith School of Business. He is also a managing director and principal at Ombudsman LLC, a diversified consultancy. He is licensed to practice law in Maryland, Wisconsin, and the U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin.

Boyd received his Ph.D. in Marketing from Duke University (with an emphasis in Consumer Behavior) and his J.D. in Intellectual Property from the University of Wisconsin- Madison. At the age of 24, he received his MBA in Marketing from the University of California at Berkeley. Prior to graduate study, he obtained his A.B. in Chemistry (with an emphasis in Biophysics) from Princeton University.

The Best of Super Bowl Ads Brian Gefter, President, Provacateur

The approximate cost for a Super Bowl ad this year is nothing short of jaw-dropping: each 30 second spot is set to cost advertisers a whopping $5.25 million. That’s $175,000 a second, just to pay for airtime; this price tag doesn’t factor in the cost of production, public relations, and marketing efforts before, during and after the main Super Bowl event.

Indeed, it goes without saying that the Super Bowl is big business these days. Adjusted for inflation, the first ads came in at just over $300,000. With this year’s bill some 17 times that, brands are betting big, and are surely counting on making enough of an impact to rack up hours of free air time via social media. Here’s a round-up on the ones that nailed the shot:

1. Pairing Adam Scott from “Parks and Recreation” with famed Atlanta rapper 2 Chainz, Expensify went all out with their inaugural Super Bowl ad, producing a music video and initiating an interactive component to boot. Furthermore, Expensify managed to give viewers an incentive to download the Expensify app by calling on viewers to snap photos of receipts shown in the video in a bid to win some next-level prizes, including a gold jet-ski and Audi R8. With second-to-none entertainment value and a solid call-to-action, Expensify scored a touchdown with this campaign. 2. If you’re familiar with Dante’s inferno and his nine circles of hell, with each ring promising a worse hell the further you descend, going car shopping is on a lower floor of Hyundai’s hilarious elevator ride. Other floors in Hyundai’s vision of hell similarly feature things we collectively dread, including root canals, jury duty, and the middle seats on airplanes. Taking you through the stages of hell but closing with the heavenly “Duo des Fleurs” from the Delibes opera Lakmé, Hyundai works to convince you of the salvation value of the Shopper Assurance method compared to traditional car buying. 3. We’re putting Alexa in a lot of things now, but trust me . . . there are a lot of fail.” That’s the opening of this brilliant ad from Amazon, with the technology giant bashfully making itself the butt of the joke. WIth this ad, Amazon goes all out in showing you some of the less successful prototypes before Alexa as we know her was born. Featuring celebrities like Harrison Ford, Forest Whitaker, Ilana Glazer, Abbi Jacobson, and NASA’s famous twin brothers, Mark and Scott Kelly, Amazon has pulled out all on the stops on this one, cleverly closing with Queen’s all time classic “Don’t Stop Me Now.” 4. Michelob Pure Gold Pure Experience film is a sensory ride from the outset: perfectly crafted and executed, Michelob puts Zoë Kravitz from HBO’s “Big Little Lies” front and centre to introduce us to the Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (ASMR), and we’re not looking back. According to Wikipedia, the ASMR is an experience distinguished by a static-like or tingling sensation on the skin typically beginning on the scalp and moving down the back of the neck and upper spine. Did you just feel it?

About the Author: Brian Gefter is President of Provacateur. Gefter is also a partner in Hi-Fi Marketing.

Wide Right or Splitting the Uprights: Branding for the Big Game

Joshua Dorsey, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Cal State

Marketing wears many hats. Contingent upon execution, it can accelerate a brand, break a bottom line, or even ignite a national dialogue. When firms consider manufacturing a connection between the big game and their brand, there are several key issues. Whether national titans, regional risers, or family-owned operations, the following points may be a path to victory. If you feel confident in your team, book the tickets to Disneyland now.

1) What is the Game Plan?

The resources that a firm must expend to secure a national advertisement during the game are considerable ($5.05 million in 2018 for 30-second spot). Even if the advertising campaign is on a smaller scale, it must be thoughtful and deliberate. Adaptability is essential to the marketing art; however, improvisation is rarely ideal. The marketing strategy for such a campaign should be carefully crafted to illuminate the unique value of the brand’s product and/or service. Also, there should be cohesion between the established identity of the brand and the big game’s advertising. 2) Run or Pass?

Does the brand (and/or its product/service offerings) lend itself to a particular type of appeal? Humor is a well- established, and considerably effective, vessel for marketing messages. However, drama, nostalgia, sadness, and social appeals also have gained traction with firms and consumers. A firm must decide which angle best suits the brand’s personality, then execute effectively. Also, there is a critical difference in intent that must be understood. Is the desired effect an increase in a “softer” metric, such as brand awareness, or a concrete measure like revenues? This is important for consumers, as well as for assessing ROI and comparable financial figures.

3) Teamwork Makes the Dream Work

When developing advertising concepts for the big game, managers will be well-served to carefully align the new content with existing marketing messages. This strategy, otherwise known as integrated marketing communications, is a key point of discussion during the game plan. Do not let in congruent or confusing messages during a particular campaign muddle and/or negate the hard-earned equity of a brand in the hearts and minds of consumers.

4) Go for it on 4th Down!

Do not be timid. Be bold, but calculated and strategic. There will be a temporary windfall of fleeting attention surrounding the big game. But, the event, if leveraged properly, can be an opportunity to increase brand awareness, make an indelible impression upon core consumers, or acquire new patrons. 5) Touchdown Celebration

After the first four points, be prepared to celebrate. Choreographed team dance? Classic end zone spike? Whatever the choice, be prepared to address the potential increase in consumer engagement or purchasing (digital or in-person) that may follow. Effectively managing these interactions may solidify any memorable, unique, and positive brand associations that arise from big game advertising affiliations.

About the Author: Joshua Dorsey is an assistant professor of marketing at Cal State Fullerton’s Mihaylo College of Business and Economics. His research focuses on consumer behavior and marketing and public policy. He has studied transformative consumer issues such as mindfulness; rage in retail settings; healthcare; sustainability; and food anti- consumption behaviors.

Lessons Learned From The 2018 Super Bowl (As We Approach The 2019 Game)

Arthur Solomon, Public Relations Consultant

The first lesson learned from the lead-up to last year’s Super Bowl is that many of the same subjects and comments from previous years again attracted media attention, regardless of the Roman numerals used to designate the number of years that the game has been in existent. (If you don’t believe that history repeats, watch this year’s Super Bowl promotions and commentary of players, coaches and National Football League personnel. Only the teams and people sometimes change. The comments remain the same.)

The second lesson that I can safely predict is that the NFL’s official hullabaloo of this year’s Super Bowl, Roman numeral LIII, on February 3 between the New England Patriots and the Los Angeles Rams at Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, will once again downplay the brutality of football and the uncaring attitude of team owners and NFL executives: Broadcasters will label team owners as “fine gentlemen.” Coaches will be praised as if they invented the cure for male baldness by media flunkies, especially the broadcast “journalists.” But the legit media coverage will say otherwise.

But flash! Before we look more closely at last year’s Lessons Learned from the 2018 Super Bowl, here’s a new Lesson Learned in time for this year’s game: With alcoholic beverage advertising such a big partner of the NFL (and other professional sports) – popular too with the athletes, history shows – it was only natural that the NFL recently partnered with Caesars Entertainment, making the gaming business the first “Official Casino Sponsor of the NFL.” (I’m willing to bet a few acres of the farm that it won’t be the last NFL gambling tie-in.) Below are some other Lessons Learned from last year’s spectacle:

The harmful health affects from playing football will always receive major overage. Because of President Trump’s remarks regarding saluting the flag, politics is now in football’s DNA. Parents and some NFL players, are against their children playing football. The days of the always growing NLF TV ratings are past. The luster of the big game TV commercials might also have past, according to reviews of last and previous year’s commercial reviews. (In my opinion, they were always overrated; hyped by advertising trade writers.) More people tuned in the half-time show than watched the football game. (Not an unusual occurrence.)

The dangers of playing football were the main focus of reporters during the days leading up to the 2018 Super Bowl (as it will be prior to this year’s game). Already theNew York Times, earlier this year on January 19, ran a huge editorial detailing the physical damage to those who play “America’s Game.”)

Another NYT’s article, on January 20, revealed that while you’re eating, drinking and celebrating the big hits, be aware that you’re also witnessing another life-threatening football- related condition encouraged by the NFL that was heretofore largely kept in the locker room: Obesity. While coaches do not want players to get concussions, they encourage linemen to bulk up in order to play in the NFL, as the NYT reported in a huge three page story. Because of the “gain to play” requirements, NFL linemen have higher rates of hypertension, obesity and sleep apnea then other players or the general public. As the Times reported, “blocking for a $25-million-a- year quarterback, it turns out, can put linemen in the high risk category for many of the ailments health experts readily encourage people to avoid.” (Advice to young football players: Don’t do it. No matter what coach says.) . (The NFL credo should be, “Don’t worry about your health. Worry about the quarterback.”)

Those two stories, I confidently predict, will be the first of many such stories leading up to the 2019 Super Bowl.

Below are a few examples of health-related newspaper stories from 2018.

The first of many media stories about concussions that the NFL would rather have not been reported last year occurred on January 13, when a New York Times article chronicled how the family of Mike Webster is struggling financially because they haven’t received any money from a settlement that awards money to players injured from chronic encephalopathy traumatic (CTE). Ironically, Webster, the former Pittsburg Steelers star, was the first NFL player to receive a diagnosis of the degenerative brain disease linked to repeated concussions. It was his death in 2002 that led to the NFL agreeing to compensate players who were injured by hits to the head. “Yet 15 years after his death, and two years after the courts cleared the way for a settlement that would pay an estimated $1 billion to retired players, Webster’s survivors continue to struggle financially” the Times story said, because players who died before January 1, 2006, were exempted from receiving payments from the settlement. (But, as usual, the broadcasters of NFL games still talk about the “gentlemen and greatness of team owners, despite their condoning the league’s actions over many decades of trying to dispute scientific evidence and attempting to destroy a leading CTE researcher’s career.)

Then in the January 20-21 edition of the Wall Street Journal, an op-ed titled “How to Save Football Players’ Brains” was authored by Dr. Paul S. Auerbach, a professor of emergency medicine at Stanford, who was a team physician during high school, college and professional football games. And the NYT’s, on January 31, ran an article regarding the annual conference of USA Football, the national governing body for amateur American football in the United States. The conference featured speakers extolling the benefits of playing football and downplayed the dangers of playing the game. One speaker, according to the story, was Mike Murphy, chief executive of the Green Bay Packers, who said, “The liberal media has got football in its crosshairs.”(Some scientists believe that the game of football has player’s brains in its crosshairs.) USA Football is supported by the NFL.

On Super Bowl Sunday, which in 2018 was on February 4, the NYT ran several stories related to the big game. One was headlined, “Despite the N.F.L.’s Problems, Fans Can’t Look Away.” Part of the story was about the Boys & Girls Club in Marshall, Texas, discontinuing its tackle football program. Another article was headlined, “Parents Fret, So League Takes Case To Children.” The story told how the NFL. has teamed with “Nickelodeon” to promote football.

But the most forceful article appeared in the papers “Sunday Review,” by-lined by Emily Kelly, the wife of former player Rob Kelly. In a huge article titled, “Football Destroyed My Husband’s Mind,” she told of the changes in her husband personality, from a caring individual, to a person she didn’t recognize, caused by playing football.

Along with newspaper articles regarding health issues associated with playing football, stories about players unsportsmanlike off-the-field conduct are reviewed during the lead up to the Super Bowl. This year, on January 22, the NYT reminded people that a video was released showing Kareem Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs shoving and kicking a woman. Even though Hunt was released by the Chiefs, the NFL once again was criticized for taking insufficient action against player’s off-the-field violence.

The lead-up to last year’s Super Bowl was not a happy time for sports marketing sponsors, advertising agencies and TV execs. The WSJ reported in a newsletter on January 4 that “The final scores are in. The average audience for NFL games in the recently completed regular season was 14.9 million, down 9.7% from a year ago.” And in his January 24 Op-Ed column, NYT’s columnist Frank Bruni wrote, “The size of audiences for Thursday night, Sunday night and Monday night games shrunk again this season.”

In addition, the WSJ’s CMO column on, February. 2, reported on a new WSJ and NBC News poll. “Fans’ interest is waning and parents increasingly want their children to turn away from football, amid worries about player safety,” the survey revealed, and showed that of “men ages 18 to 49, just 51% say they follow the league closely, down from 75% four years ago.” A huge expanded story appeared in the paper’s February. 3-4 edition.

The poll was cited again in a February 6WSJ story that reported the game averaged 103.4 million viewers on NBC. The Nielsen ratings showed 7.1% less TV viewers than in 2017, making the Pats-Eagles Super Bowl game the least watched since 2009.

Perhaps the most disheartening none financial news for the execs who make their living hawking that “football is America” occurred during the lead-up to the Super Bowl, when on the TV show “Jeopardy” on February 1 one of the subjects was “Talking’ Football.” Throughout the category of basic questions, all of the contestants kept their hands off the buzzers, astonishing quizmaster Alex Trebek.

Of course, because of Trump’s s.o.b. remarks about players peacefully protesting during the national anthem, politics is now in the Super Bowls DNA. A few examples connected to last year’s Super Bowl.

AMVETS said that the NFL rejected a program ad asking Americans to please stand during the national anthem. (WCCO/AP) reported “Several civil rights groups in the Twin Cities announced plans to “take a knee” against police brutality, racism and corporate exploitation on Super Bowl Sunday.” As if declining TV football viewership wasnt’enough of a headache for sponsors and the networks, two CNBC commissioned surveys said that half of Americans said they’ll watch the Super Bowl but about a fifth said they won’t watch because of politics. Not surprisingly, because Trump always makes statements that are untrue, he tweeted the following at 8:39 AM – Sep 5, 2018: “Just like the NFL, whose ratings have gone WAY DOWN, Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts. I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way? As far as the NFL is concerned, I just find it hard to watch, and always will, until they stand for the FLAG.!” Actually, while still not as robust as in the past, NFL ratings crept up a bit this season and Nike sales since the Colin Kaepernick ad campaign have soared. (Observation: The uber-patriot Trump obviously didn’t find love of the flag until after he received five draft deferments to avoid military service during the Vietnam War.)

President Trump’s finger prints are all over the Super Bowl. In addition to his S.O.B. remark regarding football players protesting racial inequality, and some entertainers saying they will not entertain offers to participate at the half-time show because of the president’s remarks, if the government shut down isn’t settled by February 3, Super Bowl LIII could be the first major sporting event in more than two decades held during a government shutdown, according to USA TODAY. The nonsensical journalism reporting facets of the lead-up to last year’s Super Bowl (what I call “flufforama”) officially began on January 21, when CBS began promoting a TV special about football players off-the-field talents called, “MVP, The Most Valuable Performer,” proving that just when you think TV has hit a low, there’s always another new low.

Then, on January 26, the “Today” show commenced with its “Super Bowl Commercial Kickoff,” during which everyday a new commercial was televised. (Sort of a pre-conditioning regimen for the almost four hour-long big game’s none-stop barrage of tedious commercials during a telecast that has only about 11 minutes of actual football played.)

Here are several other stories that the media felt merited coverage during last year’s Super Bowl week.

On January 24, USA TODAY headlined a story, “Passing asteroid won’t wreck Super Bowl,” even though calculations showed that the asteroid “has no chance – zero – of colliding with Earth on Feb. 4 or any time over the next 100 years.” (What a relief! I already sent in my money for the 2119 season tickets.) Also on January 24, The Deseret and others news outlets, ran a story about predictions by Alexa and Siri. (I lost money by not taking their predictions seriously and instead followed the advice of “expert” football writers and analysts.) On the same day, CBS reported that “Dottie’s Donuts in Philadelphia has stopped selling Boston cream donuts, sending a clear message to New England” And Esplanade Park in Boston “is shunning some Philly favorites” including Philadelphia cream cheese and Philly cheese steaks. (The clear winner in this stand-off was your cholesterol readings.) On January. 26, the Daily Mail ran a story titled, “Dressed for Success: Patriots opt to wear their white uniforms for Super Bowl LII, joining 12 of the last 13 Lombardi Trophy winners.” (White after Labor Day for football players? Questionable. Blood on the uniforms will stand out. ) Of course, this was followed by stop the press stories about the Eagles decision to wear green uniforms. Another stop the presses and TV feeds for a breaking news story on ESPN, February 1, was about the distance passes would travel if they were converted from yards to miles, only to be outdone on February. 2, when they aired a segment asking which is the better sandwich, Philly cheese steaks or lobster roll. (I’ll pass. Just give me a Coney Island hot dog or lox on a New York City)

Of course, to the people who make the Super Bowl telecast possible, the sports marketers and the networks, the outcome of the game is far from the most important element. What really counts for these folks is the size of the TV audience, the cost of the commercials and the reception they receive. (One sure bet from experience: Even before sales figures or audience attitudes are in, sponsors of the 2019 Super Bowl will say, “We’re pleased with the reception of our ads.” Another sure bet, based on my many years of being involved with mega sporting events: What sponsors say publicly about their association with mega sporting events is not necessarily what they say privately.)

One last point before tuning in to this year’s Super Bowl: If you want to make sports marketers, CBS and the NFL happy, while you’re watching the big game on February 3, follow their advice and stock up on league-sanctioned junk food (so good for your arteries); wash it down with football-sanctioned alcoholic beverages (so good for your liver), and don’t hesitate to place a wager on the game’s outcome, (encouraged by the NFL’s new gambling partners). And be thankful that your child or husband is just acting silly instead of getting their brains scrambled by the big hit, so beloved by the team’s owner-gentlemen (it’s not their brains turning to mush), and don’t forget that that when the TV cameras pan the sidelines to show the coaches you’re seeing all knowing geniuses at( least according to game broadcasters).

For the past few years, I’ve noticed a diminishing amount of the news budget given to the hype stories, replaced by articles regarding the politics, health issues and financial aspects related to the game. That certainly doesn’t make sports marketers and PR firms, whose jobs it is to extend the shelve life of the TV commercials and assorted promotions that cost millions of dollars, happy.

But there is still plenty of fluff covered by reporters. So when an editor asks me, “Where’s the news in your pitch” I can reply, “Please switch my call to your Super Bowl reporting team.”

About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson- Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on theSeoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr (at) juno.com and artsolomon4pr (at) optimum.net.

Patriots and Eagles Face Off in Super Bowl

Ed Schinik, COO, Yorkville Advisors

It’s the matchup almost no one outside New England and Philly really wanted, but it’s also the matchup the oddsmakers expected all along: the Patriots are returning to the Super Bowl, this time to face the Philadelphia Eagles. The “big game” has always thrived on matchups and intrigue, and there really isn’t much of that here. The Patriots remain as solid and unbeatable as ever. Meanwhile, the Eagles look great too, behind a backup quarterback and a defense that blunted the Vikings and embarrassed all the other NFC competition on their way to destiny.

For some time on champ ionsh ip weeke nd, it looke d like it might go the other way, at least in the AFC. The Jaguars continued their improbable run, the strength of their defense and a great game by Blake Bortles giving them a ten-point advantage leading into the final quarter. But then Brady started doing what Brady does. He found Amendola in the end zone again and again, giving the Pats the win and yet another opportunity to raise the Lombardi Trophy.

Then there’s the Eagles (of whom my partner Mark Angelo is a die-hard fan). They weren’t supposed to get here. The season was supposed to be over in Philly when superstar QB Carson Wentz went down in week 14 to a knee injury. In came journeyman Nick Foles, who the Eagles just hoped was good enough to see them clear into the playoffs. Instead, Foles started lighting teams up all the way to the NFC championship, where he dismantled the vaunted Vikings in a lopsided 38-7 win.

So, there’s dominance on both sides to consider, but most people are not giving the Eagles much of a shot against a Patriots team that should have all its weapons back, provided Gronk gets cleared to play.

Oddsmakers don’t want to take too much air out of the balloon, so they only have the Patriots up by about a touchdown, but most seem to think it won’t be that close. Brady is the best quarterback of his generation, if not the greatest of all time, and he’s poised to win a sixth ring. Nobody seems to think Foles can keep up, no matter how good that running game is.

Could the Eagles make a game of it? There’s little doubt about that. No one expects a repeat of last year, a game in which the Patriots slept through three quarters before roaring back to embarrass the Falcons. It’s expected to be relatively close, at least for a while. It’s expected to have some scoring, and it’s expected to come down to the final few possessions. In a game like that, who’s betting against Brady? Not too many people outside Philadelphia.

But, then again, the NFL has another issue to deal with. Who, outside of their home markets, really likes these two teams? The Patriots are, perhaps, the most hated team in sports, outside of New England. And the Eagles are not that far behind. So, while the product on the field looks to be a good one, the NFL is dealing with a matchup few really wanted to see.

.