Any Publicity is Good Publicity
February 8, 2010, 5:12 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
The Tim Tebow ad we discussed below was sweet. None of my worries that it would suggest that the only valuable life is “successful” life materialized. The complaint that it endorses violence against women (an alternative version of the ad features Tim “tackling” his mother) strike me as, well, quite forced.
The only way I would have known it was a pro-life ad, however, was the publicity. Deprived of the context, it could have been an ad for tetanus shots. Of course, I didn’t actually watch the Superbowl, but watched the last couple of episodes of Season Two of Mad Men instead–which explains my focus on advertising strategy.
The ad was innocuous, but it struck me immediately that the stories of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy in The Gainesville Sun and in the recorded interview on the web site of Focus on the Family are different in important details. In the recorded interview, there is no problem over illegal abortion, since the first doctor she sees tells her she isn’t really carrying a baby but a “mass of fetal tissue” or a “tumor.” (I am presuming that an abortion to expel a tumor is not illegal. It is certainly not immoral.) She declines to have an abortion, and does not see another doctor for 7 months until she goes to Manila. In the newspaper interview:
Since she doesn’t see any doctors for seven months after declining to have an abortion, who is the they in “they thought I should have an abortion”?
In the print interview we have this
In the recorded interview, she takes one only one dose of the medicine, and although it is not altogether clear, it seems to be after she knew she was pregnant. Of course, it’s possible the reporter just got the story wrong.
I would advise any woman who is told by a doctor that she is not pregnant but has a tumor in her womb that will kill her not to wait seven months before consulting another doctor.
Crazy talk aside (spelling in the rants is improving, though taking on the role of priest/bishop in urging someone to leave the Church seems to refute the professed orthodoxy!), there were two versions of the Tebow ad, one during the pregame show and one during the show (in that version the tackle didn’t occur).
Neither would have made a lot of sense had you not known a bit about the Tebow story. IMO, these were ads for Focus on the Family more than anything else.
If I can broaden the ad conversation a bit, I noticed some ads breaking out of the “stupid man obsessed with beer and chips” genre, notably the Dove and Dodge Charger ads (go men!). There was also a FloTV (“get a spine”) and Dockers (“wear the pants”) spot that was pro-male.
Raber was pleased.
I think the Danika Patrick boob schtick has gone on long enough. The screaming Denny’s chickens was obnoxious. And Hank the Clydesdale has failed to tug the heartstrings two years in a row now. Horsemeat burger with that Bud anybody?
Oops, sorry. My crazy talk reference is to a post that no longer appears on the blog. Sorry, David N., if it seemed to refer to yours.
As you know, I consider you always a scholar and a gentleman who appreciates my penchant for weird versions of “Danny Boy.”
It seems I have answered a message that was quite properly removed, so I will understand if my response is removed as well.
Yes. Jean, do you think the buzz was part of the strategy? And it would be a buzz of computer types before or after, right–no one one would get off the couch in the middle of the game.
I also thought it was a Pro-Tebow ad as much as a pro-life ad, but I still think Focus on the Family was rather brilliant in faking out the opposition. Planned Parenthood and NARAL and such are so easy to bait, and then they overreact and give you all the publicity you need. So in the end (as I rant here at PD) you can run what I thought was an ad for geritol or an osteoporosis supplement and everyone knows it’s about abortion and you don’t have to say anything about abortion.
As pro-lifers themselves said here, no one would know it’s a pro-life ad. But is that a good thing?
None of the ads were particularly great, except for the Letterman-Leno-Oprah sofa spot and the Brett Favre parody. All poked fun at themselves. $2.8 million for 30 seconds? I hope it was worth it…
By the way, was he on the team that won?
Oh, Cathy. Tebow was a collegian this past year, and is not yet drafted. Indeed, for all his excellence in college, there are doubts about whether he (and his divinely blessed eye-black) can work in the NFL at the same position. So I suspect the ad will also help gin up his prospects for draft day and a higher payday. Hype is important in the draft these days, as everywhere, alas.
The ad was sweet, but — taken on its own — also nearly without content! (“I love my son” is what I took away from it.) Without the buzz it would have been a complete waste of money — its impact depended entirely on the viewer’s knowing what it was “about” before it ever aired. Very meta. And now that it has aired, the people who protested look silly. I don’t know whether this was the plan all along, or whether they just figured out a way to pull their punches in the ad (after CBS balked) and still get the message out. But either way, talk about gaming the system! (Update: what David Gibson said.)
That wasn’t the only time I felt like I was performing media analysis instead of just watching ads. It often seemed like the programmers were sabotaging the advertisers by placing commercials with similar tropes in close proximity. So you had two “women being tackled by football players via computer animation”; two “men wearing only underpants, for no obvious reason”; and as Jean noted, two odes to “domesticated man” (although those were in tension — unhappy about having to put down the toilet seat? Drive a Dodge and be a man! Secure in your masculinity? Try Dove skincare products!).
PS: Best faith-based moment: When Matt Stover of the Colts missed a long field goal that some say was a turning point in the game (I say there were many) he pointed both fingers at the heavens in a gesture of thanks to God. As anouncer Jim Nantz said, Stover does that every time, “make or miss.”
“So I suspect the ad will also help gin up his prospects for draft day and a higher payday.”
Or perhaps to gin up donations for the not-for-profit inner-city ministry he is forming along the lines of Danny Wuerffel’s Desire Street Ministries.
MAT, I think one goes hand in hand with the other, no? No football success=no payday to fund stuff and no fame to use as a platform to do such things.
Tim Tebow’s father made a bargain with God that if God would provide them with another son, they would raise him to be a preacher. (Check out the interview on the web site of Focus on the Family.) I don’t suppose a career in professional football would preclude him from being a preacher, but one has to wonder if this is what God thought he was getting when he fulfilled his side of the bargain in providing a son.
I feel a little sorry for the other Tebow children.
The pants ad was pretty strange. A bunch of men walking in a field in their underwear singing “I wear no pants.”
I was singularly unimpressed by the super Bowl ads.
I’m sorry Cathy didn’t watch the game, for the game itself and its aftermath were bigger than a football game – listen to Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning on the uniting of New Orleans and the hope given that city these days.
Forget Tim Tebow and think Drew brees talking abou t how unifying for the team and the city and State there the game was- a kind of purpose driven victory.
That was the “ad” that stuck out in my mind – how i portant real unifiers are today ( a lesson to the Teapartyers and obstructionists and iseologues in our poltical scene and yes to our Church leaders too.)
I’m singularly unimpressed by Focus on the Family as well.
Again, I think Brees and his teamamets struck better chords for family and for community than they did!
The picture of Brees holding his infant son right after the game and sying that’s what inspired him was inspirational.
I miss the original etrade baby. Here’s a link to the clown commercial.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=27487048
David G., just my opinion, but I think God is too busy in Haiti to be worried about Matt Stover’s TD’s. Though, for whatever lift the Saints’ win gives to the people of New Orleans, I say good going.
Mollie, not to make too much of this, but I didn’t miss the “I will watch your vampire TV shows” reference in the Dodge ad.
There appears to be widespread male hatred for the whole “Twilight” thing (thought it’s not a TV show), and the preoccupation with the mightily ripped Taylor Lautner (on a recent Rolling Stone cover in a wet tee). Fellows in my class had quite an exercised discussion last semester about how they refused to watch any of these movies with their girlfriends.
See this sendup on YouTube, for ex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVy8Dr_SxWg
Not that I don’t think it’s healthy for men to know what it’s like to be in the “drudge zone” once in awhile.
Jean R., if God is busy in Haiti, he’s not working hard enough…(Just kidding.)
I cited Stover in fact because it doesn’t seem he is one of those thanking God for lending him a hand in being so great, but because whatever comes he thanks God for the opportunity to do what he does. I think that is a lesson for us (and many of his colleagues) more than it says anything about what God thinks about football, if anything.
BTW, Christianity Today has an impressive cover story and package inside on evangelicals and sports and the dangers therein.
I, of course, was watching re-runs of Colbert!
“PS: Best faith-based moment: When Matt Stover of the Colts missed a long field goal that some say was a turning point in the game (I say there were many) he pointed both fingers at the heavens in a gesture of thanks to God. As anouncer Jim Nantz said, Stover does that every time, “make or miss.””
YES!
The Tebow ad came and went so fast that I literally missed it (I think I was reaching for a handful of Bugles or something). My wife, who was also distracted, said, “Hey, was that the pro-life commercial?” Luckily we now have whatever technology it is (digital cable, maybe?) that lets you rewind shows being broadcast, so I was able to see it. Honestly, the two abiding images are that he’s kind of a different-looking person without his football helmet on, and that he tackled his own mom. What was that all about?
I’m pretty bored, or fed up, or something, with the whole Super Bowl ads thing – the animals, the dopey guys for whom beer trumps all other considerations. As for GoDaddy – it wasn’t until yesterday that I realized that they’re not just a soft-porn site for men.
This was bait-and-switch on the part of Focus on the Family. Sure, the pro-abortion crowd looks silly now for having protested it. But it is clear as well that the pro-life community was manipulated into rallying behind ads that were not particularly pro-life, but were instead promotions of Tim Tebow and Focus on the Family.
Such misrepresentation of the ads by Focus on the Family — either directly or by allowing the misconception about them to remain — does not do the pro-life cause any favors.
Focus on the Family was rather brilliant in faking out the opposition
If by that you mean that deceit is brilliant, I suppose so. But the opposition weren’t the only ones faked out. We were all played for suckers.
I think Bender has it exactly right re Focus on the Family, but I’m a cynical fundie snubber.
Jim, if you’re fed up with the “dumb man” ads, look again. There was plenty of idiotica on the landscape this year, but also some indications that we’re entering a post P.C. era wherein it is OK to be a man and actually SAY you don’t get what women are about and that you’d often prefer to be elsewhere than shopping or listening sympathetically. Companies aren’t going to pump money into that kind of message if they don’t think it will resonate and result in sales.
Whether it’s good for men not to be bombarded with images of male stupidity, of course, is a debatable point, though legions of women stand ready to take up the slack if the ad world is getting out of the biz.
My first question – exactly how did Focus “deceive” people? Try as I might, I can’t find any statements they made that were deceitful. At most, they allowed a lot of people on both sides of the issue to make assumptions without challenging them, but is that their fault? In fact, isn’t it instructional?
Second question – is anybody else annoyed that the US Census spent $2.5 million of our tax money on an ad that a) is not very funny, b) not very informative, and c) has already been on the tube for weeks?
Third question – Why would anyone feel a little sorry for the other Tebow children?
they allowed a lot of people on both sides of the issue to make assumptions without challenging them, but is that their fault?
YES — when you either (a) engage in misrepresentation yourself, or (b) you allow a mistaken idea to continue without correcting the record, and even encourage people in their mistaken idea of what the ad is about, then you are engaging in fraud. Deception by omission is just as dishonest as deception by commission.
I’m with Sean on the census ads. They don’t (or haven’t so far) outlined the importance of the count–how it is used to inform public policy for governmental and nongovernmental agencies, for partisan and nonpartisan organizations.
Not sure if the census ads cost $2.5 like the rest of the ads. Sometimes PSAs get a cut rate. Interesting question. And great extra credit assignment for the students tomorrow! Will report back.
that should be $2.5 million.
Second question – is anybody else annoyed that the US Census spent $2.5 million of our tax money on an ad that a) is not very funny, b) not very informative, and c) has already been on the tube for weeks?
Only John McCain. The Census Bureau has $133 million advertising budget as part of a $340 million dollar budget to promote participation in the census. According to the Washington Post, “The ads, in 28 languages, aim to save taxpayers’ money by reducing the need for temporary workers to survey people who don’t return their forms.” To carp about paying $2.5 million out of $340 million for an ad that reached between 90 and 100 million viewers — and is intended to save money — strikes me as bizarre. Is there no use of taxpayers’ money that conservatives don’t object to? Is the census so unimportant that it should not be promoted?
Third question – Why would anyone feel a little sorry for the other Tebow children?
From an article a few months ago in the Times:
I am sure Tim’s siblings are happy for his success, but when he’s clearly the star of the family and you are largely unknown and your claim to fame is your little brother — and your parents don’t even mention you by name in their big interview — you might feel just a little neglected in your “brother’s broad shadow.”
Only John McCain.
And Jean!
“(although those were in tension — unhappy about having to put down the toilet seat? Drive a Dodge and be a man! Secure in your masculinity? Try Dove skincare products!).”
The reviewer in the Chicago Tribune thought that the Dodge copy was clever – he also zeroed in on the line about watching the vampire shows. I thought it was a string of cliches. (is “tired clliches” a redundancy?) But maybe guys who are a generation behind me – presumably the target market for a racy little Dodge – haven’t heard about the toilet seat a bajillion times already.
I thought the Dove commercial was extremely interesting. I just went out on the web and watched it again. It paints an interesting picture of modern manhood. They were very proud of showing real women without perfect bodies a few years ago, so I assume they’re trying to break new ground again. But I see that they also have a commercial of Drew Brees in the shower, humming the William Tell overture, so maybe they’re hedging their bets a little bit.
Bender
Fraud by omission requires someone to omit a material fact, it does not apply to situations where others add facts or make assumptions about what the facts will be. What fact did they omit? They said it was going to be a life affirming message. The Tebows story on their website gives details. So how is it fraud when friends and enemies alike assume an in your face message and don’t get one? The connection to the more explicit pro-life message through reference is far from fraudulent or even misleading. Besides, in a fraud the defrauded must lose something. What did we lose? The pro-abortion crowd was made to look strident and some pro-life people felt it was too subtle – to which I say buy your own commercial.
David
It only saves money if it an effective commercial no matter how many people it reaches. That commercial stank. It was not that they spent $2.5 million, it’s that they spent it on a crummy commercial. Ed Begley acting goofy is not going to relate to most football fans.
Methinks you have some unresolved issues on the other question.
Methinks you have some unresolved issues on the other question.
If Focus on the Family did this all intending to make the pro-choice side look bad, they succeeded brilliantly. Still, almost every issue raised by the pro-choice side (aside from “tackling your mother in a humorous commercial promotes violence against women”) was worth discussing. And Pam Tebow’s two accounts of her ordeal are not consistent and each raise unanswered questions.
At Slate, Seth Stevenson weighs in on this ad and the others:
Yes.
I’m all for advertising the census. Just don’t think these ads are effective. My students thought they were seeing a real movie trailer for a comedy with Ed Begley, Jr.
Me and John McCain, indeed! Why, we hardly even look alike! (Though I have to admit I look more like John than his Cindy.)
Re Tebow, I have yet to hear from my Baptist in-laws and Focus on the Family members on this, and I frankly pray I won’t have to, but sometimes the answers to our prayers is “no.”
NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-tebow-abortion8-2010feb08,0,1153376.story
I’d love to see Ms. O’Neill’s reaction to the Betty White Snickers commercial!
NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women
What do you expect? This is from the same crowd that in years past repeatedly claimed that countless numbers of women were beaten up on Super Bowl Sunday each year.
“MAT, I think one goes hand in hand with the other, no? No football success=no payday to fund stuff and no fame to use as a platform to do such things.”
Not if Danny Wuerffel’s Desire Street Ministries in inner-city New Orleans are an example, no.
And, the students score on my extra credit challenge!
The Gubmint did pay full price for its Super Bowl commercial, $2.5 million, no special PSA rate:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35256684/ns/politics/