Following the exploits of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake at the Superbowl in 2004 a new wave of American Puritanism began, resulting in the over-enthusiastic FCC to label everything obscene, regardless, the show must go on. In early January I posted an article under my Commercial Culture tag comparing the popularity of beer and wine as a distribution of football viewers.

Although I did not have access to a great deal of market information, it appeared that as with many institutions in our society, the average football viewer is aging, meaning that not as many younger people are becoming football fans or playing youth football; certainly not at a rate to replace the aging boomers.

Earlier tonight I watched the Superbowl (on a personal note, I hate the Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning). If it is truly the goal of the NFL to start drawing a younger fan base, let me ask, does it make sense to have Stevie Nicks, Billy Joel, and Prince be the highlighted performers? Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy some Billy Joel and Fleetwood Mac (Prince, not so much), but I don’t see the logic here. The commercial spots surrounding the performers were as such:

Billy Joel
Before – CBS: CSI Miami,
After – Movie: Norbit

Prince
Before – NFL: Walter Peyton Man of the Year
After – Pepsi*

* In all fairness, Pepsi was the sponsor of the halftime show, so it makes sense they would have one of the sandwich spots. I do on the other hand find it ironic that they were once “The Choice of a New Generation.”

Gloria Estefan & Cirque du Soleil
Before – CBS: Survivor
After – Combos Pretzel Snacks

By and large, it would seem these commercials appeal to the opposite crowd based on the relative popularity of the artists.

Related Articles:

The not so hidden costs of the Superbowl 

Advertisements