Forum Thread

Michael Bloomberg's Super Bowl Ad on Gun Violence

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Democratic Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg released his highly anticipated Super Bowl ad to the public and he chose to use the 60-second spot to focus on gun-control and his promise to enact meaningful legislation that tackles the issue head on.

    The ad featured Calandrian Simpson Kemp, who lost her son, George Jr., to gun violence in 2013. Kemp talks about George Jr.'s life and love of football for the first half of the ad before moving on to highlight Bloomberg's record of taking on the gun lobby in New York while he was mayor of New York City.

    Bloomberg's decision to focus on gun violence during a game over 100 million people will be watching is interesting and I can see it landing a variety of ways.

    On one hand, the Super Bowl used to be one of those times when everyone knew they'd be watching good football and (mostly) funny commercials. Companies inevitably air a handful of ads designed to tug at your heartstrings, but politics has largely been left out of the fray, even during election years.

    On the other, President Trump is airing his own Super Bowl ad and it only makes sense for it to not go unanswered, even if it's not overtly political.

    Do you plan on watching Bloomberg's ad on or before the big game? If you do, what do you hope it will accomplish? If you don't plan on watching it, is there any specific reason why you're choosing not to?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I watched the ad pretty soon after it was released. I was a little surprised it wasn't an attack ad toward his own party, or Trump. He didn't really talk about the election in general, just a single voter issue with seems odd to me. You have 100 million sets of eyeballs all on your message at the same time, you paid over $10 million to air your message, and you don't try to make a broader case to the American people as to why you should be President? Just seemed like a lost opportunity to me. I mean being willing to enact legislation against gun violence is admirable no doubt, but did he really need to take out a Super Bowl ad just to make that point?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I watched but have to agree. Don't see that it accomplished $10 million+ of value for him. Perhaps he was sold on the idea early on that the NFL gun ad was going to blow up on social media and he wanted to gamble on the same happening for him. Not a bad gamble just didn't work out.