I didn't pay a ton of attention to the commercials last night and when I did the majority of them didn't stand out.
One that did was the Doritos commercial where the couple is at the ultra-sound and the husband is eating Doritos and the picture of the baby is reaching for the doritos. The wife gets annoyed, takes the chip, throws it to the floor and the baby then rushes to get out of her to get the chip. I found that pretty funny.
A pro-choice group (NARAL) whoever they are tweeted the following.
#NotBuyingIt – that @Doritos ad using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless & moms as uptight. #SB50
I thought the other that was funny was the SB Babies. And yet the same group tweeted.
Super Bowl Babies? Use protection, sports fans. #MediaWeLike
— NARAL ProChoice Ohio (@ProChoiceOH) February 7, 2016
I don't want to turn this into a pro-life/choice debate. It just seems odd to me that those would be the commercials that drive groups to protest. I just thought they were funny.
Link - (
New Window )
Many? Because the Super Bowl is the only place where the combination of alcohol and sexual urge would result in an unwanted pregnancy? Boy, those abortion clinics must be dead after March...
Although on #2 - I thought it was pretty pathetic of the NFL to spend so much time and money on an idea (kids born 9 months later) that was stolen from the World Cup ads (spike in Brazilian babies nine months later, etc) two summers ago.
The Doritos ad was the only good ad all night.
Now don't you go around humanizing fetuses!
Now don't you go around humanizing fetuses!
Fair enough, but that would be mid-October then. I don't see a huge spike in October births.
Of course it's quite possible the NFL lies to us.
Wish we didn't humanize Roger Goodell..
I thought they packaged up wastewater and sold it as Miller Lite. We are Budweiser people, people.
And how do you humanize a human?
Of course it's quite possible the NFL lies to us.
Wish we didn't humanize Roger Goodell..
Here.
A master's candidate in data analytics from the North Carolina State University, however, has disputed the argument, taking a look at the monthly birth data by country from 1990 to 2014, courtesy of the National Vital Statistics System. Examining 21 Super Bowl winning cities from 1994-2014, Ashutosh Garg found that while there were eight cities that saw more births in the Super Bowl winning year (aka several months after the February game) than the previous year, the change in birth rate was not exactly consistent.
"Since the NFL did not provide the source of their data, they could have found evidence to support their claim," Garg wrote. "However, even if they did find correlations, it is important to remember a fundamental rule of statistics: Correlation does not imply causation."
And yep- this is exactly the type of thing I was posting about.
This chart does not address the "theory" of a spike of pregnancies in the city of a team that just won a Super Bowl.