A

fter
the
Patri-
ots and the Rams
kicked off the low-
est-scoring Super Bowl in
its 53-year history, ad space
became as scrutinized as the
space between Rams wide
receiver Brandin Cooks and
the ball in the third quarter.
Whether you were wear-
ing a Brady or Goff jersey at
Charley’s last Sunday night,
rivalries united during com-
mercial breaks to watch the
notorious Super Bowl ads.
From
the
Backstreet
Boys promoting Doritos, to
Amazon Alexa controlling
all the electricity on planet
Earth, corporate America
went above and beyond
to entertain. Toyota and
Google were among those
that used their 30 seconds
of fame to contribute to the
ongoing national discussion
on diversity and inclusion.
Some could argue that the
ads were more eventful than
the 13-3 score.
It is well known that
each player takes home a
nice bonus check for even step-
ping foot into Mercedes-Benz Stadium
— $118,000bonus for each Patriots player
and $59,000 for each Rams player accord-
ing to CNBC. This amounts to a huge pay
raise for some players, but pocket change
for those like Rams defensive tackle
Aaron Donald, whose average annual sal-
ary amounts to $22.5 million. While Don-
ald has to work for an entire year to earn
that sum, the real moneymaker is CBS,
earning an average of $5.25 million for
each 30-second commercial it airs. CBS’s
final estimated paycheck for the night?
Over $350 million.
While many entities saw a big pay day,
Bud Light may have a different narrative.
Despite it being a market leader, its con-
tinually declining market share result-
ed in ads as bold as a Hail Mary in an
attempt to reverse this trend. Their part-
nership with HBO to advertise “Game
of Thrones” made for a moderately con-
troversial ad that night, as the brand’s
typically light-hearted scripts took a
turn to adapt to the violent nature of the
television show. Advertising two brands
within an ad can often create beneficial
synergies, but it is a risk within the short
45-second timespan. Even more risky
was pitching it to CBS, as displaying any

violence is usually a tough sell. Neverthe-
less, the ad garnered successful buzz on
social media.
What may be less of a hit with the U.S.
justice system is Bud Light’s conten-
tious false advertisement targeting their
direct competitor, MillerCoors. In an ad
stemming from Bud Light’s “Dilly Dilly”
campaign, a king reroutes a misdelivered
barrel of corn syrup to Miller Lite, where
Miller claims to have already received
its shipment. The king then “rightfully”
delivers it to Coors Lite. Within min-
utes of the ad airing, MillerCoors and
the National Corn Growers Association
struck back on Twitter.
MillerCoors CEO Gavin Hattersley
and his executive team took to Twitter
within minutes, citing the same idea:
MillerCoors does not use high fructose
corn syrup, though Anheuser-Busch
InBev (Bud Light’s parent company),
does. Adam Collins, vice president of
communications and community affairs,
followed this up with a reminder of
MillerCoors’ 17 consecutive quarters of
increasing market share, while Bud Light
rides on a losing streak. The NCGA then
expressed their disappointment in Bud
Light for putting corn syrup back into a
negative light, thanking Miller and Coors

for their business. However, this only
added grease — or rather, corn syrup — to
the fire.
Since that eventful Sunday night,
Twitter accounts have done everything
but stay silent. The NGCA has since
tweeted disappointment in Bud Light
and their praise for MillerCoors. Two
days after the Big Game, MillerCoors
delivered free beer to NGCA, and issued
two separate statements clarifying an
interesting point: While they do use corn
syrup in the fermentation process to help
their beers taste better, they do not use
high fructose corn syrup, the ingredient
that carries the connotation of having
links to obesity and diabetes. Bud Light,
however, waited out the storm for three
days before issuing its own statement via
Twitter. Less apologetic, they presented
it as a vintage piece of parchment writ-
ten by the king from their commercials,
standing by the ad and emphasizing that
they brew with rice, hops and barley, and
not corn syrup. Interestingly enough,
there is little to no difference between
using rice and corn as a source of sugar in
the fermentation process. But perception
itself can make or break your product.
There is a greater context to the dis-
putes than just competitors MillerCoors

and Anheuser-Busch InBev.
According to Google Trends, it
is estimated that more people
have shown interest in corn
syrup this month than ever
before. This has resurfaced
the conversation around high
fructose corn syrup’s detri-
mental effect on American
health, but Bud Light has made
the effort to deem corn syrup
synonymous to high fructose
corn syrup by association. In
light of this, companies have
risen to the occasion to defend
themselves before a spotlight
lands on them, including Sam-
uel Adams and Frank’s Red
Hots.
So, what’s the difference?
While there is ongoing debate
about the health disadvan-
tages of corn syrup and high
fructose corn syrup, the Uni-
versity of California-Berkeley
cites that while glucose (corn
syrup’s main component) has
a direct effect on blood sugar,
fructose (high fructose corn
syrup’s main component) has
an immediate effect on blood
fat, which could lead to a fatty
liver and decreased insulin
sensitivity. Companies lean away from
promoting their use of either, but high
fructose corn syrup comes with argu-
ably worse side effects and the baggage
of negative cultural connotation.
While Twitter accounts wrap up their
focus on the #corntroversy, a lawsuit
could surface. Under the Lanham Act, if
there is a misleading statement of mate-
rial fact in an ad that expressly uses the
name of a competitor, it is deemed false
advertising. Bud Light directly used
MillerCoors’ name and implied that
their beer contains corn syrup, which
could ultimately result in a false adver-
tising claim. After all, corn syrup is used
in the fermentation process, but alleg-
edly does not appear in the final product.
Thus, if MillerCoors decides to pursue
a case against Anheuser-Busch InBev,
it will be up to the court to decide if the
ad’s statements were materially false. In
other words, would they impact a typical
customer’s decision to purchase Miller-
Coors? If so, Bud Light could owe both
monetary damages and an injunction
from running the ad.
Bud Light may just have a court date in
their future, but until then, cheers to CBS
and #GoPats.

ILLUSTRATION BY LAUREN KUZEE




Wednesday, February 13, 2019 // The Statement
3B

SuperBowl LIII: CBS wins big,
Bud Light defeated

BY ROMY SHARMA, STATEMENT COLUMNIST