Collegiate Times

As a researcher focused on advertising, the Super Bowl and its requisite ads are a night of business meeting pleasure. Not only did I enjoy seeing the Saints pull off a first attempt and win, but I took interest in seeing what the tone of the ads would be as a whole for the evening.

The controversy over the Focus on the Family spot paid dividends for the group in terms of public relations exposure. (There is no such thing as bad publicity, although Tiger Woods may disagree with me.) However, CBS may reconsider its changed policy regarding advocacy ads if they become too prevalent; the evening is a celebratory one and people look forward to the ads for a change. Too serious, and viewers may opt to start taking the ad breaks for trips to the fridge and the bathroom again.

Mancrunch likely got exactly what it hoped for in its attempt to run an ad for its gay male dating service. It pressed CBS every step of the way to qualify the rejection of its ad. First it was told there was no available ad space left. Then its ability to pay was questioned. Finally it came forward with a standards and practices rejection. But again, the free publicity Mancrunch brought to its service and a larger cause was worth far more than what it would have spent on the ad time.

There is one bone I want to pick with Ben Woody’s column, “Super Bowl ads at their finest, worst” (CT, Feb. 11). Pepsi. Yes, it did not opt to run Pepsi spots and it did invest funds into the program that was mentioned. But in the same column, Frito-Lay was railed against for the number of Doritos ads that were run. Think about that for a moment. Who is the parent company of Frito-Lay? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Coca Cola.

E. M. Nugent
Associate Director of VDS4
Instructor, School of Visual Arts

A version of this article appeared in the Feb 16 issue of the Collegiate Times.