Advertisers often play off events and happens in the world as a chance to reach more consumers. With the Super Bowl coming up, one of the largest advertising events of the year, this article discusses the of staying neutral to the ongoing political issues.
A company that supplies building materials was planning to run an ad that featured a Spanish speaking mother and daughter confronting a wall. The National Football League has the right to approve and ad and this ad was deemed too controversial.
President of 84 Lumber, Maggie Hardy Magerko, commented on the pornographic, immoral, and racist nature of some ads shown today and is unsure why hers was censored.
In the past companies have made Super Bowl ads that don’t get aired because it generates online traffic and therefore more attention, but Magerko said that was not 84 Lumbers intentions.
Magerko also says that when there ad was in motion six weeks ago, they knew it would be a topic but not to the scale that it currently is.
Magerko also released a statement that she voted for Trump, so this ad was most likely not a malicious attack against him or his policies but rather in favor, which wold mean she is showing consistency between her belief and actions in regards to integrity. If she voted for Trump but then ran an ad against Trump and his proposed wall because she believed that would gain more attention and revenue she would be lacking integrity according to McFall.
Continuing on what McFall has to say about integrity, Magerko’s intentions were clearly intentional because no one runs an ad in a $5 million spot without extensive planning, but was she acting for the right reason? Or was it a similar situation mention above? It could be argued that while Magerko voted for Trump it is possible the ad was created for the wrong reasons of gaining attention and money rather than her beliefs. However, that is the purpose of advertisements so money and attention can’t really be classified to not acting for the right reason when that is the primary need to advertise.