The Super Bowl is the most watched television show of the year in America every single year. It doesn't matter if it's Patriots/Falcons, or it was Jaguars/Buccaneers - the nation stops to watch the Super Bowl.
Notice I didn't say stops to watch "the game", because that's not the major attraction for a large portion of society.
For football fans, even casual ones, we watch the game as the culmination of the NFL season, although it takes the edge off the game to me having the extra week in between the conference title games and the Big One. (I understand why you want to have the week in between; just whining about it from a fan's perspective.) To put the delay in perspective, the last meaningful game the NFL played was two days after the Inauguration - we had barely been introduced to the phrase "alternative facts" yet!
And when you have a polarizing or popular team in the game - and the Patriots are both - that's going to increase the fans' interest. Will Tom Brady become the only five-time champion QB? Will Belechick win another one? Will Roger Goodell have to present the MVP trophy to Deflategate-boy?When you add the excitement of a high-powered offense like Atlanta has, and the possible ascension of Matty Ice to the quarterback Parthenon with a title, then the hype for the game itself is palpable.
But for a large portion of the nation (and very slightly beyond - the NFL is truly 'national', still, unlike the other three major sports leagues which have teams in at least Toronto, Canada), the EVENT is more important than the GAME.
Luke Bryan singing the anthem (the over/under is two minutes fifteen seconds, if you're a betting person). Lady Gaga's halftime show (sometimes the halftime is bigger news than the game. We blame you, Janet.), all the amazing new camera tricks and gadgets the network of the year pulls out of its bag for its showcase (and with an indoor game, and being on Fox, expect more than normal on this front), and of course, don't forget that the POTUS always makes an interviewed appearance in the pre-game somewhere (somehow, I've a hunch that will be more newsmaking than normal).
And, of course, the commercials.
There was a study this year that suggests that 80% of Super Bowl advertisements fail to increase sales for the advertising company. Compared to the conference title games, for example, there's a 12% increase in viewership for a 20% markup in price (on average during the last decade or so - wish I'd cited my source when I read this!). That doesn't sound cost-effective, and some companies have come to that conclusion over the years themselves.
But others always seem to take their place - there's never a lack of advertisers for the game, even at five mil a slot. If you watch television, this is the ONLY time all year you're going to specifically watch for the advertisements, barring a special "stay tuned for a sneak preview of Disney's upcoming movie, Aladdin and Jasmine Are Arrested Flying Their Carpet Over Mr. Trump's Wall". If you want to make your mark in the culture today with an ad, this is where you have to do it, ever since Apple's 1984 Macintosh ad.
And every year, there are two or three that stick with us, at least for a while. Many more try and fail to capture the public's imagination, and that's as it should be. Art is always a risk - if it isn't, then it's not really art. And, believe it or don't, commercials like many of the SB ads are most definitely art. They make a statement (beyond 'buy our product'), they appeal to the senses, they are designed to challenge the viewer. Those are three of the most critical elements to determining what ART IS, and what IS ART.
Art should say something. You may not always like the message, or occasionally even get the message. But if it's really art, then it has to make you think at some level. Along with that is the idea that art should challenge the observer as well. It's one thing to say something benign, like "Chocolate is good," or "I like trains". Art should make you think about the message being given, and leave some of the work to you. It's the exact opposite of what a good journalist would do: if you're reading a news article, you want ALL the facts (and opinions, if appropriate) laid out in easily digestible form for the reader. That's the appeal of the USA Today/ Mashable school of layout - the easy on the eyes, straight forward modality that draws in those who find the New York Times a tough read. But art? Art as a rule leaves out key elements of the puzzle, forcing the observer to solve it (which they need to be able to do, or the artwork is a failure) and thereby become part of the artistic process themselves. If your observer never invests himself into your art, you've failed as an artist.
Critically, the difference between art and any other statement-making form is that art should be aesthetically stimulating. Notice I didn't say pleasing, although that's by far the norm. But cacophony has its place. Tension has its place. Jarring the sensibilities of the observer has its place. If it turns the observer off to your work, you've overdone it, but unlike every other method of communication, art must have an affect, not just an effect.
Do Super Bowl commercials accomplish these three tasks? Are they "art"? Well, to be fair, many if not most of them don't strive for that particular goal. They're paid in the end to sell a product; if they can do so by other means, more power to them. But if you're ever going to see the artistic side of the advertising business, Sunday's the day you'll see it. There are awards shows for commercial makers, but we might well consider the Super Bowl after-analysis to be the "people's choice" of commercial awards: which ads will have you talking around the water cooler the next day?
Of my children, four of them will be home with me watching the Super Bowl on and off. (The two oldest will be off making and selling food for the other viewers at their diverse food establishments.) My youngest son, the twelve-year old, will watch for the football game for the most part; the fifteen year old son will be interested in the musical performances, but he and his sisters will be the ones running into the room when commercials come on, rather than the usual tide going the opposite direction for most shows.
As for the game itself, FOLLOWING FOOTBALL gives the Patriots a two point edge (Vegas has been hovering around three all week). I personally think Atlanta's the best option to face New England this year, as Dallas was a year or two away despite their record this year, and Green Bay had too many injuries to hold up against the Pats. Belechick's M.O. is to take away your best weapon on offense (to me, that's Julio Jones), but Atlanta has too many to take just one away and be completely effective on defense. On the other hand, the Falcons' defense (though improved throughout the season) can definitely be exploited by a smart offense and a good QB, and New England has both.
I expect a high-scoring game, and I expect Brady to Edelman to be the last and winning score of the game. New England will win its fifth title in the Brady/Belechick era by less than the final touchdown - less than seven points.
No comments:
Post a Comment