What You’ll Learn in This Video:
- This Super Bowl ad’s focus on climate doomism.
- Mistakes this campaign made in climate communication.
- Why fear-based messaging doesn’t inspire real action.
- Key takeaways for better, more empowering climate messaging.
In the YouTube video, I elaborate further on this Super Bowl climate campaign:
This Super Bowl climate ad from Science Moms is making waves on LinkedIn, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me.
It kicks off with a stat most people won’t understand, leans hard into fear-based messaging, and ends with a CTA that feels…off.
Fear can spark urgency—but does it actually drive action? Or just paralyze people? Let’s break it down together.
Why isn’t this ad good climate communication
#1 The Kick Off:
The ad opens with a complicated statistic that most Super Bowl viewers are unlikely to understand.
I’m all for scientific evidence, but is leading with data really the best way to capture an audience that isn’t already familiar with climate science? For the average viewer tuning in for football, this approach could be alienating.
#2 The Tone:
The entire campaign is rooted in fear-based communication.
We know from climate communication research that fear-based and doomism messaging doesn’t drive action — it often does the opposite. Sure, fear can create urgency, but focusing on negative scenarios about their children’s future often leads to paralysis rather than action.
#3 The CTA:
The call to action missed the mark.
It pushes an urgent, aggressive message —“don’t miss out,” “do something now”— that feels overwhelming. Then it abruptly shifts to asking for donations for LA fire victims. While supporting the cause is important, the jump from fear-driven warnings to a donation plea feels off. It leaves viewers confused about how to translate their concerns into action.
*I’ve recently learned after filming this video that the campaign was only targeted at Los Angeles residents.
What could’ve been better?
First off, starting with a statistic was a missed opportunity.
Who is this ad for? Instead of leading with a complex number, they could have started by better addressing their audience. The Super Bowl is a prime-time event, attracting a diverse audience—people from every walk of life, different backgrounds, income levels, and political views. Yet, this ad feels like it’s speaking solely to scientists.
Second, leaning on fear was not a good climate communication strategy.
What was their end goal? As a climate communicator who believes in the power of positivity and informed optimism, I know that empowered messaging works best. The ad could have inspired viewers with tools to take action, rather than overwhelming them with doom and gloom.
And finally, after all that fear, the solution offered is to donate to fire victims?
I feel the CTA missed the connection to the broader message of climate action. Instead, it could have been more thoughtful and provided small, tangible steps to take meaningful action— making people feel like they can do something.
A lost opportunity for a climate connection
The Super Bowl was a prime opportunity to reach millions.
I’m disappointed that this campaign used that moment to lean on negativity, paralysis, and doomism.
You can argue that any climate campaign that gets this level of recognition is impactful. Yes—but we can still be critical and do better.
If you’d like to learn whether low-carbon content marketing is right for your team, review our packages or book a meeting.
If you liked reading this article, I recommend the following content:
