Popular Posts


NFL vs Daniel Defense

By Gabby

Last week Georgia based gun manufacturer, Daniel Defense, had their Super Bowl commercial rejected by the NFL, even though the ad followed all of the rules established by the league. Watch the ad and then we'll discuss.
Daniel Defense should stick to making great guns.The NFL? Well...[tweet this]

As I see it, the ad is heavily Second Amendment focused. It is pro family, pro military and pro America, but it is advertising self defense and the right to do so, more than it is selling a product. This makes the ad more political than anything else which leads me to my first question: how often does he NFL allow political ads during the Super Bowl?

The NFL may not like the idea of commercials for weapons or ammunition during the Super Bowl, but they don't seem to have issues with products that kill far more people every year. Alcohol, junk foods, and sex are some of the highlights from Super Bowl commercials past, so why exactly do they take issue with guns?

Further, what if the ad was created with a focus around hunting? Rather than the Daniel Defense logo appearing at the end of the spot, we might have seen "Ambush," Daniel Defense's hunting brand. Also likely, the NFL could have been approached by a bow manufacturer who wanted to target consumers like those who watch the Super Bowl. Would this have been an issue?

The NFL doesn't seem to have an issue taking on "awareness" campaigns, when they see that profit can be made. I am referring, of course, to the "Critical Catch" campaign for Breast Cancer Awareness, that had almost every NFL team sporting some hot pink gear and through out the month of October. The brightly colored items sold like hot cakes and much "awareness" was achieved. However, what we are now discovering, is the it was the NFL and not cancer research organizations, who would pocket most of the profits. According to the Business Insider, only 8.01% of profits for the NFL's pink gear, actually made it to fund cancer research. I can imagine that if they saw money to made by joining the gun discussion, they would jump right into the middle of the debate, without looking back.

I don't have an issue with gun commercials during the Super Bowl, because I don't believe that hiding weapons will keep them from harming us. However, I am bothered by any ad the glamorizes unhealthy behavior and the objectification of women. I believe shooting to be a healthy outdoor activity, that more Americans should try, and I'm disappointed that the NFL doesn't see that. However, I'm also disappointed with Daniel Defense. They have a great product that many American soldiers and law enforcement agencies stake their lives on, why couldn't they have made an ad that promoted their brand and their goods rather than getting all political?

©2013 ArmedCandy,LLC

1 comment:

Feargal Ledwidge said...

This had nothing to do with guns but everything to do with a sub-standard commercial. Can you really see this airing with the slick commercials of the superbowl?

I worked in commercials (as an editor) in the early 90s. This commerical looks amateur at best. Uneven pacing, poor background, poor voice-over.

I seriously doubt that DD ever intended this to air and instead its a rather brilliant viral marketing campaign.

Post a Comment