Fox, NFL make bad decision on potential Super Bowl ad

General Manager/Editor Ron Schott

General Manager/Editor Ron Schott

Every year, the National Football League (NFL) enjoys the revenue it gains from the airing of the Super Bowl.
With more than 108 million people watching my Baltimore Ravens defeat the San Francisco 49’ers in February, television commercials cost an average of $4 million for each :30 second spot.
Two months away from the NFL’s next big event, a firearms company named Daniel Defense was hoping to be a part of the next schedule of advertising that fans can’t wait to see. After all, this is probably the only television event all year in which many viewers look forward more to the commercials than to the football game itself.
So Daniel Defense produced a :30 second commercial to promote the Second Amendment. It features a marine who is back in the U.S. from serving his country overseas. He talks about the joy of being with his family, the adjustment in life, and mentions that his family’s safety is his “highest priority.” He notes that he is responsible for their protection and that no one has the right to tell him how to defend it.
Unfortunately, Fox, who is broadcasting next year’s Super Bowl, has informed the company who makes DDM4 rifles, that it’s ad violates NFL policy on ads, claiming it is to sell firearms.
The actual policy says “Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.”
Daniel Defense notes that the TV spot doesn’t mention firearms, ammunition, or weaponry in it and that its retail locations sell more than just firearms.
The company thought maybe the logo of the DDM4 at the end could be the problem and offered to change it out with an American flag alongside the words “shall not be infringed.”
The NFL reportedly replied with a “non-negotiable” denial of the ad.
This in spite of the company running a similar ad in Georgia TV markets during the Super Bowl one year earlier with no outcry.
My problem with Fox and the NFL’s dismissal of the ad is that while they won’t allow an ad supporting the Second Amendment to air, they fail to address the other commercial and event content that invades our living rooms every year.
In the last Super Bowl, we had to watch a close up of a model kissing some random guy, heard KMart replace cuss words in the delivery of pants, several sexually suggestive burger and beer commercials, and dirty dancing during the halftime show.
Meanwhile, the NFL, who might say they are staying out of the political arena, allowed mayors againstillegalguns.org to run an ad one year earlier during that Super Bowl.
NBC’s Bob Costas just gave his own editorial comments recently about guns on a Sunday Night football broadcast.
While the NFL is so concerned about guns, it is not focusing on its countless issues with players in domestic dispute cases, DUI’s, and other drinking problems.
In other words, they will have no problem with taking the money in for beer commercials, which is why you rarely hear the NFL taking a really strong stance on the situation as another one of its players get arrested or even kills someone after a DUI.
The best word for this is “hypocritical.”
I wish Fox and the NFL would reconsider their decision. You can view it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvzAt9Yx7s8

Posted on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:22 am