Don, when would be the appropriate time for us to talk about an important issue? Would you prefer that it be a time when you aren’t watching and don’t have to think about it?
I’m not surprised that the ad bothered some people, but if you want a message to be heard in the U.S., then the night of greatest television viewership for 2015 is maybe not a bad place to start.
I don’t want to say that this is as important as my examples, but most important changes aren’t comfortable. The civil rights movement bothered quite a few people, but it was one of the most important messages of the 20th century. The current marriage equality debates happening in many states will help shape our society for the foreseeable future. That is certainly something worth talking about. On a more related note, I don’t see very many complaints about the domestic violence ad run last night. Does that fit the image of the Super Bowl better than a message about preventable childhood accidents?
The ad got people talking, so I suppose Nationwide accomplished their goal. It’s a tough subject, but an important one. Maybe the ad could have been done a little differently, but sometimes it takes shock value to get people’s attention.
The Nationwide ad was a very timely message on the heaviest drinking day of the year. Think about the impact of your actions — before you drink and drive.
Not evey message has to be touchy feely to have an impact.
I have to agree with you, Celtica. Very tough message, even depressing. But it was the best time to grab the most people at once.
Many of the posters are thinking that Nationwide ran the add to sell insurance. Maybe, it was done more from a risk management perspective to improve their loss ratio. Certainly from a life insurance perspective, but it could also be from a 3rd party liability standpoint. How many kids run into the street because their parents are not watching them? They get hit by a car and then the parents sue the other driver.
I felt the super bowl commercials were off the mark on many levels. Commercials should be trying to sell me something – many of them you weren’t sure what was being sold others including the Nationwide commercial took their time to pontificate their thoughts to the audience – HEY WAKE UP – I WATCH TV to be entertained especially when I’m trying to watch the Super Bowl. I appreciate great commercials – think back to years ago for HP digital cameras – the snappy little ditty with people passing empty picture frames through the frames of the commercial – EVERYONE wanted that camera – what we saw last night was a wasteland of uncreative ideas that left many wondering this morning what brand certain of those commercials were touting – A waste of billions of dollars collectively. Probably best “entertaining” commercial of the night – Fiat – you knew what they were selling and could laugh about it – that’s what marketing genius is for folks!
The Budweiser ads are always good. The one where the puppy was lost and was in danger from the wolf and the horses rescuing him was very good.
The Nationwide ad was in very poor taste and has no place in the Superbowl. They can run the ad all they want in regular time. It did not give me a touchy feely impression.
Have any of you lost a child to a terrible accident? I have. I live with it EVERY DAY…and for Nationwide to decide to play such a tasteless commercial during an event where we that suffer this type of tragedy can actually escape the pain for a few precious hours is repugnant. I absolutely agree with everyone saying it is a topic that needs to be discussed…but during the Super Bowl may not be the best venue for such a critical discussion.
Kudos to Nationwide for having the guts to confront such an issue…Boo to Nationwide for not considering those of us who have already lived the tragedy…
Don, I’m sorry to hear about your personal tragedy. I have to ask what’s so different about the Super Bowl compared to other times you watch TV? Are there times you watch TV to relive the pain or deepen it, rather than to escape it? No delicate subject will be able to escape reminding at least some people of pain or loss, as I’m sure you understand.
I pose a question to you as one who has a different point of view from most of the rest of us here: When/where do you think would have been a better venue for the ad? I’m willing to believe there is one, but I’ve not seen anyone give a thoughtful answer on that.
Regardless of any discussion we have, I hope that making people confront the issue will contribute to saving at least one life, and possibly many.
I guess the Super Bowl is a special event…sort of like Game 7 of the World Series or Sunday at The Masters…a time where good thoughts outweigh the dark ones…
In terms of better media or timing…I’m not really sure how to answer that…there is no good time…but perhaps print might be more appropriate or perhaps during the news or 60 Minutes…I might be expecting something then…but not during the Superbowl…
Perhaps had you seen the commercial something could have been prevented in your situation. I’m sure thousands of people checked their houses for potential accidents. That message could save hundreds. You more than most should commend Nationwide for the awareness it brought.
That is the most horrific, bad taste, responses I have EVER seen on IJ now. Congrats Alex for most likely to succeed in stupidity and plain out poor taste anything anyone else on the IJ blogs has ever commented. I cannot believe someone could actually post to Don what you did. You obviously have no children yourself or are just that cold and callous to say something like that to him.
Don- my sympathies for your loss, no parent should ever have to feel that pain and I hope the best for you. When something like that happens, you will never forget, just some days are better than others. Good luck my friend.
As to the ad- I think I will agree with Don, maybe not the most appropriate time for that…but on the flip side that is when companies know they are going to get the most attention to their commercials…let’s face it, the commercials are almost more popular than the game itself nowadays!
As for the timing question “when would be an appropriate time” maybe during other high viewed events, Golden Globe awards, for example. Plus high profile entertainment people usually taking a stand for something be it domestic violence, animal abuse, or in this case preventable child tragedies
Seriously, the results are in. The Budweiser commercial with the horses saving the puppy from the wolf won best commercial of the Superbowl. They didn’t have to run a commercial about kids dying to have a great commercial. I also like ads that show good triumphing over evil.
I liked that one too! I thought it was very cute. My personal favorite was the one for Loctite Glue. No clue why, but it just struck me as so funny. I agree, I like the ones showing good triumphing over evil too :) Have a great Friday!
February 6, 2015 at 2:42 pm
Don says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you, Seriously…and you are absolutely right, some days are better than others.
Alex, I’m hoping you didn’t mean for your comment to come out the way I read it…would I go back in time and change things…ABSOLUTELY…but I can’t…my original comment pertained to the emotions I felt when seeing the commercial during a time when I look forward to a bit of peace…If you read the entire original post, I do commend Nationwide for broaching the topic…I only panned them for their timing.
Why do you think the intent was to sell something? They ran an ad earlier in the Super Bowl that was clearly intended to sell products. They didn’t mention any products in this ad and it was actually to encourage parents to review a FREE app on their phone to make their homes safer. I understand that most people are jaded and assume the intent is to ‘sell stuff’ but I truly don’t feel that it was the case with this advertisement.
Nationwide had a captive audience for this ad on SuperBowl Sunday. I was shocked when I realized the little boy died and thought to myself..I hate that commercial. But then again childhood accidents whether leading to injury or death is never funny and people will remember the ad and then maybe look around and make the world a safer place for children.
I am with “An Actuary”. Yes safety is important and no one will deny that, but Nationwide did not spend all that money on TV time as a public service announcement. They are looking to sell insurance. They want to let everyone know “They are in Good Hands”…I mean Nationwide is on your side..
I agree ratemaker. I know people will drink and party and eat, but I have a hard time believing domestic violence peaks on that day. Perhaps the domestic violence peaks when the city with the winning team are so happy, they go out and riot, burn and loot.
Actuary — of course they want to sell insurance. Who doesn’t? But they also want to decrease the number of drinking and driving deaths. Why is that such a bad thing?
FFA, millions of children camp out in front of the TV for the Superbowl. Do you think they need to see something like this? As adults, we can blow it off. For an impressionable young mind, I am not so sure.
“Millions” of kids watched the game? They don’t even know how many people in total watched the game – how can you say definitively you know how many kids were watching?
Just another “Agent throws out “facts” that aren’t based in reality and can’t be verified” statement.
Your point is valid without those numbers – you didn’t need to make up stats!
Rosenblatt, what a stretch for even you? This was the highest rated Super Bowl in history. Millions of families watch this game together. Try to imagine that families have children, therefore millions of children are also exposed to the game. You are being very troll like, much like some of your colleagues.
Agent – my non-troll post was simple: you can’t say as a fact that millions of kids watched the SB before we know how many people (kids and adults) actually watched the game. That’s not trolling.
February 3, 2015 at 11:36 am
Integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – We agree on most things and I respect your opinion. Unfortunately, I do not have a problem with them airing this ad during the Super Bowl. It was a depressing ad, however, it delivers a tough message to both adults and children.
For the adults, there are many that do not watch or take care of their children the way they should. Many tragedies occur because of this. (My former neighbor never watched their kids and their one son was hit by a car). It was not the drivers fault, but the parents sued him anyway. The child almost lost a leg.
For the children watching, the concept may have gone over their heads for the younger ones. For the adolescents, it might make them think twice about some of their activities. Maybe not. If it saves one kid, it’s worth it.
I agree with you too Integrity on most things. We are both not shy in voicing our opinions against the other side.
I think we get enough depressing news about what is going on in the world and the Superbowl should be about good things, funny ads, not depressing ads. What is the age of understanding with kids? When my grandson was about three, he could hold an intelligent conversation about a lot of things with adults. He would start with – Actually, I think ——- and really surprise us.
Personally, I think the sexually suggestive and narcissistic (Kim Kardassian) commercials are more damaging to the young kids.
Unfortunately, sex sells, so there won’t be too many complaints about them.
February 3, 2015 at 11:46 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey FFA, want to hear the latest gossip on how the Seahawks managed to blow the game? The theory was that they wanted Wilson to make the winning play so he could get MVP and accept the trophy. He is well spoken and classy. They didn’t want Marshawn Lynch to score the winning touchdown and get MVP because he hates the media and only spoke to them so he wouldn’t get fined. Who is a better representative for the team, Wilson or Lynch? As a result, they tried a risky play and got burned and no rings.
Or maybe what happened was exactly what Pete Carroll said:
“Make sure we throw it here,” Carroll told his coaches and his quarterback as they decided what to do on second-and-goal from the Pats 1…”We’ll run on third and fourth down.”
Conspiracy and gossip theories aside, can’t you just take the head coach at his word about why he threw on 2nd down instead of running?
FFA – I really think there is logic in that decision. First – I agree with most everyone — passing there was stupid. They should’ve ran. No doubt. However, I can see why they didn’t.
Look at the Pat’s D on that game ending INT. The Pat’s stacked the box and were selling out to stop the run, basically daring Wilson to throw against a 3DB situation. SEA had the match up they wanted on that play (pass against a run-heavy D) but Wilson made a bad throw.
It certainly was not the dumbest play call in any Superbowl since SEA was throwing against a run-based D.
February 3, 2015 at 3:29 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rose, if he was throwing away from coverage – back corner fade – Outside shoulder – I can see your point. But throw it into the box that was stacked for the run???
Your probably right on the dumbest play call. I’ve “blacked out” the Bears last appearance.
February 3, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Absolutely, FFA. A throw to the middle of the field just short of the end zone was not the way to go if you’re dead-set on throwing in that situation. A back-corner fade most certainly would’be been the safer route to try
February 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Make sure you throw it in the tightest coverage area, right? Tight coverage into the narrowest window is a recipe for either incompletion or in this case interception. How about this for a play? Fake it to Marshawn on a dive play drawing the heaviest opposition and roll out and either run it in with Wilson who has great speed or flip it to the tight end. That play has worked for as long as I have been watching football. Carroll was stupid. I also think he thought he had luck on his side since he got away with a 4th down in the first half on the six yard line with only seconds left in the half when most coaches would have kicked a field goal. I guess he wasn’t so lucky after all.
Did you read the part where I said I agree with everyone that they should’ve run it? I was just offering up logic behind the decision to throw there. It was a dumb play call, but not THE DUMBEST in the history of any sport.
February 3, 2015 at 4:32 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well agent, that may have done the trick… A naked boot leg – maybe pull a guard or have a TE lead the way and give Wilson the option to throw or run it. Either way, throwing it into the tightest part of the D was not the smartest play call. Wilson is tough to bring down himself one on one. I am sure in that situation he would not have slid.
I didn’t like much the display of UnSportsman Like Conduct with 15 seconds left. The offsides play was just stupid too. what ever slim chance you had after the pick was taken away.
February 3, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, Not Trolling Rosenblatt. It may not have been the dumbest play in the history of sport, but point us to any play in the Superbowl more dumb than this play. Mistakes were plenty, but a dumb call, not even close.
Any coach should know not to throw into a completely stacked defense. That ball couldn’t have been thrown into a tighter defense. The young guy Butler easily jumped the play, knocked the receiver sideways to get that ball. He may never do anything that special the rest of his career, but he has the ring now and Seattle doesn’t.
February 4, 2015 at 9:56 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“It may not have been the dumbest play in the history of sport, but point us to any play in the Superbowl more dumb than this play”
No. I won’t – I never claimed there was a Superbowl call that was more dumb than the one to end XLIX, so your question/request is pointless.
February 6, 2015 at 11:56 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Rosenblatt, how about taking the word of an NFL Hall of Famer on the dumbest play in Super Bowl history.
Emmit Smith – “That was the dumbest play in the history of the Super Bowl”.
February 6, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, let me say this again: I NEVER SAID IT WAS NOT THE DUMBEST PLAY IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPERBOWL. Stop trying to convince me or yourself that I said there was a more stupid play in NFL history.
February 2, 2015 at 8:28 pm
fred warner says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Trust me, Nationwide doesn’t care about dead kids as long as the executives and their friends make lots of money. They don’t understand why this ad is bad, exploiting dead kids is OK if it gets them attention!!!
Not Trolling Rosenblatt, since you are the history expert and you seem to want to say “dumbest play in the history of sport”, please go into your treasure trove of information and pick a play that was more dumb than the Seahawk play. Inquiring minds want to know.
Those are not even close Rosenblatt. Stupid yes, not critical to the outcome. I don’t have to use Google in this instance. I have common sense. Try to find another website or dig deeper.
Just because you say something doesn’t mean you’re right. That Chris Webber play WAS OBVIOUSLY critical to the outcome. I will now wait for you to ignore this post and not admit in a reply that you were wrong.
February 6, 2015 at 4:18 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stupid Agent.
I wrote “It was a dumb play call, but *****************not************ THE DUMBEST in the history of any sport.”
Your line of “you seem to want to say “dumbest play in the history of sport” shows your lack of reading comprehension skills.
If I wanted to say that, I would’ve typed it.
I said IT WAS NOT THE DUMBEST PLAY IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS and I stand by that comment, even if you can’t understand what I’m saying
Please polish up your reading skills. You were adamant that it wasn’t the stupidest play in the history of sports. I asked you to provide evidence of one that was more stupid. You can’t, because there isn’t one.
FFA, More good news for the State of Illinois as reported by the Washington Times. It seems our wonderful President has pulled funding for a large Clean Coal Plant in central Illinois in the interests of the people??? This plant was to be the model of how to burn coal cleanly and storage of carbon. I can remember speeches on energy that had Obama pledging to develop clean coal in addition to his other solar panel, wind and algae proposals. He gave billions to these other projects who promptly went belly up and now is pulling $1 billion from Clean Coal. I am sure the taxpayers of your great state really appreciate him doing this because it will cost more jobs in a jobs starved state.
The plant was set to get $1B from the gov’t, but had to secure private funding before being eligible to take the $$.
The plant didn’t get private funding; therefore, they didn’t qualify to get the $1B from the gov’t anymore.
OBAMA DID NOT PULL FUNDING — THE PLANT DIDN’T QUALIFY FOR THE MONEY ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T MEET THE ORIGINAL TERMS OF THE DEAL!!!
Taken from that Washington Times article:
“In order to receive federal money, FutureGen was required to secure private funding, which it has been unable to do after the project hit a number of roadblocks.”
“…the project has always depended on a private commitment and can’t go forward without it.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saying “Obama pulled funding” is either a blatant lie or you misunderstanding what you read.
Rosenblatt, did all those Green Energy plants have to secure private funding before the government made all those billions of loans or was it walked through with no problem? What is the difference between Clean Coal and Solar Panels, Wind, Algae, Cow dung?
Agent, I don’t know about every contract the government has with every business. All I know is what I read in the article you said to read.
Are you man enough to admit you were wrong when you said “It seems our wonderful President has pulled funding for a large Clean Coal Plant in central Illinois in the interests of the people”?
Your own source said Obama didn’t pull funding, just that the company didn’t meet the criteria to obtain said funding.
Can you admit you were wrong and that President Obama did not pull the $1B funding as you initially wrote?
Rosenblatt, you have an interesting take on this article. Actually, the funding was pulled as the article pointed out. Dick Durbin, not our friend is very upset about it. Tell me, why was the private support so important to the Administration before they would give the support? It is the built in bias this administration has for coal. He gave lip service to developing clean coal technology and then lets the clean coal company go belly up without any help. Ask Wvagt what EPA has done to West Virginia sometime on coal. Do you remember his campaign when he said “Under my plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”. This will insure that FFA’s, Dave’s electricity prices will go up dramatically. Incidentally, both are moving out of the state of Illinois.
Agent – I quoted two places in your article that said the only reason they didn’t get the $1B from the Gov’t is because they didn’t secure private funding, which was a prerequisite of getting the Gov’t money.
WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU THINK IT SAYS FUNDING WAS PULLED FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN THIS? WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT SAY?
February 4, 2015 at 10:02 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Is this the Prairer State Power Plant your referring to? It went on line about 6 years back and cost over runs along with over regulation and decreased usage have cause rates to surge. If he has pulled funding for this particular facility, electric is just gonna get way more expensive then it is already. Several months back, Chicago Trib reported expect 60 – 80 %%% jump in electric rates that are supplied by that facility.
This ad, as well as the one about heroine, stirred up some issues for some people. Personally, I thought they were both well timed and valid.
On Facebook, people were commenting within seconds of this commercial, mostly about how “wrong” it was. How many of those people looked at their tv and wondered if it could topple over on their child? How many at Superbowl parties looked at their drink and wondered if they should be the one to drive home… I think it was well timed and a great job by Nationwide.
Immediately after the Heroine commercial, I saw a post on Facebook slamming the commercial from a mother who has a son struggling with this addiction. I’m sorry, but the commercial didn’t lure her son in. She thought it was in poor taste because it was the Superbowl. Ok, well, maybe had her son seen the commercial he would never have tried the drug.
These commercials did what they were meant to do. The stirred the pot and made people think.
When I first heard, “because I died,” I immediately thought it was an anti-drunk driving commercial. When it went on to talk about preventable accidents, I figured it was the Ad Council. Then, when Nationwide was mentioned, I kind of boggled.
It’s not that they did an ad about preventable accidents, it’s the way they went about it, that sat wrong with me. “Life would have been so great, but I died!” works for MADD commercial. But from an insurance company, it just comes across as a heavy-handed (and kind of clumsy) attempt at scaring people into buying from them. Instead stirring up a a conversation about preventable accidents, it had me rolling my eyes and thinking that Nationwide must be in dire straits if they’re playing the dead kid card to write new policies.
And, to be honest, I don’t think the commercial itself was very well done, either. It went from the real world (kid riding his big wheel) to fantasy (cooties and flying) back to an attempt at a dark real world. It just felt clumsy and like it was trying way too hard.
Folks, let’s be real. Advertisements are not “discussions”.
As is evidenced by these posts and most reactions I’ve heard, nobody’s talking about childhood mortality, rather a bad Ad is the focus.
FFA, there is such a thing as “Common Sense” when rearing a child and people don’t seem to be using much of it in today’s world. On the news, the anchors are constantly giving safety tips on about everything because they know there are a lot of low information people out there who don’t actually think. Same people who vote for a slogan and don’t think.
Hey FFA, I saw a good article in rightturnforever.com written by Lou Holtz. Although he was a famous football coach for years, he is smart and much like Ditka and Conservative. An excerpt from it:
“The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the do’s and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America”.
“It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country”.
Horrible ad and totally in bad taste. Conversation is nice, but there is a time and place for everything and the Super Bowl was NOT it.
I was trained by a life insurance guy who used to say, “you gotta shake them up and make them think.”
Not during the Superbowl….
Amen…
Don, when would be the appropriate time for us to talk about an important issue? Would you prefer that it be a time when you aren’t watching and don’t have to think about it?
I’m not surprised that the ad bothered some people, but if you want a message to be heard in the U.S., then the night of greatest television viewership for 2015 is maybe not a bad place to start.
I don’t want to say that this is as important as my examples, but most important changes aren’t comfortable. The civil rights movement bothered quite a few people, but it was one of the most important messages of the 20th century. The current marriage equality debates happening in many states will help shape our society for the foreseeable future. That is certainly something worth talking about. On a more related note, I don’t see very many complaints about the domestic violence ad run last night. Does that fit the image of the Super Bowl better than a message about preventable childhood accidents?
The ad got people talking, so I suppose Nationwide accomplished their goal. It’s a tough subject, but an important one. Maybe the ad could have been done a little differently, but sometimes it takes shock value to get people’s attention.
The Nationwide ad was a very timely message on the heaviest drinking day of the year. Think about the impact of your actions — before you drink and drive.
Not evey message has to be touchy feely to have an impact.
I have to agree with you, Celtica. Very tough message, even depressing. But it was the best time to grab the most people at once.
Many of the posters are thinking that Nationwide ran the add to sell insurance. Maybe, it was done more from a risk management perspective to improve their loss ratio. Certainly from a life insurance perspective, but it could also be from a 3rd party liability standpoint. How many kids run into the street because their parents are not watching them? They get hit by a car and then the parents sue the other driver.
I felt the super bowl commercials were off the mark on many levels. Commercials should be trying to sell me something – many of them you weren’t sure what was being sold others including the Nationwide commercial took their time to pontificate their thoughts to the audience – HEY WAKE UP – I WATCH TV to be entertained especially when I’m trying to watch the Super Bowl. I appreciate great commercials – think back to years ago for HP digital cameras – the snappy little ditty with people passing empty picture frames through the frames of the commercial – EVERYONE wanted that camera – what we saw last night was a wasteland of uncreative ideas that left many wondering this morning what brand certain of those commercials were touting – A waste of billions of dollars collectively. Probably best “entertaining” commercial of the night – Fiat – you knew what they were selling and could laugh about it – that’s what marketing genius is for folks!
The Budweiser ads are always good. The one where the puppy was lost and was in danger from the wolf and the horses rescuing him was very good.
The Nationwide ad was in very poor taste and has no place in the Superbowl. They can run the ad all they want in regular time. It did not give me a touchy feely impression.
Have any of you lost a child to a terrible accident? I have. I live with it EVERY DAY…and for Nationwide to decide to play such a tasteless commercial during an event where we that suffer this type of tragedy can actually escape the pain for a few precious hours is repugnant. I absolutely agree with everyone saying it is a topic that needs to be discussed…but during the Super Bowl may not be the best venue for such a critical discussion.
Kudos to Nationwide for having the guts to confront such an issue…Boo to Nationwide for not considering those of us who have already lived the tragedy…
Don, I’m sorry to hear about your personal tragedy. I have to ask what’s so different about the Super Bowl compared to other times you watch TV? Are there times you watch TV to relive the pain or deepen it, rather than to escape it? No delicate subject will be able to escape reminding at least some people of pain or loss, as I’m sure you understand.
I pose a question to you as one who has a different point of view from most of the rest of us here: When/where do you think would have been a better venue for the ad? I’m willing to believe there is one, but I’ve not seen anyone give a thoughtful answer on that.
Regardless of any discussion we have, I hope that making people confront the issue will contribute to saving at least one life, and possibly many.
Thank you for thoughts…
I guess the Super Bowl is a special event…sort of like Game 7 of the World Series or Sunday at The Masters…a time where good thoughts outweigh the dark ones…
In terms of better media or timing…I’m not really sure how to answer that…there is no good time…but perhaps print might be more appropriate or perhaps during the news or 60 Minutes…I might be expecting something then…but not during the Superbowl…
Don,
Perhaps had you seen the commercial something could have been prevented in your situation. I’m sure thousands of people checked their houses for potential accidents. That message could save hundreds. You more than most should commend Nationwide for the awareness it brought.
That is the most horrific, bad taste, responses I have EVER seen on IJ now. Congrats Alex for most likely to succeed in stupidity and plain out poor taste anything anyone else on the IJ blogs has ever commented. I cannot believe someone could actually post to Don what you did. You obviously have no children yourself or are just that cold and callous to say something like that to him.
Don- my sympathies for your loss, no parent should ever have to feel that pain and I hope the best for you. When something like that happens, you will never forget, just some days are better than others. Good luck my friend.
As to the ad- I think I will agree with Don, maybe not the most appropriate time for that…but on the flip side that is when companies know they are going to get the most attention to their commercials…let’s face it, the commercials are almost more popular than the game itself nowadays!
As for the timing question “when would be an appropriate time” maybe during other high viewed events, Golden Globe awards, for example. Plus high profile entertainment people usually taking a stand for something be it domestic violence, animal abuse, or in this case preventable child tragedies
Seriously, the results are in. The Budweiser commercial with the horses saving the puppy from the wolf won best commercial of the Superbowl. They didn’t have to run a commercial about kids dying to have a great commercial. I also like ads that show good triumphing over evil.
Agent,
I liked that one too! I thought it was very cute. My personal favorite was the one for Loctite Glue. No clue why, but it just struck me as so funny. I agree, I like the ones showing good triumphing over evil too :) Have a great Friday!
Thank you, Seriously…and you are absolutely right, some days are better than others.
Alex, I’m hoping you didn’t mean for your comment to come out the way I read it…would I go back in time and change things…ABSOLUTELY…but I can’t…my original comment pertained to the emotions I felt when seeing the commercial during a time when I look forward to a bit of peace…If you read the entire original post, I do commend Nationwide for broaching the topic…I only panned them for their timing.
“The sole purpose of this message was to start a conversation, not sell insurance.”
RIIIIIIGHT.
So did Nationwide also donate $50M to the Children’s Hospital just in order to sell insurance?
http://makesafehappen.com/our-role
Why do you think the intent was to sell something? They ran an ad earlier in the Super Bowl that was clearly intended to sell products. They didn’t mention any products in this ad and it was actually to encourage parents to review a FREE app on their phone to make their homes safer. I understand that most people are jaded and assume the intent is to ‘sell stuff’ but I truly don’t feel that it was the case with this advertisement.
Nationwide had a captive audience for this ad on SuperBowl Sunday. I was shocked when I realized the little boy died and thought to myself..I hate that commercial. But then again childhood accidents whether leading to injury or death is never funny and people will remember the ad and then maybe look around and make the world a safer place for children.
I am with “An Actuary”. Yes safety is important and no one will deny that, but Nationwide did not spend all that money on TV time as a public service announcement. They are looking to sell insurance. They want to let everyone know “They are in Good Hands”…I mean Nationwide is on your side..
And along these same lines, domestic violence peaks on Superbowl Sunday.
Pizza anyone?
So do DUI’s. Although, IL should have been pretty flat on that line as no one could drive. We got blasted with 17 inches of snow in my area.
Per Snopes.com, the idea that domestic violence peaks on Super Bowl sunday is entirely fictitious.
I agree ratemaker. I know people will drink and party and eat, but I have a hard time believing domestic violence peaks on that day. Perhaps the domestic violence peaks when the city with the winning team are so happy, they go out and riot, burn and loot.
Agent – what do rioting, burning, and looting have to do with domestic violence? You really are ignorant about such things, aren’t you?
I have to say, I was really impressed with the domestic violence commercial.
Actuary — of course they want to sell insurance. Who doesn’t? But they also want to decrease the number of drinking and driving deaths. Why is that such a bad thing?
It did its job. People thinking. People talking.
FFA, millions of children camp out in front of the TV for the Superbowl. Do you think they need to see something like this? As adults, we can blow it off. For an impressionable young mind, I am not so sure.
“Millions” of kids watched the game? They don’t even know how many people in total watched the game – how can you say definitively you know how many kids were watching?
Just another “Agent throws out “facts” that aren’t based in reality and can’t be verified” statement.
Your point is valid without those numbers – you didn’t need to make up stats!
Rosenblatt, what a stretch for even you? This was the highest rated Super Bowl in history. Millions of families watch this game together. Try to imagine that families have children, therefore millions of children are also exposed to the game. You are being very troll like, much like some of your colleagues.
Agent – my non-troll post was simple: you can’t say as a fact that millions of kids watched the SB before we know how many people (kids and adults) actually watched the game. That’s not trolling.
Agent – We agree on most things and I respect your opinion. Unfortunately, I do not have a problem with them airing this ad during the Super Bowl. It was a depressing ad, however, it delivers a tough message to both adults and children.
For the adults, there are many that do not watch or take care of their children the way they should. Many tragedies occur because of this. (My former neighbor never watched their kids and their one son was hit by a car). It was not the drivers fault, but the parents sued him anyway. The child almost lost a leg.
For the children watching, the concept may have gone over their heads for the younger ones. For the adolescents, it might make them think twice about some of their activities. Maybe not. If it saves one kid, it’s worth it.
I agree with you too Integrity on most things. We are both not shy in voicing our opinions against the other side.
I think we get enough depressing news about what is going on in the world and the Superbowl should be about good things, funny ads, not depressing ads. What is the age of understanding with kids? When my grandson was about three, he could hold an intelligent conversation about a lot of things with adults. He would start with – Actually, I think ——- and really surprise us.
I understand your point, Agent.
Personally, I think the sexually suggestive and narcissistic (Kim Kardassian) commercials are more damaging to the young kids.
Unfortunately, sex sells, so there won’t be too many complaints about them.
Hey FFA, want to hear the latest gossip on how the Seahawks managed to blow the game? The theory was that they wanted Wilson to make the winning play so he could get MVP and accept the trophy. He is well spoken and classy. They didn’t want Marshawn Lynch to score the winning touchdown and get MVP because he hates the media and only spoke to them so he wouldn’t get fined. Who is a better representative for the team, Wilson or Lynch? As a result, they tried a risky play and got burned and no rings.
Or maybe what happened was exactly what Pete Carroll said:
“Make sure we throw it here,” Carroll told his coaches and his quarterback as they decided what to do on second-and-goal from the Pats 1…”We’ll run on third and fourth down.”
Conspiracy and gossip theories aside, can’t you just take the head coach at his word about why he threw on 2nd down instead of running?
There is no logic to what Pete Called… One of the best in the biz at the one yard run stays in to block.
I saw a picture of Pete handing someone some food at a soup kitchen. The caption said “I should have handed off” as he was handing out food.
This will be a lesson that stings for a while.
FFA – I really think there is logic in that decision. First – I agree with most everyone — passing there was stupid. They should’ve ran. No doubt. However, I can see why they didn’t.
Look at the Pat’s D on that game ending INT. The Pat’s stacked the box and were selling out to stop the run, basically daring Wilson to throw against a 3DB situation. SEA had the match up they wanted on that play (pass against a run-heavy D) but Wilson made a bad throw.
It certainly was not the dumbest play call in any Superbowl since SEA was throwing against a run-based D.
Rose, if he was throwing away from coverage – back corner fade – Outside shoulder – I can see your point. But throw it into the box that was stacked for the run???
Your probably right on the dumbest play call. I’ve “blacked out” the Bears last appearance.
Absolutely, FFA. A throw to the middle of the field just short of the end zone was not the way to go if you’re dead-set on throwing in that situation. A back-corner fade most certainly would’be been the safer route to try
Make sure you throw it in the tightest coverage area, right? Tight coverage into the narrowest window is a recipe for either incompletion or in this case interception. How about this for a play? Fake it to Marshawn on a dive play drawing the heaviest opposition and roll out and either run it in with Wilson who has great speed or flip it to the tight end. That play has worked for as long as I have been watching football. Carroll was stupid. I also think he thought he had luck on his side since he got away with a 4th down in the first half on the six yard line with only seconds left in the half when most coaches would have kicked a field goal. I guess he wasn’t so lucky after all.
Did you read the part where I said I agree with everyone that they should’ve run it? I was just offering up logic behind the decision to throw there. It was a dumb play call, but not THE DUMBEST in the history of any sport.
Well agent, that may have done the trick… A naked boot leg – maybe pull a guard or have a TE lead the way and give Wilson the option to throw or run it. Either way, throwing it into the tightest part of the D was not the smartest play call. Wilson is tough to bring down himself one on one. I am sure in that situation he would not have slid.
I didn’t like much the display of UnSportsman Like Conduct with 15 seconds left. The offsides play was just stupid too. what ever slim chance you had after the pick was taken away.
Yes, Not Trolling Rosenblatt. It may not have been the dumbest play in the history of sport, but point us to any play in the Superbowl more dumb than this play. Mistakes were plenty, but a dumb call, not even close.
Any coach should know not to throw into a completely stacked defense. That ball couldn’t have been thrown into a tighter defense. The young guy Butler easily jumped the play, knocked the receiver sideways to get that ball. He may never do anything that special the rest of his career, but he has the ring now and Seattle doesn’t.
“It may not have been the dumbest play in the history of sport, but point us to any play in the Superbowl more dumb than this play”
No. I won’t – I never claimed there was a Superbowl call that was more dumb than the one to end XLIX, so your question/request is pointless.
Hey Rosenblatt, how about taking the word of an NFL Hall of Famer on the dumbest play in Super Bowl history.
Emmit Smith – “That was the dumbest play in the history of the Super Bowl”.
Agent, let me say this again: I NEVER SAID IT WAS NOT THE DUMBEST PLAY IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPERBOWL. Stop trying to convince me or yourself that I said there was a more stupid play in NFL history.
Trust me, Nationwide doesn’t care about dead kids as long as the executives and their friends make lots of money. They don’t understand why this ad is bad, exploiting dead kids is OK if it gets them attention!!!
Not Trolling Rosenblatt, since you are the history expert and you seem to want to say “dumbest play in the history of sport”, please go into your treasure trove of information and pick a play that was more dumb than the Seahawk play. Inquiring minds want to know.
In no particular order….
1) Chris Webber calling a timeout when they had none costing his team the National Championship
2) Leon Lett celebrating a TD before he crossed the end zone to have the ball stripped from his hands before he scored
3) Kyle Orton trying to throw left handed
4) Ruben Rivera trying to run the bases
5) Nyjer Morgan not realizing the ball did not leave the park, throwing a tantrum, and letting the batter get an inside the park home run
6) Anytime a basketball player shoots at the wrong hoop (I know for a fact that Rasheed Wallace did it, but I can’t remember who else has)
7) Jim Marshall running the football into the wrong end zone
So there’s seven. If you want more, use google.
Those are not even close Rosenblatt. Stupid yes, not critical to the outcome. I don’t have to use Google in this instance. I have common sense. Try to find another website or dig deeper.
Just because you say something doesn’t mean you’re right. That Chris Webber play WAS OBVIOUSLY critical to the outcome. I will now wait for you to ignore this post and not admit in a reply that you were wrong.
Stupid Agent.
I wrote “It was a dumb play call, but *****************not************ THE DUMBEST in the history of any sport.”
Your line of “you seem to want to say “dumbest play in the history of sport” shows your lack of reading comprehension skills.
If I wanted to say that, I would’ve typed it.
I said IT WAS NOT THE DUMBEST PLAY IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS and I stand by that comment, even if you can’t understand what I’m saying
Please polish up your reading skills. You were adamant that it wasn’t the stupidest play in the history of sports. I asked you to provide evidence of one that was more stupid. You can’t, because there isn’t one.
He provided SEVEN.
FFA, More good news for the State of Illinois as reported by the Washington Times. It seems our wonderful President has pulled funding for a large Clean Coal Plant in central Illinois in the interests of the people??? This plant was to be the model of how to burn coal cleanly and storage of carbon. I can remember speeches on energy that had Obama pledging to develop clean coal in addition to his other solar panel, wind and algae proposals. He gave billions to these other projects who promptly went belly up and now is pulling $1 billion from Clean Coal. I am sure the taxpayers of your great state really appreciate him doing this because it will cost more jobs in a jobs starved state.
AGENT – STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!!!
The plant was set to get $1B from the gov’t, but had to secure private funding before being eligible to take the $$.
The plant didn’t get private funding; therefore, they didn’t qualify to get the $1B from the gov’t anymore.
OBAMA DID NOT PULL FUNDING — THE PLANT DIDN’T QUALIFY FOR THE MONEY ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T MEET THE ORIGINAL TERMS OF THE DEAL!!!
Taken from that Washington Times article:
“In order to receive federal money, FutureGen was required to secure private funding, which it has been unable to do after the project hit a number of roadblocks.”
“…the project has always depended on a private commitment and can’t go forward without it.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saying “Obama pulled funding” is either a blatant lie or you misunderstanding what you read.
Rosenblatt, did all those Green Energy plants have to secure private funding before the government made all those billions of loans or was it walked through with no problem? What is the difference between Clean Coal and Solar Panels, Wind, Algae, Cow dung?
Maybe the private funding sources knew something the G’ment didn’t know?
And perhaps the private funding sources were told by the administration not to extend funding which would go against the anti coal agenda.
Agent, I don’t know about every contract the government has with every business. All I know is what I read in the article you said to read.
Are you man enough to admit you were wrong when you said “It seems our wonderful President has pulled funding for a large Clean Coal Plant in central Illinois in the interests of the people”?
Your own source said Obama didn’t pull funding, just that the company didn’t meet the criteria to obtain said funding.
Can you admit you were wrong and that President Obama did not pull the $1B funding as you initially wrote?
Rosenblatt, you have an interesting take on this article. Actually, the funding was pulled as the article pointed out. Dick Durbin, not our friend is very upset about it. Tell me, why was the private support so important to the Administration before they would give the support? It is the built in bias this administration has for coal. He gave lip service to developing clean coal technology and then lets the clean coal company go belly up without any help. Ask Wvagt what EPA has done to West Virginia sometime on coal. Do you remember his campaign when he said “Under my plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”. This will insure that FFA’s, Dave’s electricity prices will go up dramatically. Incidentally, both are moving out of the state of Illinois.
Agent – I quoted two places in your article that said the only reason they didn’t get the $1B from the Gov’t is because they didn’t secure private funding, which was a prerequisite of getting the Gov’t money.
WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU THINK IT SAYS FUNDING WAS PULLED FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN THIS? WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT SAY?
Is this the Prairer State Power Plant your referring to? It went on line about 6 years back and cost over runs along with over regulation and decreased usage have cause rates to surge. If he has pulled funding for this particular facility, electric is just gonna get way more expensive then it is already. Several months back, Chicago Trib reported expect 60 – 80 %%% jump in electric rates that are supplied by that facility.
This ad, as well as the one about heroine, stirred up some issues for some people. Personally, I thought they were both well timed and valid.
On Facebook, people were commenting within seconds of this commercial, mostly about how “wrong” it was. How many of those people looked at their tv and wondered if it could topple over on their child? How many at Superbowl parties looked at their drink and wondered if they should be the one to drive home… I think it was well timed and a great job by Nationwide.
Immediately after the Heroine commercial, I saw a post on Facebook slamming the commercial from a mother who has a son struggling with this addiction. I’m sorry, but the commercial didn’t lure her son in. She thought it was in poor taste because it was the Superbowl. Ok, well, maybe had her son seen the commercial he would never have tried the drug.
These commercials did what they were meant to do. The stirred the pot and made people think.
When I first heard, “because I died,” I immediately thought it was an anti-drunk driving commercial. When it went on to talk about preventable accidents, I figured it was the Ad Council. Then, when Nationwide was mentioned, I kind of boggled.
It’s not that they did an ad about preventable accidents, it’s the way they went about it, that sat wrong with me. “Life would have been so great, but I died!” works for MADD commercial. But from an insurance company, it just comes across as a heavy-handed (and kind of clumsy) attempt at scaring people into buying from them. Instead stirring up a a conversation about preventable accidents, it had me rolling my eyes and thinking that Nationwide must be in dire straits if they’re playing the dead kid card to write new policies.
Probably not the reaction they’d hoped for.
I agree BS. Very poor taste and not suitable for the Super Bowl. Let them run ads in other forums if they wanted to get their points across.
And, to be honest, I don’t think the commercial itself was very well done, either. It went from the real world (kid riding his big wheel) to fantasy (cooties and flying) back to an attempt at a dark real world. It just felt clumsy and like it was trying way too hard.
Folks, let’s be real. Advertisements are not “discussions”.
As is evidenced by these posts and most reactions I’ve heard, nobody’s talking about childhood mortality, rather a bad Ad is the focus.
How many people in this discussion went home and did a Child Safety check? I know I did.
FFA, there is such a thing as “Common Sense” when rearing a child and people don’t seem to be using much of it in today’s world. On the news, the anchors are constantly giving safety tips on about everything because they know there are a lot of low information people out there who don’t actually think. Same people who vote for a slogan and don’t think.
Hey FFA, I saw a good article in rightturnforever.com written by Lou Holtz. Although he was a famous football coach for years, he is smart and much like Ditka and Conservative. An excerpt from it:
“The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the do’s and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America”.
“It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country”.
Just a tidbit of the article. Quite good.