Taylor Swift Steals the Super Bowl Spotlight While Brands Burn Millions on Pointless Ads
For many years, it has been difficult for PR people to gain significant earned publicity for brands paying millions of dollars to be official Super Bowl sponsors. And this year’s game on Feb. 9 between the defending champions Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles at Caesars Superdome in New Orleans will not be different.
That’s because for many years media coverage during the days leading up to the Super Bowl has dramatically changed. Gone are the days when interviewing former payers, hired as short term hired-gun spokesmen, were a sure method of gaining significant earned brand publicity.
Some years ago the emphasis of media coverage leading up to the Super Bowl changed as new research revealed that repeated concussions can lead to irreversible brain damage, resulting in life-long physical disabilities and death, often by suicide.
While the insults done to the brains of players are still a major staple of pre-Super Bowl coverage it recently has been joined by another topic -- betting by viewers who watch football from their homes.
Then last year the subject of “love” joined brain injuries and gambling as a pre-Super Bowl topic. It was not about Jordan Love, the Green Bay Packers quarterback. It was about the kind of love that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as “1) strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties.” It was about the relationship between show biz entertainer Taylor Swift and football entertainer Jason Kelce.
Their relationship was uber-reported throughout the season and demonstrated that if you provide the media with a good enough story significant earned media will result – Swift for her Eras Tour and Kelce for his Kansas City team and the many brands he hawks as a spokesman.
A fast sweep of Super Bowl stories on the internet during the week prior to last years game found that most pre-game articles were about betting and Taylor Swift, Swift regarding her relationship with Jason Kelce and how it resulted in new fans for the NFLand betting articles, which included Swift prop bet ones.
Even though the Swift-Kelce romance received significant coverage, it was Ms. Swift herself who clearly dominated the pre-Super Bowl reporting.
Reporters couldn’t get enough of the Swift angle. It reached the point that the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 7, only four days before the game, ran a half-page article about Ms. Swift’s father. And a day later ran an article debunking the charges that she was a Democratic and State Department operative. The next day the New York Times ran an article titled, “All the Times That People Have Hyperventilated About Taylor and Travis.”
Through no fault of her own the Taylor Swift craze might have a negative affect on individuals addicted to gambling. Front Office Sports reported that legalized bookies wanted to use her as a vehicle to increase prop bets.
Front Office Sports, Jan. 31:Sunny Gupta, Tipico sportsbook manager: “We are trying to play into the Taylor Swift effect, because we expect more viewers than ever for this game with the Swifties tuned in…"
USA TODAY, Jan.31: With Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift an official couple for the NFL season, it was widely expected that oddsmakers would try and capitalize on that publicity with some prop bets for Super Bowl 58 between the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers.
SportsBookReview, Feb.3: “Taylor Swift Super Bowl prop bets are joining the annual wide array of always-available Super Bowl player props.
There were also betting articles that didn’t mention Ms. Swift”
Associated Press, Jan. 31: “Early money heavily on Kansas City Chiefs to repeat as Super Bowl…”
Wall Street Journal, Feb.4: An article about how the NFL changed its mind about endorsing betting said, “These days, the NFL’s full-on embrace of a practice it once treated as the boogeyman has never been starker. Commercials for bookmakers dominate TV broadcasts of games. Discussing betting lines on pregame shows, once a taboo, is now standard practice. And now, the biggest game of all—Sunday’s Super Bowl between the San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs—will be played in the very city the league long feared would poison its product.”
New York Times, Feb 4: An article headlined, “N.F.L.’s Rapid Embrace of Gambling Creates Mixed Signals.”
The Guardian, Feb. 6: Super Bowl expected to be biggest sports betting event in US history. Tens of millions of Americans estimated to bet record $23.1bn on game as concern mounts over gambling addiction rates.
In addition to her romance with Travis Kelce, Ms. Swift was accused of being an anti-Trump operative by supporters of the former president.
New York Times, Jan. 31: The paper reported that comments on Fox News urged her to stay out of politics. Fox hosts, said the article, urged “Ms. Swift, who commands 279 million followers on Instagram, from throwing her cultural weight behind a political candidate they dislike. Their on-air discussions were prompted in part by reports that the Biden campaign had deemed Ms. Swift, who endorsed Mr. Biden in 2020, a dream advocate for the president.”
Also on Jan. 31: Conservative Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote, “Trump himself is a great abnormalizer. But so are the various fixations and follies that take shape in his wake — like the very-online right’s bizarre reaction to the romance between Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, a love story that’s united the two remaining pillars of our common culture: the National Football League and, well, Swift herself.”
Associated Press, Jan. 31: “Myriad baseless rumors emerged on social media — everything from claims that Swift has played a part in Pentagon psychological operations to the idea that she and her two-time Super Bowl champion boyfriend are key assets in a secret plot to help President Joe Biden get reelected in 2024. Another variant: That the Chiefs’ success was rigged as part of the plan for the game on Feb. 11 in Las Vegas.”
New York Times, Jan. 31: “The pro-Trump broadcaster Mike Crispi led off on Sunday by claiming that the National Football League is “rigged” in order to spread Democratic propaganda.” was one of many examples in a story headlined, “Far right Sees A Secret Agent, Not a Pop Star.” The propaganda merchants and secret agents? Taylor Swift and Jason Kelce who were accused of being Democratic operatives.
Wall Street Journal, Feb. 1: “Yet the paranoia on the right about a romance between the most popular singer in the world and an NFL player does make Republicans seem frankly weird…”
Taylor Swift has received more favorable publicity without saying one word than Donald Trump did when he continuously ranted about football players not standing for the National Anthem. No wonder far right MAGA supporters are acting idiotic about Ms. Swift, who endorsed Vice President Taylor Harris for president. It’s as if they got tackled one time too many without wearing a football helmet.
Not since Babe Ruth captivated America when he played with the New York Yankees in the 1920s and 30s have so many non-sports fans paid attention to a sport. And the reason is Taylor Swift, who has elevated interest in football to new heights.
“Tracy Wolfson, the CBS sideline reporter for the Super Bowl said “You can’t help but put her on the air. I can’t tell you the amount of dads who have come up to me and said, ‘My daughter is now watching football because of Taylor Swift.’ I mean, why wouldn’t you take advantage or capitalize on it? It’s great for the NFL and it’s great for ratings,” which must be driving Donald Trump mad, because his denouncing football players had as much negative impact on the game as does one rain drop on the ocean.
And CBS agrees. “Taylor Swift is the greatest ad for the Super Bowl in history,” said a post on February 1.
It’s not that the negative coverage regarding injuries to NFL players had disappeared in 2024. But with a change.
Front Office Sports, Jan. 30:A Front Office Sports article about a recently unsealed deposition that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell gave in 2022 in a head injury lawsuit against the league said, “I think there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about the causation issue. We all know there are risks with playing football and other sports. There are risks to walking down the street.” He also criticized the media coverage of the issue, saying, “They misstate, they misrepresent things, and when they do that, they add to a narrative that I think is unfair and unfounded.”
The Washington Post, Jan. 31: “The broken promises of the NFL concussion settlement.” “The ‘landmark’ deal promised payouts for suffering players. But strict guidelines, aggressive reviews and a languishing doctor’s network have led to denials for hundreds of players diagnosed with dementia, including many who died with CTE, a Washington Post investigation found.”
The New York Times, Sept. 25: "Tommy Kramer, a star quarterback with the Minnesota Vikings in the ’80s, announced Wednesday he was diagnosed with dementia. In a post on X, Kramer said he decided to go public after Brett Favre shared Tuesday he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
The change
In previous years, articles about how football affected the health of players were certain to dominate the pre-game media coverage. Not so before the 2024 game. Instead, those types of stories were reported on throughout 2023. Is that the new trend? Hard to tell because the Taylor Swift-Travis Kelce and gambling articles dominated the media coverage last year.
Of course, a major facet of non-football stories leading up to the Super Bowl concerns the cost of the 2024 commercials.
The Associated Press, Jan. 31: “Some advertisers are releasing ads ahead of Super Bowl 58 in the hope of capitalizing on the buzz that builds as the game approaches. They hope to recoup some of the reported $7 million that’s the going rate for a 30-second spot by capturing pre-game attention. It’s a big challenge to stand out among the 50-plus advertisers vying for the eyes of the more than 100 million people expected to tune in to CBS (and Paramount+ and Nickelodeon) on Super Bowl Sunday (Feb. 11).”
The Conversation, Jan. 31: “Super Bowl ads: It’s getting harder for commercials to score with consumers,” headlined an article by by Linda Ferrell, the Globe Life Professor of Marketing at Auburn University that appeared in multiple news outlets. She said tide of advertising on the Super Bowl might be turning for some marketers because “Marketers know TikTok and other social sites are better platforms for delivering messages to targeted demographics. The return on investment for advertising is far easier to track in these venues, and the ad spend is easier to justify – especially considering how often these ads will be shared with family and friends in a matter of seconds with just a few keystroke.” (The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb.2: A survey story asking 15 marketing experts if the cost of a Super Bowl was worth it found that the overwhelming majority said it was. There was only one “no” and another response with caveats. “Such an advertising decision must be based on research around the specific product, budget and market opportunity. Some companies may see value in the initial impact, which can be high because of increased awareness and the ongoing conversations around the advertising following the Super Bowl. However, the real test is whether the millions of ad dollars spent result a long-term positive effect on brand preference — and on sales, said Chris Van Gorder of Scripps Health. The “no” came from Austin Neudecker of Weave Growth, who said, “Beyond the exorbitant cost for a timeslot, quality ads are expensive to produce. For large brands in broadly relevant categories (alcohol, snacks, automobiles, financial institutions), brand-building efforts are part of huge marketing budgets to stay top-of-mind for consumers. Newer brands have bet on Super Bowl ads to gain notoriety but rarely see the investment pay off. I strongly prefer investing in channels where the customer acquisition cost is already tested and tracked.”
New York Times, Feb. 7:”Your not just paying for that 30second spot: it is a four-to six week buzz that you’re creating, said Mary Scott, a professor of strategic communications at Montclair State University,” who added that the Swift-Kelce relationship is another potential marketing opportunity, as is the rise of female viewership.
Wall Street Journal, Feb.9: “Brands are leaning more on celebrities because there is “so much pressure to break out,” said Allen Adamson, a branding strategist.”… “Celebrity-free Super Bowl ads have now become a rarity: They accounted for less than a third of all commercials shown during the game in recent years. “There is a downside to the approach. “There are so many celebrities appearing during the game, and it is really hard to tie the celebrity to the brand,” Adamson said. “It’s celebrity soup.”
University of Illinois News Bureau, Feb. 11:” What makes the Super Bowl so appealing for advertisers is that it boasts the largest live television audience and remains one of the few programs where people aren’t skipping the ads, a rare phenomenon as viewers are increasingly scattered across different streaming services, says University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign business professor and consumer marketing expert Maria A. Rodas.” But what makes here so certain that viewers are watching the commercials, and if they are, are influenced by them? Other experts say that Super Bowl commercials have lost their luster.
New York Times, Feb. 13: “We’ll remember these for at least a day or two,” said an article about “Best of the Bunch” commercials.
Wall Street Journal, Feb. 13: “Super Bowl advertisers’ growing reliance on celebrities threatens to overshadow the brands themselves, at least in the short term, according to Moran Cerf, professor of marketing at Columbia Business School. “Many of Cerf’s students after the game recalled Beyoncé’s announcement of a new album, news that came during Verizon’s ad, as well as Christopher Walken’s role in the commercial for BMW. But the students were far less likely to remember the names of the advertisers themselves,” he said.
A Feb. 28 Wall Street Journal article should give sports marketers pause for thought about crafting multi-million dollars commercials featuring celebrities for use on mega-events, such as the Super Bowl. The article reported that a 60 second ad, featuring Peyton Manning (which must have cost a Big Fortune to create) didn’t move the Bud Light needle. But you can bet the ranch that ad agencies will still tout using celebrities in future commercial, despite the fact that a survey by Casiino.org reported that a significant 6 in 10 Americans express diminished trust in brands employing celebrity endorsement. PR people should remember that before automatically recommending a celebrity as a PR spokesperson.
The truth of the matter is that there is only one sure way to see if the cost of a Super Bowl commercial was worth it: That’s for a brand to alternate advertising and not advertising during the Big Game for a few years and compare the sales figures. Everything else is just a person’s gut feeling opinion.
Viewers of an NFL game were once bombarded with commercials touting beer and junk foods. Then hard liquor ads were added and for the past few years betting commercials. Thus, watching an NFL game from the safety of your home has disappeared. Now I can confidentially say that watching an NFL game is now a danger to your health and wealth.
When football fans in the far future research Super Bowl history they’ll see that the Kansas City Chefs won the game. But as people who followed the news about last year’s game know the real winner was Taylor Swift.
There are many lessons that can be learned from last year’s Super Bowl. But I can predict a few happenings that will occur before the 2025 kick-off:
Positive earned media for brands associated with the Super Bowl will still be very difficult to obtain.
The great majority of coverage leading up to the game will again be negative. Articles about betting, and, maybe players’ health, will dominate the pre-game coverage.
If Kansas City qualifies for the Super Bowl, they are certain to obtain significant three-peat coverage.
If Kansas City qualifies and the Swift-Kelce relationship is still intact, they are certain to receive significant coverage.
Brands’ spokespeople will say that coughing up more than $7-million dollars for a 30 second commercial, not including production costs which can add many more millions of dollars to the ad, was money well spent, even if they are disappointed with the ROI.
Advertising agencies that created the commercials are certain to say that the cost was worth it.
And if clients complain to the PR agency about not getting positive earned publicity, high-level agency execs will never blame themselves. Instead. some lower-level individual, who was following orders, will be blamed, (which is par for the course in our it’s “not my fault” business).
Current Events
On Jan. 9, The Athletic reported that Tennessee Titans legend Frank Wycheck tested positive for chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) Researchers from Boston University’s CTE Center confirmed the diagnosis for Wycheck. The family announced that it would work with experts for brain injury and CTE research. Wycheck retired from the NFL at age 32 after suffering several concussions in his career.
Referring to Rycheck’s brain damage, on Jan. 10, USA TODAY ran a lengthy article by Mike Freeman saying that it’s not only the “big hit” that can cause brain damage, and that the accumulate effects from almost every play can led to CTE. The article was titled, “Frank Wycheck CTE diagnosis reminder that real human beings play a brutal game |”
This year’s Super Bowl, on Feb. 9, provided an important lesson that people in our business should remember. Unexpected things happen: In this case, State Farm, the insurance company, which ran an ad during the 2024 game featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, decided not to because of the Los Angeles fires. State Farm said “its focus is on supporting Los Angeles residents.”
Arguably, the most intelligent comment about the hullabaloo surrounding all Super Bowls was issued not by an NFL exec, an advertising or a PR practitioner, but from a football player, when prior to Super Bowl V1, in 1972, Duane Thomas, the terrific Dallas Cowboy’s running back, was asked about playing in “the ultimate game.” His response was, "If it's the ultimate game, how come they're playing it again next year?"
Sports marketers should consider Thomas’ remarks when deciding how to divvy up their budgets. If the NFL has its way, there’ll always be another ultimate game and some marketers will forget that more targeted advertising might produce better sales. Maybe Super ones.
