ads

Fox has adopted a new split-screen approach to ads during the World Cup’s mandatory hydration breaks, after a stir among viewers over how it had been handling the pauses.

At the start of the tournament, the network aired full-screen ads during the three-minute breaks, cutting away from the field during the opening match between Mexico and South Africa. Soccer fans complained that they were missing on-field action, and the backlash mounted.

By the Mexico-South Korea match last week, Fox had changed course, running split-screen advertisements for the first time: two side-by-side panels, one keeping the camera on the stadium while the other played a commercial. The approach hasn’t been consistent, though. For Friday’s U.S.-Australia match, the network reverted to full-screen ads.

Fox declined to comment on the changes.

Viewers were quick to notice the split-screen format and weigh in on social media. “At least FOX stopped doing the stupid full screen breaks,” one user wrote on X. “I can live with split screen.”

The World Cup has posted substantial ratings gains for Fox.

Throughout the first 16 telecasts of the tournament, the network is averaging more than 6 million viewers from Fox and Fox Sports 1, up 128% from 2022’s World Cup in Qatar. The broadcast of the U.S. team’s first game this month was the most-watched FIFA Men’s World Cup telecast in English in U.S. history, with more than 18 million views, according to the network.

The hydration break itself is new to the World Cup. FIFA announced it in December as a way to protect players’ health in the summer heat. In every match, the referee is to call for a break around the 22-minute mark of both halves, regardless of the weather.

In addition to helping the players, these extra minutes created a new advertising window. Networks are allowed to leave the on-field action 20 seconds after the referee signals the hydration break and return 30 seconds before play resumes, allowing for ads of up to two minutes and 10 seconds in total. They can air any full-screen ad they’d like, or run a split-screen ad — though a split-screen has to feature a FIFA partner, such as Coca-Cola or Adidas.

Ads during the tournament’s earlier games reportedly cost around $200,000 for a 30-second slot. The price jumps to $750,000 when the U.S. is playing, according to the Wall Street Journal.

When any rules change in televised sports, the most dedicated fans are going to get upset, said Patrick Rishe, the director of the sports business program at Washington University in St. Louis. Despite all the online uproar, he said that the hydration breaks are overall beneficial, as they allow networks an extra opportunity to recoup revenue and brands to get additional exposure.

“This is commercially fantastic for FIFA and the networks. It’s tactically helpful for the teams, and I do think it’s helpful for growing interest in the sport,” Rishe said. “It makes it easier for the casual fans to stay engaged.”

Three political ads meant to break through our collective indifference caught my eye this week, as we come down to the wire on the June 2 primary election.

Each one says less about the candidates involved, and more about this moment in politics and where the races for California governor and L.A. mayor may be headed. Each ad also hints at deeper issues that haven’t quite reached the water-cooler conversation level, but maybe should.

Becerra blunder

The first ad that grabbed my attention was a quick-turn by San José Mayor and gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan (still stuck in single-digit polling numbers), who jumped on Xavier Becerra’s first major mess-up.

Becerra chastised KTLA interviewer — on camera — not to give him too many hard questions because, “This is not a gotcha piece, right?”

That left a lot of folks wondering about his temperament and transparency, something rival Katie Porter knows a bit about.

The video went viral, and Mahan mashed it up with now-infamous clips of Porter walking out of a different interview earlier in the campaign cycle.

The result was a fast, funny, pointed jab that made both Becerra and Porter look prickly and unaccountable. For Porter, that damage was done long ago. But this moment for Becerra, the very-slim-margin front-runner, could have sticking power.

New polls, which likely don’t account for the impact of this gaffe, have Becerra edging up in a lead over Tom Steyer or maybe just tied. If Becerra is leading, it’s not by much, and he’s not a shoo-in by any means.

The bigger issue is that there are many hard questions that Becerra will likely need to answer if he does make the general election — questions he’s largely been dodging with pat answers.

This week, one of the lobbyists charged in a scheme that allegedly stole more than $200,000 from one of Becerra’s old campaign accounts will appear in court again.

She’s apparently been working on a plea deal, so it’s likely either that will be formalized, or the case will move forward to a trial. Becerra is not accused of any wrongdoing and told my colleague Dakota Smith that he had testified before the grand jury in the case.

But Becerra has also said he was aware that up to $10,000 a month was being paid out of a dormant campaign account to manage that money, since his role as the Health and Human Services Secretary made it illegal for him to be involved directly.

The question that seems relevant in this age of fraud-and-waste panic is who pays $10,000 a month to have someone watch over a dormant account and doesn’t think that’s excessive? Becerra may have been an innocent victim, but $120,000 a year is a lot of money to pay someone to babysit a largely unused stack of cash.

If Becerra does make it through to the primary and faces Hilton or potentially Steyer, both successful businessmen, expect this lack of financial acumen to be an issue — a hard question that is fair to ask of the person who wants to run the fourth largest economy in the world.

Steyer backers

Speaking of money, the second ad (or sort-of ad) that caught my attention is tied to Steyer, the billionaire who has spent more than $100 million of his own money in this race.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Steyer’s campaign has been paying influencers to post support of him online. The account mentioned in the Bee’s report seems to have removed those videos, but others have archived some of them.

These posts are meant to decidedly not feel like advertisements, but just organic support from Steyer supporters. Steyer’s is far from the first campaign to do this and won’t be the last.

Trump, Kamala Harris, Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA — all of them have courted influencers, paid or unpaid, to reach voters, especially young ones. California is one of the few states with a law that tries to regulate some of this type of content, but it’s not a strong law.

While there may be nothing shocking in Steyer’s digital strategy, it should alarm us on the larger level of having a healthy democracy. We’ve largely forgotten the black hole of delusion that millions of Americans fell into during the pandemic era from online misinformation brokers. Remember QAnon?

Influence campaigns are shockingly powerful, and growing in sophistication by the minute. While Steyer’s efforts may be run-of-the-mill, it’s an area of political communication that demands greater transparency and regulation.

Pratt problems

Which brings us to Spencer Pratt, and the ad (ads, really) that caught everyone’s attention — the AI-generated mini-movies that blatantly steal the “Batman” and “Star Wars” intellectual property and which have earned so much viral attention that the mayor’s race can now fairly say it’s got national reach.

Pratt did not make these ads, but he’s reposted them, and millions have watched. Though it may seem obvious they are made by artificial intelligence, they are not identified as such.

Pratt has portrayed himself as angry with what he’s sees as Bass’ failure after the Palisades and Eaton fires — a fair criticism that many share. He’s made his own ads highlighting how his family is forced to now live in an Airstream trailer, though TMZ reported Wednesday that Pratt has actually been camping out at the Hotel Bel-Air, where rooms were starting at $1,420 a night this week. (Pratt disputes this reporting and said Wednesday that he doesn’t live anywhere.)

Though parody is protected speech, one of the AI videos Pratt has promoted ends with a crowd, including a child, pelting L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris with fruit until they flee.

Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, posted online that it was “maybe the best political ad of the year.”

I disagree. While a certain segment of conservative white male voters might find it hilarious to pelt women of color until they run in fear, I’m pretty sure there are some messages in that missive that aren’t getting the scrutiny they deserve.

The links between hate speech and political violence are well documented. Outrage and action are tied, but now increasingly removed from reality. How AI — especially AI depicting political rivals as unhinged, evil villains — will affect voters, and democracy in general, isn’t yet understood.

I doubt these ads on behalf of Pratt will change the minds of many voters, but they do change politics.

And not for the better.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Ex-gubernatorial candidate Stephen Cloobeck interfered with witness in girlfriend’s case, authorities say
The deep dive: How a fast food taco showed us who Steve Hilton really is
The L.A. Times Special: A bombshell fraud case takes the spotlight in California’s high-stakes race for governor

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.