Post Malone buys Bud Light Seltzer at a gas station. Winona Ryder goes to Winona, Minnesota. Lil Nas X and Sam Elliott have a dance battle showdown in the Old West.
These are just a handful of this year’s Super Bowl ads, and for the most part, they’re a pretty good summary of what viewers saw during the Big Game: practically no politics from brands. Celebrity cameos are nothing new for the year’s biggest advertising bonanza, but what’s notable about the 2020 Super Bowl commercials is that during arguably the most contentious election of the past two decades, brands decided to go escapist — literally, in at least three cases in which the dominant theme was “outer space.”
[embedded content]
There were notable exceptions: President Trump and Mike Bloomberg both had campaign ads, with the latter devoting his airtime to a mother who had lost her son to gun violence. Kia’s ad was a letter from Oakland Raiders player Josh Jacobs to his younger self as a homeless child (while also presenting the somewhat flawed theory that the solution to prevent youth homelessness is to become very good at football). The most affecting politically tinged ad came from the NFL itself, whose spot centered on Corey Jones, the cousin of a retired NFL player, who was shot to death by a plainclothes police officer.
For the most part, though, this year’s Super Bowl ads barely had anything to say. TurboTax tried to make a TikTok dance. Planters murdered Mr. Peanut. The rest of the brands mostly just relied on puns. Why?
The 2020 Super Bowl ads are a far cry from the activist tone that many companies have tried on since 2016. Marketing experts have said that since protests and public outrage are constants in the media, it’s sometimes worth the immediate risk for brands to make a statement.
Perhaps the most famous example is Nike’s partnership with former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, the subject of controversy after kneeling during the national anthem to protest anti-black police brutality in 2016. For the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” campaign, the athletic brand cast him in a commercial with the slogan “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” Though the ad predictably was a lightning rod for conservatives and led to a small boycott, it was ultimately a win for the brand, whose stock went up 5 percent over about two weeks, amounting to a $6 billion increase in value.
[embedded content]
“It used to be you didn’t want to upset anyone,” Jessica Li, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Kansas, told Vox in December 2018. “But studies show that the country is very divided, and if it’s divided politically, brands might feel like they’re able to take a stronger stand and get more support from their target market. It’s a way for them to get people talking about their brand.”
Shoppers are now increasingly making political statements based on how they spend their money. SoulCycle, Equinox, Home Depot, LL Bean, and other household brands have been the subject of boycotts from progressives due to their ties to Trump.
As Nadra Nittle wrote for Vox, “Since the dawn of the industrial age, corporations have battled the idea that they’re evil. While that perception hasn’t vanished, companies increasingly grapple with the notion that to do good, they must act. Today, greed and exploitation continue to mark businesses as morally bankrupt, but so does failure to speak out during an age when many refuse to tolerate silence, politeness, and thoughts and prayers any longer.”
In a time when young consumers care deeply about brands who champion social causes, why tiptoe around the most divisive presidential election in recent memory?
A few years ago, politics were everywhere during the Super Bowl. In 2017, instead of peddling its usual Midwestern ethos, Budweiser highlighted its immigrant roots, which many took as a rebuke of Trump’s immigration policies. In 2018, Toyota turned a joke setup — a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim get into a truck — to make a statement on diversity.
Much of this year’s Super Bowl ad content takes place in a world far removed from these issues, however: When Snickers promised to “fix the world,” what it really addressed were babies named Kale and adult men riding scooters. Multiple brands used surrealism and absurdism for laughs. Sodastream, Walmart, and Olay took their commercials to outer space, as though Earth is beyond saving.
[embedded content]
Part of this is likely because viewers don’t necessarily love it when their commercials get political. According to a poll from Morning Consult, most viewers think the Super Bowl is an “inappropriate” place for brands to make political statements, with Republicans 80 percent more likely to believe so. It’s also a risk: Plenty of brands have missed the mark by spending big budgets on clumsy or offensive ads, such as the use of Martin Luther King Jr.’s voice to sell Chryslers, or Kendall Jenner solving America’s social justice issues by handing a cop a Pepsi.
Of course, there’s also the sense that as politics continues to reach every corner of our lives, brands would rather see their products as a break from all that. Facebook, which would probably love us all to forget about politics, centered its Super Bowl commercial on the communities of Facebook groups. As Diego Scotti, Verizon’s chief marketing officer, told Variety before last year’s Super Bowl, “Creating controversy for the sake of creating controversy is not helpful for anybody. We are in a moment when positivity is something that we all need.”
Brands seem to be taking that message to heart this year. In a world where even killing off a mascot can be seen as politically contentious — Planters had to pause its campaign in which Mr. Peanut falls to his death after a car accident in the wake of NBA legend Kobe Bryant’s death in a helicopter crash — many companies evidently feel that the safest road is the one where none of the earth’s problems are solved, only escaped.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
