Consider boycotting Super Bowl advertisers to show your support for the Second Amendment

NFL super-bowl-2014

Commercials — they’re big money in America and they’re super-dooper big money at the Super Bowl.  For the upcoming Super Bowl, advertisers are paying $3.8 million dollars per 30 seconds of air time for commercials.  You know what commercial you won’t see, though?  One supporting the Second Amendment.  Here’s the ad that the NFL refused to show:

Mulling over the NFL’s craven retreat from supporting a core constitutional right, my first thought was “Hey, we ought to boycott the Super Bowl.”  Only a second’s reflection made me realize that there was no way Americans would refuse to watch the Super Bowl over something like this, even pro-gun Americans.  It is, after all, the Super Bowl, and it will take a bigger insult than a banned commercial to make people abandon one of the year’s great pleasures.

When I heard yesterday about the price for advertising on the Super Bowl, however, it occurred to me that Americans can take a stand without sacrificing their viewing pleasure:  Second Amendment supporters should let it be known that they will boycott any service or product advertised during the Super Bowl.  After all, while you and the players focus on the game itself when you think of the Super Bowl, for the NFL honchos and the advertisers, it’s all about the money.

According to Forbes, the following companies have already signed on to those exorbitant ad rates:  “Anheuser-Busch InBev; Butterfinger; Chevrolet; Doritos; GoDaddy.com; Hyundai; Intuit; Jaguar; Mars; Oikos; PepsiCo Beverages; and Wonderful Pistachios.”  There will eventual be

None of those are essential products that people must have in order to survive.  If you’re a Butterfinger or Mars fan, consider the fact that a boycott will help you with that diet you’ve been meaning to start.  Same goes for the Doritos nibblers among us, the soft drink consumers (PepsiCo), or the beer drinkers.  And honestly, as a luxury car, aren’t Jaguars just the slightest bit, well, old fogey-ish?  If you’re looking for a luxury car, pick one that isn’t giving almost $13,000 per second to an organization that considers the Second Amendment controversial.  I’m willing to bet that, subject to a few exceptions, every single advertised product will be something that you can do without.

I’m sure there are those among you who will say “It’s just a commercial” or ask “Why is one commercial such a big deal?” or something like that.  In years past, I might have agreed.  But this year is different.  This is the year in which Organizing For America is telling Americans to have Sandy Hook anniversary gatherings in order to fire up anti-gun sentiment.  This is the year that children across America were attacked by school authorities for chewing pizza into gun shapes or pointing their fingers at each other and saying “bang.”  Moreover, this is the administration that has been open about its desire to ban guns in America and that has at least another year to pursue that goal.

In other words, this is a year when Americans cannot afford to sit back and say “whatever” when a major American institution cries craven on the Second Amendment.  So please, think about making a fairly painless, but very principled stand against an institution that refuses to accept a very low-key commercial celebrating a constitutional right.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Robert Arvanitis says

    In support of the boycott – some interesting technical issues to consider:
    Are a plurality of products advertised during the Super Bowl appealing to conservatives?
    Will the predictive analytics used by advertisers be able to pick up the impact of conservative boycott?
    Will whining left-media hype (representing POTENTIAL revenue loss) be more disturbing to advertisers that ACTUAL revenue loss from the boycott?
    If any marketing colleagues have the data, even subjective metrics, glad to crank the analytics.

  2. JKB says

    Or you could support a ban on the NFL as a haven for murderous thugs and inherently dangerous to the brain of the players.  Such brain injuries increase the health care costs of all of us now that we have socialized medicine so therefore the NFL is making profits while the rest of us have to cover the costs of these injuries.  
     
    Use that and you can get the worst of the Progs to take the ball and run with it so to speak.  

  3. says

    Excellent questions.  My sense was that most of these products appeal to the middle class.  Marin elites (almost all Democrats) drink designer beer, eat designer candy bars, and drive Teslas more than Jaguars.  This boycott should hurt, especially if people make loud, clear statements in advance about the reason behind the boycott.

  4. JKB says

    Please note in the ad, “the most effective means to defend” his family is not defined.  He could be planning on taking some Krav Maga classes or something.  The only thought of a gun comes from those who are easily manipulated by corporate logos.  The one at the end having a firearm in the logo.  
     
    So really any panic over this being a gun ad is in the fevered minds of the NFL.  
     
    Also, we should keep in mind, that if he’d only remained on active duty, then his firearm possession should there be some, would be A-OK with the gun control advocates.  His mistake was giving up the government job to stay home and take care of his family.  

  5. Mike Devx says

    I’ve been following this issue somewhat.  I remains unclear to me *why* the ad was refused.  At this point I don’t have a problem, because I believe that the NFL (or whoever is in charge of ad acceptance) rejects ads based on CATEGORY, not on content.  They don’t allow ANY ads during the Super Bowl covering the Constitution, amendments, or Constitutional amendments.  It’s not that they are pro-gun or anti-gun at all.  If I’m wrong about this, I’d love to be corrected.
     
    I view this kind of a decision, a refusal to accept ads by CATEGORY, to be completely within their rights as a business.  That’s why I have no problem.

  6. says

    “Only a second’s reflection made me realize that there was no way Americans would refuse to watch the Super Bowl over something like this, even pro-gun Americans.”
     
    have not watched a single SB in my life. No sacrifice in staying that way.
     
    Instead of boycotts, I favor more “active” measures.

  7. 11B40 says

    Greetings:
     
    In the hope of throwing some fuel on an anti-NFL fire, my reason to follow the above advice is something else that the NFL is allowing to happen.
    For the last couple of years, I’ve noticed that many of the NFL’s players have affected some type of new-fangled close-fitting skull cap that apparently are so tricky to put on and take off that they elect to leave them on during the playing of our National Anthem.
     
    Certainly, this is something without which I could do.  The NFL swathes it stadia (gratuitous Latin insertion) in red, white, and blue bunting, puts those cute little American flag stickers on the back of every player’s helmet, and has all sorts of rules about what its players can wear on their heads and where lest they be fined but to require its well educated workforce to show proper respect during the playing of our National Anthem appears to be a bridge to far.  
     
    I can only guess that breast cancer awareness, childhood exercise, and bullying are just taken up too much of the NFL’s precious time.

  8. jj says

    This is interesting to me, because I once upon a time knew how this used to work.  I wonder what’s changed.  The NFL provides the game.  The network – whichever one – broadcasts it.  In order to do this they pay the NFL for the rights to do so – and that right there is pretty much where the NFL’s input stops.  (Okay, there are some side deals in there, sure.  The network won’t let its announcers speculate too wildly about which team bought the referees; no cracks about who got arrested for what; no obvious rooting for the announcers home team should they happen to be playing, etc., etc.  Obvious stuff.)
     
    Having bought the rights to broadcast the game, the network then has the right to recoup their investment, and maybe even try to show a profit.  They do this through selling ad time.  I would have been absolutely amazed to hear that any network exec at any network gave one damn what anybody connected with the NFL thought or had to say about any ad in the telecast.  It wasn’t their area.  Their area was: ‘play the game.’  Period.  The NFL’s opinion about ads wasn’t sought, nor would it have been paid attention to by anyone.  (Again, with those obvious caveats of which you can think yourself with no trouble.  They are pretty obvious.)
     
    And I find myself wondering when that changed.  The broadcast went – and goes – out over air that belongs to the network – not the NFL.  (Yes, yes, ultimately it’s the people’s, but the network is licensed to use it.  Not the NFL.)  The announcers, analysts, techs – everybody – are employees of the network, not the NFL.  The equipment that shows up to work the game belongs to the network – not the NFL.  I find myself wondering when the NFL got invited in to have a say about – or censorship interest in – what’s on the network’s air.  As I said, in my day nobody – at any network – would have given a rodent’s rear end what anybody in the NFL from the president on down thought about a commercial.  It just wouldn’t have come up.  That’s not the NFLs area.
     
    And I wonder (a) when that changed; and (b) did it?  Are we sure this was the NFL’s call and not whichever network is running the game in February?  Because it’s really pretty damn far off the NFL’s reservation, having the ability to pull an ad.  Or – maybe I’m out of touch and these days it’s not.  I wonder.  I may even make a phone call or two and find out. 

  9. Robert Arvanitis says

    Interesting distinction(s), jj.
    But too often parties contrive a system with multiple links, so that each link may dodge responsibility when necessary.
    That’s why politicos and hacks create Rube Goldberg projects, which hide the subsidies, preferences and coercions.  No one can be blamed.
    Thus to the media-sports-entertainment complex, I say “I despise the cumulative effect which seeks to stifle certain views.  will therefore withhold my money.  If you-all WANT my money, figure out amongst yourselves how to change the aggregate result.”
    Which position is why I began with the question “Will advertisers be able to detect the signal through the various levers?”
    Perhaps not.  Then we are boxing a drunk, who lacks the sense to fall down when he’s hit the first time. So we keep hitting until the medulla finally gets the message.

  10. says

    “That’s why politicos and hacks create Rube Goldberg projects”
     
    That’s an interestingly apt way to put it. I call it the 
    Ouroboros
    cycle personally. 
     
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the networks are merely obeying Obama Emperor’s musings that he’ll pass gun control. And thus the littler Nazi critters are getting the job done without anyone telling them, the little busy beehives.

  11. says

    American Football is a great example of how trying to “protect people” by creating mandated armor and centralized restrictions, actually leads to larger degrees of concussion and long term crippling injuries. The protection only seems to work because it protects from short term consequences paid by the stupid. In the long term, everyone pays for it.
     
    If you could work a year and pay for something, would you instead choose to shave one year off your life at the end, for you to get the stuff now?
     
    That’s basically Western civilization writ large.

Leave a Reply