Rejection of GNC Super Bowl reveals NFL hypocrisy: Alcohol more dangerous than supplements

… should they ban beer commercials?

Market analysts have noted that the Super Bowl ads that are supposed to generate tremendous amounts of revenue for the entertainment organization that provides them were not selling at a great pace for this Super Bowl.

Fortune magazine noted that while Fox indicated that 90 percent of the ads were sold out in early December, that usually takes place by September or October, at the latest.

Fortune noted, "To have more than a dozen spots available in December suggests that companies are not rushing to advertise."

GNC rejection

Now, the NFL has rejected an ad less than a week before the game. The NFL certainly has the right to reject ads, but generally, that takes place only when there is a controversy of some kind about the commercial.

I have concerns about this for a number of reasons: Why the rejection took place. Why the company was not informed that it could not advertise until it had expended a great deal of money on the commercial. Why companies that market a dangerous drug are permitted to advertise at this event.

General Nutrition Centers

In this case, the rejection involves a Pittsburgh company, GNC [General Nutrition Centers] -- and their ad is certainly not controversial. ESPN reported, "Unlike other spots that have been rejected in the past, there is nothing controversial or distasteful about the spot itself. The ad features people who are trying to change their lives for the better through fitness."

Different versions of rejection

What is controversial is how the NFL has botched explaining the rationale for why the ad was pulled and why it has used a hypocritical rationale in the ad process.

In fact, the league gave different versions as to why the rejection took place. The first rests on the assumption that GNC was not allowed to present the aid because the company sells supplements that are banned by the NFL.

USA Today reports that "What made [the ad] problematic is GNC is listed under 'prohibited companies' on a memo from the NFL and the players union – a warning for NFL players not to endorse or have a business relationship with it because it has been 'associated with the production, manufacture or distribution of NFL banned substances'.”

To a point, that makes sense.

GNC told ESPN that it sells two substances on the NFL list. "Jeff Hennion, GNC's executive vice president and chief marketing and ecommerce officer, said Fox first told him Monday that the 30-second ad, which has a market rate of $5 million, could not run because the company sells products that contain two of the 162 substances banned by the NFL -- synephrine and DHEA."

No evidence synephrine and DHEA has caused problems for players

The first part of this that is problematic is that synephrine and DHEA are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. They are not steroids or illegal substances of any kind.

Second, there is zero evidence that either synephrine and DHEA ever caused any damage to an NFL player. That should be the basic criteria for banning substances.

Alcohol has caused more damage to players

The company that continues to advertise is Anheuser Busch. That is ironical because the drug that causes more destruction to NFL players than any other is alcohol. It has destroyed careers and lives.

Am I advocating a return to Prohibition? Of course not. This is a free country, and that was a stupid and discriminatory law forced upon Americans by conservative "Christians" back in the 1920s. We should not return to those days.

The beer companies should be free to advertise during the Super Bowl. However, it is just hypocritical to say that a company that sells just 3 percent of its products using a substance that has caused no damage to NFL players should not be allowed to advertise during that event, while companies that sell products that cause destruction and mayhem to players and families throughout the U.S. are permitted to do so.

Why was GNC not notified about this prior to spending money on it?

If the NFL was going to ban the ad because of GNC's placement on its list, the company should have been notified about it prior to it spending money to create and cut the commercial. That should have occurred months ago. Certainly, it will be able to use the advertisement in other venues, and in reality, $5 million will go a long way in a traditional advertising campaign.

However, many companies spend a million dollars creating these commercials and another 25 percent of that amount on marketing that creates excitement about the commercial being played during the Super Bowl.

Instead, Fox approved the story board and cleared it last week, only to have GNC learn on Monday that the commercial had been axed. This is a reflection of a shoddy operation. GNC could take them to court and possibly win, but they will probably not do so.

Logo problem

The second reason, and a strange one, that the NFL gave for rejecting the commercial is that the GNC logo looked too much like that of the General Motors Corporation. Their logo also contained a pill bottle.

That is weird.

According to Ad Age, "Mr. Hennion said the company 'had a weird feeling' something was wrong beginning last week. The company had submitted its logo to Fox, which contains the letters GNC on a pill bottle. The network, he said, came back to the company asking for a more muted logo without the bottle."

They were later told about the problem with GMC.

Price: $5 million for 30-seconds

Will this price last? Fortune notes that this may be the last year for the high prices. They note the falling ratings for NFL football over the past year, the fact that companies believe that the expense is not worth it, and that the competition is not worthwhile.

In addition, this year's event includes two teams that do not have nationwide appeal. The Cowboys, the Steelers, and the Packers have large audiences throughout the country. The Patriots and Falcons do not.

Perhaps the Nielson numbers will be down. Perhaps not.

We shall see.

What we shall not see is GNC's commercial, and that is unfortunate.