FORESIGHT
Super Bowl 2019: Politically-charged & polarized battlefield for brands
You might be thinking we just had Thanksgiving and it is too early to think or write about Super Bowl. Well, you are wrong! The advertising and digital agencies have already started to brainstorm about the advertising’s biggest stage in February. After a very unique year of intermingling political and brand ecosystems, my foresight is that 2019 will be one of the most difficult Super Bowls to date for NFL, teams, players, brands, advertising agencies, and also for the political and cultural climate of the nation.
Things are supercharged on all fronts: sports, entertainment, brands, and celebrities.
Things are supercharged on all fronts: sports, entertainment, brands, and celebrities. It has been two years since Kaepernick has taken his first knee; changing the play, the league, and the consumer and popular culture surrounding all. But, Kaepernick’s recent collaboration with Nike in September 2018 has transcended the discussion to brands and celebrities. This collab not only underlined the role of brands as political, cultural, and historical actors but also sharpened the polarization among the already politically charged fan/audience base and society. Rihanna and Maroon 5 dropping the HalfTime show, Amy Schumer’s decision to support Colin Kaepernick by refusing to do Super Bowl ads this year are all signs that (1) there is an intensified sense of awareness across media, entertainment business, sports, and brand landscape about politics; (2) Super Bowl — and also Brand Bowl — will be very much impacted by the politically-charged climate; and, (3) Brands and advertising in general will be facing some tough decisions working along and across political and cultural fault lines.
Why is it going to be difficult?
It is naive to think that Super Bowl has ever been a display of pure athleticism. It was portrayed and presented with the pure athleticism ethos, but it always had and will have immense cultural significance due to its national level reach, popularity across consumer segments, and widely-adopted ritualized consumption. Thus, Super Bowl has always been a cultural phenomenon; but this year, it also has to host & bear the strain of all the battles, polarizations, and fault lines simultaneously happening across different industries and among society that will be taking national stage.
This year, brands are going to face important decisions for Super Bowl LIII in this politically polarized context. They have to carefully navigate this polarized political minefield that have been divided by clear fault lines. There are two important decisions brand need to make regarding the upcoming Super Bowl: (1) shall we have a commercial on Super Bowl or not? (2) If yes, shall we take a political stand?
Shall we be on Super Bowl or not? Super Bowl is the biggest annual advertising event with a billion dollars media budget. More than 100 million pairs of eyes locked onto the screen, not zapping but intentionally and carefully watching the commercials is a big opportunity for brands to get their message through and also claim their share of the culture. Previously, purchasing a Super Bowl spot was majorly a budget decision for the brands. But, this year, the decision to appear on Super Bowl is a more tricky and, in some ways, a more political one. When a marketer buys time in the game, does it mean that they are taking a pro-NFL stand and endorsing support for NFL? Or, brands and some celebrities might be protesting the league by not giving any money to NFL. Amy Schumer, who appeared in one Super Bowl ad — a 2016 spot for Bud Light — states that “Hitting the NFL with the advertisers is the only way to really hurt them.” On the other hand, will the absence of some major brands on Super Bowl stage hurt them more? Not taking part in this conversation might also have some costs to the clients — socially and financially. With its super-broad reach and super-focused consumer attention, Super Bowl is still a great opportunity for brands to cut through clutter and establish a relation with their consumers. Financially, they might have to bear the opportunity costs of not making use of such a brand fest. On the social side, brands that do not take a stand might be hurt as consumers might perceive these brands as coward, hesitant, not much of a strong agent in the marketplace. Taking the social risk argument further, this year, the attention and influence will not be gone to the ads or brands that appear in Super Bowl, but also to the ones that are absent. The absence might be perceived as a pro-NFL endorsement by the consumers. At this point there is news that state Anheuser Busch (exclusive alcohol sponsor), Mercedes Benz, Kim Kardashian for a brand, Weather Tech, Avocados from Mexico, and Colgate will be in Super Bowl LIII.
Shall we take a stand? If brands decide to be on super Bowl, the next big question will be about whether or not to take a stand. There are two options for the brands who want to take a stand (1) echo Nike’s Kaepernick campaign message to imply solidarity with him; or (2) support a more neutral and less polarizing cause — mostly a social or environmental social cause — and stand by that. Like Colgate’s #EveryDropCounts commercial in 2016 encouraging viewers to turn off the water. A good ad is always resonant with the Zeitgeist. And, when everyone — consumers, celebrities, entertainment, sports — have been immensely politicized, it is not surprising to expect that the politics and social cause messaging would be at forefront for this Super Bowl. Some consumers want to protect the “pure athlete” ethos of the event and do not want to see it politicized. Some consumers will perceive the lack of political and social messaging as tone deaf. These last couple of years, we have seen some Super Bowl ads with political and social messages pushing and implicitly criticizing the government activities. Stirring up political polarizations and partisan issues, Amazon, Airbnb, and Budweiser’s aired ads about diversity and critique of the immigration policies. Another alternative for brands who want to be in Super Bowl might be ignoring all the political and cultural terrain and taking the humor route. Below, I will explain more for which brands this is a viable strategy and for which ones it is not.
Embrace: Brands are not mere images or creatives; they are historical, political, and cultural agents.
Notes to Advertisers:
Re-think: Your decision to buy Super Bowl spot as well as your Super Bowl Strategy
This year brands need to assess whether appearing on Super Bowl is a bigger risk than their absence in Super Bowl. I foresee that the theme/trends in Brand Bowl this year will be twofold: political fault lines and brands that want to mimic Nike-Kaepernick story and stand up — or to look as if they do standup — for a cause. There is a growing pressure and emphasis on brands, leaders, celebrities to show their values and political sensitivities. The middle-America story Super Bowl used to tell is replaced by a divided narrative.
Although some experts claim that there is no change in the brand’s’ willingness to have a spot in Super Bowl, I sniff some hesitation on the part of the brands to take action. My observation is that many brands are still in waiting and watching mode to see what other brands will do. I think some brands still ponder whether their presence on Super Bowl might be interpreted as pro-NFL endorsement.
Global Brand or Not: Global brands will be pushed more to pick a side.
Global brands will experience the heat of picking a side more than the others. There is empirical research illustrating that consumers hold global brands to higher standards about moral and social responsibilities. They perceive them “as symbols of cultural ideals, wielding extraordinary influence, both positive and negative, on society’s well-being”. Consumers expect global brands to engage with the social problems that have global impacts and take responsibility in solving those problems. Along these lines, I would foresee the absence of global brands from the political and cultural conversation at Super Bowl will be noticed. Global brands, particularly, will be feeling that pressure to pick a side and engage with a social or political cause.
Taking a stand: Brands with relevant and credible cultural and political authority can take a political stand.
Can every brand take a political stand? No. Brands with relevant and credible cultural and political authority can take a political stand. If not, they will be perceived to be parasitic. With the Kaepernick ad, Nike has addressed the same contradiction Pepsi tried to address with the Kendall Jenner commercial. Pepsi was labeled as ‘crass imposter’ as they lacked the political and cultural authority to support that claim. Yet, Nike is perceived to be more credible in addressing these recent contradictions with lots of credibility in African-American life and culture. Why did we think of Pepsi commercial as exploitative but Nike is getting better reactions? Because of Nike has credible cultural and political authority in that space based on their previous stories of Tiger Woods, Jordan, and Stan Lee etc. Although the entire field speaks about authenticity to refer to million different things, what advertisers and brands have to be careful about is the political and cultural authority of the brand and what it allows. “When a brand creates a story that people find valuable, it earns the authority to tell similar kinds of stories (cultural authority) to address the identity desires of a similar constituency (political authority) in the future.”
Political messaging is not risky for small brands either. For some brands political messaging or political satire has paid off big time in previous Super Bowls. “It’s a 10 Haircare”, a small brand, aired a Super Bowl ad “America, we’re in for at least four years — of awful hair” in 2017. That particular commercial leads them to an escalated growth. Their culturally resonant message leveraged this big advertising event effectively to grow and also helped them claim a share of culture. I believe small brands have more room to be experimental with political and social messages. But, my foresight is that the brands in categories where one major brand have taken a clear and strong stand will be more confused. Nike has taken a stance, should Adidas, Under Armour or Reebok have to as well? Same stand? Opposing stand? Is there a limited political and cultural authority in a product category, so only limited number of brands in a category can leverage a political or social purpose?
Can brands avoid walking a tightrope? I foresee many brands who does not want to be politicized but at the same time do not want to be absent from the national level conversation at the Super Bowl stage will revert back to more neutral and commonly accepted social causes or corporate responsibility messages. This less risky strategy in this highly politicized environment might work for the brands that have enough credible political and cultural authorities in the social causes they are supporting. For example, Nike does not have enough political and cultural authority in labor movements given the sweatshop incidences; but definitely an authentic and credible voice in solo willpower. But, in a political, cultural, and social context, where consumers are expecting brands to take bolder moves, this less risky strategy will probably not help brands to take a share of culture surrounding the event. And, I suspect that many of the brands on Super Bowl will prefer this less risky road. My concern is: When every brand is standing for something, when each brand is signing up for a social cause: does it differentiate? does it cut through clutter? is it perceived authentic by the consumer? Does it have enough to claim a share of culture surrounding the event? When every brand is using an inspiration narrative, is it really inspiring? In a sea of “do-gooding”, what is the best strategy?
Another way to avoid this tough choice is to focus on unifying messages based on the game or the country [USA]. There is a segment that wants to avoid all the commercialization of the game but rather protect and celebrate its athletic achievement. Mostly composed of males who have played competitive sports; this segment wants to protect their experience as they make “an imaginative leap from the living room sofa onto the player’s bench.” Similarly focusing on the unifying messages across political polarized camps might resonate across the audience segments.
Formulas are passé: The formulaic creative choices will not help advertisers this year.
The existing formulas to best Super Bowl ad will not be effective to navigate this politically charged and polarized battlefield this year. The humor, the puppy, this celebrity, that social cause is not a guaranteed way for a successful commercial this year. Creative strategy is a more complex and difficult decision for this Super Bowl than looking at the past year data and adopting a data-driven formula.
Useless metrics: The performance measure to test or assess the success of the creative need to change.
Advertisers emphasize the idea that the ad should deliver to assess its performance. They test the ad based on some variables like trialability, likeability, understandability, and so on. They also use metrics like reach, social mentions, YouTube Views, ranking in top ad lists. This year, these metrics will not be sufficient to measure the performance of the Super Bowl commercials in 2019. The new metrics should acknowledge the dividedness in the audience segments and also assess the cultural resonance of each ad for its own constituency.
Most importantly,
Embrace: Brands are not mere images or creatives; they are historical, political, and cultural agents.
#SuperBowl #brandbowl #branding #foresight #advertising #media #storytelling #consumerculture #trendtips #agency #entertainment #football
