Every year, at the beginning of February, sports fans in America unite to watch the culmination of the pro-football season: the Super Bowl. Although I enjoy watching football, I think my favorite part of the event is watching the commercials on TV. Usually the ads are sponsored by big time companies that spend a fortune for highly-coveted advertising spots – this year CBS sold 62 spots from $2.5 to $2.8 million each (Adhikari 2010). The never-before-seen ads are usually comical and entertaining, whether they feature talking geckos or stylish celebrities. This year, that idea changed.
Over a month before game day, word got out that a conservative Christian organization called Focus on the Family planned to buy a spot for an ad featuring Tim Tebow, the star quarterback from the University of Florida. But Tebow, a Heisman trophy winner (the first sophomore in history to win the award) and arguably one of the best college football players in the NCAA, is not just known for his remarkable football skills. The son of two missionaries, Tebow has always been open about his strong Christian faith and he is famous for wearing Bible verses over his game-day eye-black. Officially, the plans for the ad didn’t become public until January 15th, when the organization issued a press release about a 30-second commercial in which Tim’s mother, Pam, would share a personal story centering on the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” Although details about the ad were not disclosed, theories about the content created widespread criticism and controversy.
According to David Crary, a journalist for The Associated Press, Focus on the Family planned to be quiet about the content of the ad, but in early February the president and CEO Jim Daly alluded to the topic of abortion. Critics claimed the ad would likely convey a pro-choice (others used the phrase anti-abortion) message, as it was expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy. In her article “Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Anti-Abortion Commercial to Air,” published on January 26th of this year, author Brinda Adhikari explained:
The ad tells the story of Bob and Pam Tebow, who was pregnant with their fifth child when the couple traveled to the Philippines on a missionary trip. While there, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery and the medicines used for her recover threatened her unborn fetus. Doctors advised her to abort the fetus. Pam ignored their advice and gave birth on Aug. 14, 1987, to a baby boy. That boy was Tim Tebow
Variations of that story were published, but that’s the basic premise. The National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority group coordinated with the New York-based Women’s Media Center to protest against the ad’s release, largely because it was sponsored by Focus on the Family. A statement released by the Women’s Media Center denounced CBS for giving “one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization” (Monkovic 2010). In a different article from ABC, Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said that she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning” (Crary 2010). That same article featured a comment from Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus of the Family, saying that there wasn’t anything “political and controversial” about it, and “when the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about.” In addition, there were critics who simply didn’t want to see an issue oriented ad during the Super Bowl. Everyone seemed to have an opinion about the ad’s content: whether or not it was appropriate in general, whether or not it was appropriate for television, let alone the Super Bowl. The issue got so heated that even more critics started bashing the critics. In her article “Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are,” Washington Post columnist Sally Jenkins (2010) referred to the National Organization for Women as the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time” and “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us.” Jenkins even went so far as to claim that the women of NOW “aren’t actually ‘pro choice’ so much as they are pro-abortion.” Insults were thrown back and forth and the conflict escalated to the point of no return. Still, no one had seen the actual ad.
On Super Bowl Sunday, two versions of the Focus on the Family Tebow ad aired. One aired before the actual game, the other was showcased during it. Here are both versions:
Some could argue that the pre-press made us (the viewers) more sensitive to the ad. This may have occurred in several ways. On one hand, the media prepared us for the worst. No matter what argument was most compelling, we were essentially programmed to think that the ad would address pro-life/pro-choice/anti-life/anti-choice issues. In this sense, we had a lens created for us, forcing us to watch the ad through that lens. On the other hand, some of us may have felt more strongly about one specific argument or issue. Then, when watching the ad, we would only understand the content in terms of that one issue as opposed to looking at the ad in its entirety. For example, if I was more convinced by the women’s group argument that the ad was anti-equality, anti-choice, and homophobic, I may have interpreted the Tebow’s behavior differently. I might have viewed the ending – when Pam Tebow is tackled aggressively by her son – as representing the dominance of men in the patriarchal system and the normality of male to female abuse. Regardless of what each of us actually saw, preparing ourselves for the worst may have made the commercial more meaningful or even traumatizing.
Some could argue that the pre-press made us less sensitive to the ad. With an awareness of all arguments, some of us may have expected a powerful message. Others may have found Pam’s story relatively dull – lets be honest, there isn’t a lot anyone can say in such a short commercial. The only reason any of us knew the Tebow’s family background was because of the pre-press. Pam didn’t share many details of that background and she never used the term “abortion.” Overall, the ad simply shows a mother, Pam Tebow, talking about her miracle baby and the importance of families. In an article on ESPN.com, the Associated Press commented that “the subtle and humorous ad made some wonder what all the fuss was about.” For an ad that was assumed to be a polarizing anti-everything testimony, it was pretty mild. For those of us who expected controversy and drama, the ad was both a disappointment and a relief. Disappointment because on some level it wasn’t what we expected it to be, yet relief because we didn’t really want the controversy to flare up again. Others may have been so exhausted from the back and forth bashing that they just didn’t care that much anymore. By the time the ad actually aired, many people probably assumed that they knew everything there was to know about the commercial anyway.
This entire controversy says a lot about our society today. I’ve watched the ad several times and I’ve had two main reactions. First, out of context, the ad is fairly direct and unthreatening – except for the tackle. Controversial words like abortion, pro-life, or pro-choice were never used. The ad begins with Pam Tebow in front of a white backdrop holding a picture of her son, and ends with the two of them embracing. I’ll admit, the tackle was awkward, and I agree with the critics who felt that this action ruined the delivery of any intended message. Second, I actually had heard of several criticisms of the ad before it was released, which undoubtedly changed my perspective. I knew about the Tebows and their Christian faith. I knew about the trip to the Philippines. I didn’t’ know much about Focus on the Family, but I could only assume that an organization who chose the Tebows as spokespeople would probably have similar values.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Tebow ad conflict was not the ad itself, but what the ad shows about how our culture operates. We have a tendency to judge, both intentionally and unknowingly. We judge those who are different than us, maybe because we are afraid, or maybe because differences make us that uncomfortable. In the case of this ad, hundreds of writers, reporters, and bloggers generated a lot of talk based on nothing more than a handful of assumptions.
Brinda Adhikari. "Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad: Anti-Abortion Commercial to Air." ABC World News with Diane Sawyer. ABC, 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
Crary, David. "CBS Urged to Scrap Super Bowl Ad With Tebow, Mom - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking news, politics, online news, world news, feature stories, celebrity interviews and more - ABC News. The Associated Press, 25 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
Jenkins, Sally. "Tebow's Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are - washingtonpost.com." The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
Monkovic, Toni. "Should CBS Have Allowed the Tebow Ad? - The Fifth Down Blog - NYTimes.com." Sports - Pro Football - The Fifth Down Blog - NYTimes.com. The New York Times. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
Philbin, Matthew. "Plans for Tebow Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Mary Irk QB's Critics." News Busters. 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
"Tim Tebow, Mother's Super Bowl Ad To 'Celebrate Life'" Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 16 Jan. 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
I enjoyed reviewed Nora's in-depth analysis of the Tim Tebow advertisement. Growing up in South Florida, I know much of Tebow's background and his religious views on politics are in no ways kept private. I discussed this ad in one of my other courses and it seemed the main objection was that it was over a controversial issue while the Super Bowl is supposed to remain objective. This may make sense in theory, but the Super Bowl serves as a canvas for all marketing to attempt to influence the minds of Americans. This ad may not be for consumer purposes but still exists in that same venue of influence.
ReplyDeleteLike Daniel points out, it's hard to remain objective on the world's biggest advertising stage: the Super Bowl. If companies and corporations want to dish out the cash to get their message out there or put their product on display, then more power to them. I have no problem with Tebow's commercial because someone obviously paid to get this commercial on the air, and it's not vulgar or anything of the sort to me as an individual. The purpose of advertising is to get into the minds of viewers and influence their ways of thinking, values and belief patterns. Tebow got people talking. I think the message was received, and therefore his mission was successful. What more is there to say? People obviously received it differently, but it was a huge point of discussion nonetheless. It's what advertising is all about, bottom line.
ReplyDeleteNeed To Increase Your ClickBank Commissions And Traffic?
ReplyDeleteBannerizer made it easy for you to promote ClickBank products by banners, simply go to Bannerizer, and grab the banner codes for your selected ClickBank products or use the Universal ClickBank Banner Rotator to promote all of the available ClickBank products.