Here we go again …

It’s time for the Super Bowl!

More importantly, it’s time for Super Bowl Commercials!  According to, a survey produced in January 2013 showed that 76.6 percent of viewers considered Super Bowl Commercials entertainment instead of advertising. Compare that to only 10.5 percent who were actually influenced to purchase the products or services, and a clearer picture emerges.

That’s just the spots that are allowed to make it to air. In the decade since “Nipplegate” we’ve seen a marked change in the content for Super Bowl commercials. Now, it’s almost better to be banned from being aired at the Super Bowl than it is to actually make it to broadcast.

Enter SodaStream. I remember them being available over 20 years ago, sold by independent sellers with in-home presentations. They slowly built a brand, and are now available in major retailers like Wal-Mart. My ex-wife bought one for Christmas last year.

SodaStream produced a commercial that I probably never would have watched had it not had the words “Banned” and “Scarlett Johansson” attached to the description. I admit it, I’m a sucker for Scarlett. So I watched the video embedded below:

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”//” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

Um, yeah. That just happened. It was banned not for content, but for taking a jab at Half-Time sponsor Pepsi.

Not-AmusedI don’t know what’s the bigger issue here. That Fox felt pressured to not air a spot that made fun of a sponsor of the event, or that SodaStream is big enough to actually be a threat to Pepsi right now, or that Pepsi, which should be rather secure in their number two position in the market, might actually feel threatened by this newcomer.

Well, only time will tell if this translates into positive things for SodaStream. Of course, barely anyone here in Canada will even see any of the commercials who did make the cut for broadcast.  Here’s why.

Congratulations CRTC. You’re proving that you’re still behind the times.

%d bloggers like this: