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

