Last week, the National Football League set another record for the amount of Super Bowl. While the anticipation for the match-up increased, many people around the world were concerned about FOX's decision to air SodaStream's commercial, the Wall Street Journal explained. Not sure I get this. The anticipation increased because people were concerned about the ad?
The video broadcast, which features Scarlett Johansson apologizing for leaving Pepsi and Coca-Cola, caused its own controversy because Pepsi is a NFL sponsor. However, the real problem had to do with SodaStream itself.
SodaStream is an Israel-based company that has factories located in Palestine's West Bank. Because hundreds of Palestinians work in these facilities, Johansson's partnership with SodaStream allegedly violated her terms with Oxfam, a non-governmental organization that fights against poverty and human rights.
Johansson served as an ambassador with Oxfam for eight years, but decided to quit her position with the organization after they failed to see eye-to-eye on SodaStream.
"Scarlett's global popularity has helped Oxfam raise awareness around the world about issues that create poverty and world leaders' responsibility to act," Oxfam wrote on their website. "Her fund-raising activities and private donations have provided a phenomenal boost to Oxfam's work with poor people."
Because Oxfam is "opposed of all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law," both parties felt it was best to depart ways. Johansson felt SodaStream's presence in the West Bank actually promotes peace between both territories.
Sometimes using witty phrases can increase engagement, but any message that is supposedly deemed insensitive or against the brand may cause a more negative impact.