Series Record: MASK 1 Gus 0
Leaking Super Bowl ads early on the internet has become common practice over the last couple years as the buzz created online is an effective marketing tool, especially for the younger demographic.
Yesterday, the most buzzed about Super Bowl ad, besides the glorious reunion of the Full House dads, is actually banned from airing on Sunday. Soda Stream’s ad starring Scarlett Johansen is banned not because of some raunchy, offensive material, although anytime ScarJo speaks we find it very potent, in our pants, but rather because it ends on the line “sorry Coke and Pepsi.”
Gus: You’re welcome Joe Buck! You are no longer the most offensive thing about Sunday’s broadcast. This is a gutless act by Fox and painful for a supporter of the free market. If anyone would understand the importance of the free market, I would think it would be Rupert Murdoch. No ad should be banned from advertising on the biggest event of the year because it stirs up a little competition. Competition is what drives the Invisible Hand. Whom the hell made Fox judge and jury? Let the Invisible Hand decide whom it will raise up and who it will slap away.
MASK: Why do you afford Soda Stream the benefits of the free market and not Fox? Shouldn’t they have the freedom to decide who advertises on its airwaves? After all television is a business built on selling advertising spots to the highest bidder. Coke and Pepsi are well established giants in television advertising. It would be bad business by Fox to allow an advertisement that would upset them. You want the “invisible hand” to make the decisions, yet are blind to how it works. Fox banning the Soda Stream ad is it at work. Soda Stream does not have the reputation or the revenue to compete with Coke and Pepsi. Therefore an ad that attacks them is not suited to air.
Gus: Attack? You call, “sorry Coke and Pepsi,” an attack? Man, no wonder you used to get beat up by girls on the playground. If Coke and Pepsi can’t handle that, then they should get out of the game. The free market is supposed to be a jungle, not a country club. Fight back by either ignoring it, there by demeaning Soda Stream, or reminding people about how there is no beating the originals. If I were Coke and Pepsi, I would find Fox banning the ad more offensive. What, do you think we can’t fight our own battles? We invented the soda advertising game, son.
MASK: Soda Stream also has a choice in this matter, cut the line. The effectiveness of the advertisement would not be lost. Why even mention Coke and Pepsi? Let the product speak for itself. Coke and Pepsi will be sorry by the ad sales. It was already in a great position by landing Scarlett Johansen as the spokeswoman for this ad, as well as the opportunity to advertise to over a 100 million people is not something to screw up. Again, the “invisible hand” dictating that the advertisement was not good enough without using some dirty tactics, which got it rejected. Soda Stream knew exactly what it was doing and the risk it was taking.
Gus: I do not even want to get into being robbed of ScarJo on my television screen this Sunday. It will make me too sad. Risk, there was no risk, it was a well executed advertisement that has become even more effective by Fox banning it. Again, if Fox is so worried about its relationship with Coke and Pepsi, then it has gone about securing it all wrong. All three of them look petty in this debacle. Soda Stream is coming out golden. Forget karma, the Invisible Hand is the true righter of wrongs.
MASK: If Soda Stream is coming out this looking better than ever, then why are you even complaining? Perhaps this was the plan all along, and this “invisible hand” of yours is working in new and more effective ways.
Gus: There is no doubt about that, but the argument is not about whether this has been good for Soda Stream, cause it has. The fact that it was banned still should never have happened. It is a blatant affront to the free market, which is something I cannot allow.
MASK: I stand by my opening argument. Fox is apart of the free market as well and it has the right to make the final decision on what airs and what does not. It is a right afforded by the free market, just because we do not agree with the decision, does not make it wrong.