IT'S become a bit of a cliche on Super Bowl Sunday for casual American football fans to claim they only watch the game for the commercials.
With more than 100 million viewers in the US alone, the Super Bowl is consistently the most-watched television broadcast of the year, and advertisers are forced to cough up millions for access to all those eyeballs. A 30-second spot this year went for between US$2.5 million (S$3.55 million) and US$2.8 million.
All the spots were filled with a week to spare. The ads — which have become almost as import as the game itself — straddle the line between amusing and inane; there are busty women, talking babies and more than a couple superstars hawking everything from snacks and beverages to Internet start-ups.
Even the fans who tune in for the football will inevitably end up debating which ads were good and which were just stupid. But this year, the usual low-brow fare will air beside ads with content that is socially agitating.
It's debatable what role issues of social consequence have at the Super Bowl, or sport in general. But broadcaster CBS has brought that debate to the fore with the ads it's chosen to run and those on which it chose to pass.
One spot in particular has sparked a firestorm of debate about what is appropriate material for viewers on one of America's favorite secular holidays.
It reportedly features college gridiron standout Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, speaking out against abortion. In the ad, it is said, Mrs Tebow tells her story of a missionary trip she took to the Philippines while pregnant in 1987. After a tropical disease she contracted put the lives of both her and her fetus at risk, she says, local doctors urged her to have an abortion.
As a devout Christian, she refused, and the healthy baby boy she bore grew up to be Tim, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner (and himself a proselytising Christian).
CBS has been pilloried by women's groups, who say the grandest stage in American sports is not the place to tackle such a controversial issue. In a letter to CBS, the Women's Media Centre accused CBS of using "sports to divide rather than to unite".
Furthermore, critics say, the Tebow spot — sponsored by conservative Christian group Focus on the Family — would appear to violate CBS' stated policy of not allowing "advocacy" ads on its airwaves, a precedent set in 2004 when the same network rejected a Super Bowl ad by the United Church of Christ (UCC) that highlighted the church's welcoming stance towards homosexuals.
CBS called that ad too "controversial". (See the ad here.) The broadcaster has announced an easing of that policy, noting that the UCC ad would be allowed under the new guidelines. The announcement, though, came only after the uproar over the Tebow ad.
The choice to allow this particular ad is all the more curious when considering some of the ads CBS rejected this year.
Most notable is a spot by Mancrunch.com, a gay dating website based in Toronto. The ad shows two men watching the Super Bowl together. After their hands touch incidentally in a bowl of potato chips, the men start making out with each other. (See the ad here.)
In its rejection letter to Mancrunch, CBS states that the ad "is not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday". The humour in the ad may border on sophomoric, but its rejection does nothing to clear up exactly what "standards" CBS is referring to.
As Adweek's Tim Arnold points out: "It was CBS that approved and aired commercials in (the 2004) Super Bowl featuring a horny, talking monkey hitting on a (human) babe; Cedric the Entertainer getting a bikini wax; painted man tits; a farting Clydesdale; a kid watching a kilt-wearing dude cool his gonads; and a 12-year-old kid uttering a swear word in reaction to his dad's new car, not to mention an erectile dysfunction commercial."
Another ad — featuring an effeminate (and fictional) former gridiron player, "Lola", who strikes it rich after he starts an online lingerie company — was also disallowed this year on the grounds that it was potentially offensive to viewers. Godaddy.com, a company that sells domain names and has a reputation for racy Super Bowl ads, was stunned: "Of the five commercial concepts we submitted for approval this year, this NEVER would’ve been my pick for the one that would not be approved... We were absolutely blindsided!" GoDaddy CEO and Founder Bob Parsons said. (See the rejected ad and others here.)
Ultimately, executives at CBS are the ones calling the shots, and they can take (or reject) money from whomever they want.
But by picking and choosing what viewers get to see based on what appears to be some ideological platform, they have appointed themselves arbiters of appropriateness — and have justified charges of censorship.
The NFL has not shied away from important social issues this season. Many players wore pink boots early in the year to show support for breast cancer research, and broadcasters have enthusiastically promoted ways for viewers to donate to Haitian relief funds.
Abortion and homosexuality are considerably more controversial topics. But by offering its opinion — however implicitly — by maintaining a double standard on what it will broadcast, CBS has itself become part of the debate, and tarnished the innocence of the game.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Unfortunately for viewers in Singapore who want to see this year's batch of commercials when the Indianapolis Colts take on the New Orleans Saints early Monday morning (local time), Super Bowl ads are not carried on the simulcast that is seen in the 230 or so countries outside US borders. But they will inevitably show up online. Have a look at last year's ads here. And for a list of some of the most objectionable Super Bowl ads that have actually aired during the game over the years, look here.)