I've been holding off for awhile announcing that Focus is doing a Superbowl commercial this year until it was public knowledge. Considering a national cable news network, our local news, the Denver Post, and the Gazette all recently announced it I figure it's quite alright for me to talk about it on my relatively insignificant blog...circulation/readership of about 10. Or, if you want to, Google it - it's all over the Internet.
I won't talk specifics about the commercial since it's all over the Internet (you can read about it yourself). However, I do know that it's going to be the 3rd commercial aired after kickoff - meaning it's a prime spot and probably going to be shown during the first commercial break.
The unfortunate issue surrounding the news about our commercial is how it was conveyed to the public. A lot of media outlets suggested that an organization who had just experienced 2 rounds of large layoffs, had somehow decided to fork out millions of dollars for a superbowl commercial. Sure, many stories mentioned that the funds were specifically given for this effort, but to the lay person who doesn't understand non-profit funding the major point of that statement was lost.
Now is a good time to discuss Designated Gifts for Non-Profits. In short, because we're donation driven, a donor can give us money for a specific reason to be spent on a specific purpose. If we agree to accept their donation, we also have to accept their designation for how the funds are used. I know this because this is part of my job. So, what happened with the Superbowl was that a few people specifically gave us a couple million dollars for us to do the commercial. If they wouldn't have given the funds, we wouldn't have done the commercial. The money used to pay for this commercial in no way affected our operating budget. It was "use it for this purpose if desired, or lose it". The point is, this ad has no relation or impact on our day-to-day operations financially. That's the point of designated funds - a non-profit is enabled to do something they otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
I fear this was lost on the average listener/reader because of the way it was presented. Either the news doesn't understand the real process or they did but said it in a way that suggested controversy/irresponsibility related to our financial management. Or, the truth was purposely twisted by those who have their own agenda. I made a post a year or two ago about why I don't watch the news anymore (and only selectively read it). This is a classic example of why. Either through lack of understanding or the desire to create better news (or just to circulate lies), what we often hear or read isn't the entire story. Let's face it, they are really in the entertainment (sensationalism attracts viewers) business and not necessarily the "facts" business. I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Getting back to the commercial, I hope it is done well and done right. No doubt anything we do will be a bit scandalous for some just because of our name. However, if it's done right and focuses (no pun intended) on the family's story for 29 of the 30 seconds of the commercial I think it will go over well. I think it will impact many people no matter what their thoughts are on abortion. I'm sure I'll offer my censored opinion about it after I see it, whether it was an appropriate topic considering the forum, etc...hey, which could be this week if they decided to preview it at chapel on Friday. I just pray that it's done in the right WAY - know what I mean? Which, from what I hear, is how it's been done. The commercial should focus on the positives on the issue. That is, what life has is store for a person and what they can offer this world when their mother chooses life.