What Was the Point of the Tim Tebow Superbowl Ad?

Summary: Dave analyzes the effectiveness of what was supposed to be a controversial ad-buy.

For weeks the news and sports media in the U.S. hyped up the Superbowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and sponsored by Focus on the Family – a conservative pro-life organization.

It shocked a lot of people to think that CBS would allow a politically and religiously-charged issue like abortion to interfere with the American love of sports. Laura Craft Hogensen explained her discomfort with the ad last week on WAYLA.

But when the ad played during the first quarter of the game, what really shocked everyone was that it was relatively noncontroversial. The word abortion was never used, there was no persuasion made regarding anything really – it only asked that people visit the Focus on the Family website.

Watch the ad here:



So with such little information about anything, one has to ask “what was the point of this ad?” The answers only lead to more questions.

First, let’s make an easy assumption and say Focus on the Family assumed that people would see this ad, be curious, and visit the website and watch the extended video.

So visiting the Focus on the Family website, and clicking on the appropriate link we find a fairly long interview with Tebow’s parents. (Sorry, there’s no way to embed it here).

As you can see by watching the interview, that’s where all the controversy will begin. It plays heavily on religion (so much so that you really need to be an Evangelical in order for it to be effective) and suggests that doctors who recommend abortion as an option are untrustworthy.

Here are the immediate flaws with this way of advancing a pro-life position:

1) You can’t assume that people are going to be interested in watching this video. There will likely be two sorts of people watching the online video: strong supporters of the pro-life position and strong opponents of it. The few undecideds out there are probably not too interested in visiting the website because they are more likely to be apathetic about the issue.

2) Even if they were trying to convert strong opponents of their position (which is a waste of time and resources by itself) I can guarantee they didn’t succeed. It played so much towards religion and family that it simply could not have resonated with many (if any) liberals.

So again we’re left asking “what was the point of the ad?” Why on Earth would Focus on the Family pay $2.5 million for winning no converts?

There are three ways we might try to answer this…

1) The decision to run this ad was not a rational one. I suppose it’s very possible that someone at Focus on the Family decided that – since the Tebows were supporters – they should run a Superbowl commercial. After all, a lot of companies do it, so why shouldn’t they? Then their media consultants – knowing they’d get a huge commission on the ad – shied away from explaining to them that it wouldn’t actually do anything.

But at over $2.5 million, it’s hard to believe that.

2) The ad was meant to inspire the pro-life base. If the ad, and subsequent interview, was good for anything it was inspiring the Evangelical supporters Focus on the Family already has. In fact, many companies that advertise during the Superbowl are doing it for brand-loyalty purposes. The average consumer who sees a funny ad with Brett Favre mocking himself isn’t going to immediately go out and buy a Hyundai.



But there are Hyundai owners who – after seeing that ad – probably subconsciously say to themselves “that’s funny, I’m glad I bought my car from that company.” Next time that consumer needs a car, guess which company has the advantage of a sale?

But politics doesn’t really work that way. On an issue like abortion, you don’t get more or less support – even from your base – by trying to instill that sort of loyalty. You either have it or you don’t. Perhaps Focus on the Family was trying to convince moderate pro-lifers (such as those who believe in exceptions if it affects the mother’s health) to be more conservative in their position. Considering moderation is typically a means to a sweeping policy change like they hope for with abortion – however – I don’t know if that was really the reason.

3) This wasn’t an issue-advocacy commercial. There are those out there who will tell you they personally would never get an abortion, but they don’t feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else. There is a possibility that the goal of this ad was to encourage women to not seek abortion for themselves, regardless about how they view current abortion policy.

Obviously this does not make sense to a lot of people – I did just say (after all) that the only people who would follow up with the ad are hardcore pro-lifers and pro-choicers, and that only the pro-lifers would agree with the message anyway.

The thing is, Evangelicals are actually the most likely single-women to have abortions. They do not believe in using contraception because it may increase their likeliness to have pre-marital sex. When they do have pre-marital sex – resulting in an unexpected pregnancy – they have two options: 1) be seen in church pregnant out-of-wedlock, or 2) have an abortion. Fearing they’ll be judged, they often choose the latter.

Is it possible that it was this sort of person the ad was targeting? Well, that’s my best guess up to this point. Do I think it will actually work? Maybe a little. Do I think it was a cost-effective way of doing it? No idea.

My best guess is Focus on the Family probably took a lot of these ideas into account, but probably not the ineffectiveness of the strategy.

For their purposes, however, there was something they could have – and should have – done in conjunction with this ad: a fundraising program. They should have had a “contribute” button somewhere near the online video of his parents for those pro-lifers who went to see it on the Focus on the Family website.

In the end, though, I have to say this was probably a waste of their money.

Sports and Ideology - An Uneasy Intersection

Summary: Laura Craft Hogensen explains her frustration with Tim Tebow's pro-life ad that will air during the Superbowl.

For many Americans, Sunday is a day of worship, a day to attend church services, a day of prayer and reflection. For the past decade, the Gallup Poll has shown that about 40% of people in this country attend some sort of church service during the weekend. Though this number has dropped siginificantly from the level that it was in the late 80's and early 90's, worship and the act of worship is still a significant part of many Americans' lives. And the religion that most citizens in the US practice is still Christianity. As of 2008, 76% of Americans polled identified themselves as Christian. Though this number used to be much greater (86% in 1990), still, over three quarters of people in this country consider themselves to be Christian.

We've all heard these statistics, or something like them before. All citizens in the United States, whether politically active or not, are aware, on some level, of the religious divisions that exist in this country. And frankly, I hate talking about them. I hated even looking up the statistics on faith for this blog post. The argument for or against different types of faiths and ideologies bores me. I feel that it's impossible to sway people on issues of faith or ideology because these issues are so personal, and so close to the self. Why waste time and energy trying to convince "the other side," that you are right and they are wrong? No ground is ever gained in battles of religion, ideology, and politics. There's a reason why these three topics have been banned as polite dinner table conversation.

But, if three of the largest issues are eliminated because of impropriety, what can there be to talk about? How can Americans fill the void of conversation that occurs during business lunches, happy hours, dinners and first dates? The answer is simple and all-encompassing: Sports.

Sports is the great uniter. When watching a game or discussing a team, no attention is paid to one's politcal or religious beliefs. The questions and answers are equally complex and nuanced - one need only recall the furious speculation that occurs before the Major League Baseball trading deadline - but anyone can participate in the discussion. People of all religions and political persuasions come together to pull for the same team. In many ways, spending time on Sunday afternoon watching a game with friends and strangers, rooting for a team together, and celebrating a victory, is a communion just as powerful as the one found during a church service.

That's what I've always liked about sports. Its universality, the passion it inspires - and the values it promotes. Sports has taught me that the actions of one can affect the outcome of all. It's taught me to be strong, to persevere in the face of adversity. I've learned that all people on a team can and do contribute to a team's success and failure - that we each have a role to play, and that the best kind of success is earned through hard work. These lessons, these values, do not appear on stone tablets, but they have shaped me and others to be just as decent and moral as those who were molded by faith.

In a way, sports has been a kind of refuge for me. A way to avoid arguments of politics or religion. A way to connect to others without worrying about who I might offend. No matter what was happening with the health care bill, or what Pat Robertson said about Haiti, or how Prop 8 was voted on, the world of sports was a neutral territory where ideologies were left off the field, and for that, I was grateful.

Perhaps this is why I'm more upset than usual over the pro-life ad starring Tim Tebow and his mother that is scheduled to air on CBS during the Superbowl. By making the decision to air this ad (produced by Focus on the Family), CBS has not only chosen to align itself politically and ideologically, but it has tarnished the neutrality that sports provided. It has taken away my refuge.

This is not the first time that a network has been asked to air a political or ideological commercial during the Super Bowl - the biggest night for television viewership during the year. In 2009, NBC made the decision to reject a similar pro-life ad that alluded to newly elected president Barack Obama. Like the Tebow ad, the Obama pro life ad, which was produced by CatholicVote, asks the question, "What if this child had not been born?" and then urges the viewer to "imagine the potential of life." At the time, many pro life groups protested NBC's decision, while NBC countered that it had also rejected the issue-based PETA ad as well. In 2008, presidential candidates also made the decision to avoid political ads during the Super Bowl. While Obama chose to buy local advertising in certain states, both he and the other front-runners of both parties decided to leave political talk out of the big game.

CBS has maintained that its decision to air the ad is part of a change in the network's approach towards "advocacy ads" which has occurred in recent years. Spokesperson Dana McClintock states that "most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time," and that "CBS will continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for spots in Super Bowl XLIV."

I should probably divulge that I am pro choice - pretty vehemently so. And, when I first read this story, my main concern was that CBS would be unwilling to give equal time to a pro choice organization, should they want to (and should they have the money to) air an ad. But McClintock's vague statement about equal "consideration" does little to assuage my anger over this. I'm not angry at Focus on the Family or other pro life organizations that support this ad. I'm not angry at Tim Tebow or his mother - their Christianity and their commitment to their faith is deep and real. I'm angry that CBS has chosen to bring politics and religion into one of the few places where it had not yet divided this country. They've chosen a side, and by choosing sides, they have alienated others who do not, who can not, who will never agree. The Super Bowl, for all of its needless pageantry, for all of its encouragement of consumption and overindulgence is a truly American experience. Unlike other holidays like Christmas, it was a celebration that all Americans had in common regardless of faith, politics, or ideology. Yet, it seems on this day, too, we'll be a people divided.

Laura Craft Hogensen is an athlete and an avid political observer. She is married to Eric Hogensen, Principal of Hogensen Strategies Group.

The Return of the Abortion Debate

In recent days, there has been a flurry of stories surrounding the issue of abortion.

Two recent polls find the United States to be moving in a “pro-life” direction and yesterday President Obama gave the commencement address to the new graduates of Notre Dame - a catholic university - which sparked criticism from the pro-life community.

The first poll - released April 30th by the Pew Research Center - found that support for abortion in most or all cases has dropped to 46% while opposition to abortion in most or all cases has gone up to 44% of Americans.


The poll found that support for abortion rights decreased significantly among Republicans - but this may be more attributable to moderates leaving the GOP than changes in their views on abortion. But support for abortion decreased even more so among independents.

In terms of religion, Evangelicals continue to be the most opposed to abortion (with only 23% of them supporting it) while a majority of mainline Protestants were in favor. Yet support for abortion decreased 15% among mainline Protestants since August last year.


A second poll - released on Friday by Gallup - found that for the first time in the history of the poll, a majority of Americans (51%) describe themselves as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice”.


Furthermore, the Gallup poll confirms the Pew poll’s findings on the trend in terms of political ideology.


Is America really more Pro-Life?

Nate Silver and Ed Kilgore at FiveThirtyEight.com were quick to point out that the findings of these polls might be dubious.

Silver combined the two questions (“legal or illegal?” and “pro-life or pro-choice?”) into one graph and found that the general trend in such surveys is that America is simply becoming more opinionated about abortion - not necessarily more opposed to it.


Kilgore, meanwhile, argued that the Gallup poll failed to accurately account for the fact that the GOP is growing smaller and produced an outlier survey - one that is terribly misleading about the actual circumstances of the national opinion.

He also pointed out that most pro-life Americans are not hardliners - they will make exceptions in certain circumstances, such as a risk to the mother’s health.

In particular, GSS shows an exceptionally durable 80%-plus level of support for a "health exception," which happens to be the actual flash-point separating pro-life activists from the rest of the population. In other words, lots of "pro-life" Americans consistently, and over decades, favor an exception that pro-life activists adamantly consider a complete repudiation of the pro-life point of view.

Of course, a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Ross Douthat also points out that many pro-choice Americans are not hardliners either - in fact, two out of three Americans support restrictions on second and third trimester abortions.

Douthat also points out another interesting bit from the Pew poll - “Americans under 35, while more sympathetic to gay marriage than their parents, also tend to be slightly more anti-abortion”.

And he’s right. With the exception of senior citizens, the Millennials are the least supportive generation of abortion, as the Pew table above indicates. As Silver wrote in his post, “There are evidently an increasing number of pro-life, pro-gay marriage Americans…a position it would have been very unusual to encounter just a few years ago.”

In fact, it certainly appears that the entire abortion debate is very different than just a few years ago based on the evidence we’ve seen. The specific views vary widely from individual to individual, often for very different reasons.

But what is the impact of this in Washington?

We’ll definitely see this issue come up again as Obama finds his nominee to replace Justice Souter for the Supreme Court - but there are already palpable changes taking place in the political (rather than policy) sphere.

Yesterday on Meet the Press, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and RNC Chairman Michael Steele faced off on the controversy surrounding Obama’s visit to Notre Dame.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

No surprises there. The Democratic leader toted the party line of keeping abortions rare, safe, and legal, while the Republican leader toted the party line of the sacredness of life.

Except the interesting thing is that Kaine is pro-life, while Steele (although he describes himself as “pro-life”) said earlier this year that abortion is a woman’s personal choice.

Thus the traditional political lines are being blurred.

And that’s where Obama’s speech at Notre Dame comes in. Speaking to a full auditorium, he said

…when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

And there in lies some of the President’s greatest attributes - inclusiveness and pragmatism. Since taking office Obama has lived by a creed to make the middle ground the higher ground.

In a complex debate with a diverse range of opinions on a sensitive issue - and arguably more complex, diverse, and sensitive than ever - Obama has touched on the essential principles of a common ground by which all Americans can agree and work together.

Perhaps it is because of a deep-founded conviction, or perhaps it is simply the shifting lines on the issue, but Obama has taken yet another controversy as an opportunity and hit a political home run.

You can watch the full commencement address here.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy