The Super Bowl kicks off on February 7th at Levi’s Stadium, in close vicinity to the headquarters of major tech firms including Apple. Usually, the Super Bowl is funded by local government sponsorships. This year, tech companies are (at least partially) footing the bill. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple has contributed free products and equipment to the host committee and has explicitly declined any company or product marketing in exchange. Apple joins other tech companies like Alphabet, Yahoo, Seagate and HP in funding the proceedings — the Super Bowl committee has raised about $50 million in total from these firms.
Why Apple wants to sponsor essentially in secret (having turned down opportunities for logo placement) is unclear. In Yahoo News on Friday, it was reported that Apple was helping out simply because it was the right thing to do:
“Our sponsors will get a lot of attention in the Bay Area because they stepped up early to be a part of this,” says Bruce. “Apple was the very first company of all our sponsors to step up. And the reason they did that is because they realized that it was important to Silicon Valley. It was during a bit of a transition time from Steve [Jobs] to Tim [Cook], and they told us, ‘This is the right thing to do. We’re building a mega campus that will be a stone’s throw from the stadium.’ They have no interest in the marketing rights, they have no interest in using our logo. But they’re promoting the partnership a lot internally to their employees.”
The motivation for other businesses is obvious: Uber is advertising ‘official’ NFL transport at the event as a way to promote its taxi services. In return for the financial support, sponsors are allowed to use the NFL logo mark in their own advertising around the event. However, it appears Apple is not interested in that either. Apple believes its logo is more influential than the NFL’s and if anything, the NFL should be paying Apple to use its trademarks.
If you ask Bruce, Apple doesn’t much care about the rights to the NFL logo anyway. “Their opinion,” he says, “is that the NFL should pay them for the right to use their mark. Because their mark is more valuable than the NFL shield.”
Although Apple is a sponsor through this deal, they are not necessarily involved with the game itself. There is some speculation that this arrangement means Apple will run an advertising commercial during the Super Bowl this year but it is not guaranteed. Apple was rumored to run a Super Bowl commercial in 2014 for the 30th anniversary of the Mac, but this never transpired.
Alas, nothing will be as iconic as the 1984 ad, arguably one of the world’s most notable Super Bowl ads ever.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“Apple was rumored to run a Super Bowl commercial in 2014 for the 50th anniversary of the Mac”
So, Benjamin, you are saying that the Mac was originally introduced in 1964?
I do not think so.
Haha, I got ahead of myself. Fixed.
“…We designed a thinner and lighter football, that’s actually two times smaller than a golf ball.”
Sweet! My team will like that. GO PATS!!!
(have to get in before all the “cheatriots/Pats are cheaters/Tom Brady cheats/Deflategate” posts….
1) Who is Bruce?
2) So what actually is Apple’s involvement and why are they just giving away free products?
3) What is the “host committee” and what do they do?
Those three questions were left unanswered after reading.
^This!
1.) Keith Bruce is the CEO of the Host Committee.
2.) Sounds like Apple is donating equipment/products that, by my estimation, would be iPads, iPhones, etc. to be used throughout the Super Bowl venues (fan experience outside of stadium, in VIP areas/boxes in stadium) for various items or in gift/welcome packages for players/sponsors/guests etc.
3.) The host committee is the group that bid on and organizes the entire Super Bowl event, which is planned years in advance and comes with a long list of requirements by the NFL that must be met (usually for free or at a severely discounted rate) or they don’t get the Super Bowl.
The whole process functions much like the Olympics or World Cup of Soccer – the event is so large and popular and the organization (NFL, IOC, FIFA, etc.) is so powerful that cities bend over backwards to host the event with the promise of national/international exposure and the temporary boost to the local economy that comes with the surge in visitors over the 2 week period leading up to the game after the Conference Championship games this weekend.
This usually comes with stories of local events getting cancelled/muscled out to make room for the NFL (some local youth sports league got booted from their fields so the NFL can use it as a staging area), preferred tee times at local golf courses up to 2 years prior to the game for league and sponsor officials (they often have golf tournaments) and considerable investments into local infrastructure to support the league’s needs, all at the city’s expense usually.
In this case, it sounds like Silicon Valley companies are stepping in to help offset some of the costs.
Check out the Wall Street Journal article, it goes in to more detail.
“The host committee also finances the Super Bowl, and has raised all its money–about $50 million–from these sponsors without help from the state of California or tourism groups. Typically local governments and tourism groups provide a large portion of the game’s financing.”
“Alphabet, the parent of Google, is pulling out one of the symbols of that tension for the Super Bowl: its buses that typically shuttle workers between San Francisco and Silicon Valley. For the game, Alphabet offered the use of the shuttles operated by its vendors to transport an estimated 5,000 fans from points across the Bay Area to the game, according to a company spokesman, an effort to ease the traffic from the estimated one million people who are coming for the weekend.
On Super Bowl Sunday, tickets for round-trip rides in the luxury buses will cost $55 a person, and Alphabet will not receive any money from the ticket sales, the spokesman said.”
“they told us, ‘This is the right thing to do. We’re building a mega campus that will be a stone’s throw from the stadium.’ They have no interest in the marketing rights, they have no interest in using our logo.”
In other words, these types of events can often result in a huge financial burden on the local tax payer. Apple, and the others, are doing this because they can afford to, and why burden the area with all the cost. This is the opposite of what people perceive “big, bad corporations” as capable of.
Considering how prominently advertised the Surface is by Microsoft throughout the NFL I don’t see how Apple could have had their products promoted/marketed. I’m sure Apple is right in that more people are aware of their product vs the NFL, but I’m sure the NFL’s contract with Microsoft would put a stop to that.
It’s also the reason why the Surface has such huge cases in the booths and on the field as they were initially called iPads by announcers during the games. I’m pretty sure that didn’t sit well with Microsoft.