This year’s Super Bowl took place last Sunday, Feb. 5, and with it came the Super Bowl’s ads. As a communication student who likes to sleep, I never had the occasion to watch the game in France because of the time difference. I was then looking forward to watching it.
Currently, I guess, such events are even more awaited, since the new president spoils us with his latest accomplishments. Besides the immigration ban, earlier this year, Trump has also made his wall project come true.
So here I was, in the U.S., with tortillas, beer and guacamole, ready to be a bit disappointed. But less by the banality of the Super Bowl’s ad that aired than by those who didn’t air.
Indeed the ad of 84 Lumber didn’t make it to the Super Bowl. The American building material supply company submitted an ad criticizing the wall decision to Fox that was rejected.
In this ad (that can be found online) we can see a woman and her daughter from Mexico fighting their way to the U.S. border. We see them struggling and we see how both desperate and hopeful they are to run away from their poor condition. When they arrive around the border they think they are done and going to cross the border to begin a new life. In parallel, we see men, supposedly Americans, working on a construction field.
When the two women make it to the US, they didn’t expect the border to be materialized by a 9 feet wall stopping them to cross. As they seem to give up, the mother sees an opening, a door in the wall and they get to enter the US territory. We understand that the men were working on this opening, welcoming people inside.
The message of 84 Lumber is clear: the company is against the anti-immigration measures recently taken by the government.
Fox refused to air the ad because the content was judged “too controversial”. My question is: why did this one get censored? I’ve watch the whole game, most of the ads, and other subjects that could be controversial. Let’s not forget Airbnb and Budweiser’s ad that was also immigrant friendly.
It may be considered that those kind of messages are not the place of brands and companies. However, when brands are juridically considered as persons, they should have citizen rights too. The United States is supposed to be the place where every idea can be expressed freely. The freedom of speech seems to meet HUGE obstacles here.
Though we have to understand that it is the first time brands are that involved and communicants have no way to predict what is going to be next, it is scary to see this kind of censorship appearing in 2017. I may be a bit of an alarmist but when ideologies meet those kind of obstacles that’s not a good sign.
But in the end here we are, talking about that campaign even though it didn’t make it to the Super Bowl. I think that what we should take out of those unfortunate events is that we can not stop a population from talking about what is going on in their country. Even for a major event not related to politics, trying to stop it makes the message even more attractive.
I invite you all to watch the full version of 84 Lumber’s campaign and enjoy any of the other messages brands have brought to the Super Bowl, we’ve seen better but still some are powerful enough to make me glad I am a IMC major.
Originally published in The Johnsonian.
Source image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0iD4B5hcfc
tupourraitterelire.wordpress.com 