document_title: Super Bowl commercials

question_text: how much does it cost to run an ad during superbowl

question_tokens: how much does it cost to run an ad during superbowl

text: Super Bowl commercials

text: Benefits[edit]

text: Super Bowl games have frequently been among the United States' most watched television broadcasts; Super Bowl XLIX in 2015 set an all-time record for viewership at the game, with an average of 114.4 million viewers according to Nielsen, exceeding a record set the previous year at Super Bowl XLVIII (112.2 million). Of the top twenty television broadcasts in the United States by viewership, only one program—"Goodbye, Farewell and Amen", the 1983 series finale of M*A*S*H—was not a Super Bowl, ranking in between Super Bowl XLIII (98.7 million) and XLIV (106.6 million) with 106 million viewers.[5][6][7][8] The game broadcast not only attracts a wide audience, but a diverse audience spanning many demographics and age groups, and women have accounted for at least 40% of Super Bowl viewers. As such, airing a commercial during the Super Bowl can be valuable for advertisers seeking an audience for their products and services.[4][9]

text: Because of the overall buzz surrounding them, commercials aired during the Super Bowl receive additional airplay and exposure outside of the game as well, such as during newscasts and morning shows.[3][10] Since 2000, CBS has aired an annual television special prior to the game, Super Bowl’s Greatest Commercials, which showcases notable Super Bowl ads from prior games, and in recent years, has allowed viewers to vote for their favorite Super Bowl ads to be featured during it.[11][12] Many viewers watch the Super Bowl only for the commercials: in 2015, Dish Network went as far as allowing the "Primetime Anytime" and "AutoHop" features on its Hopper digital video recorder, which automatically records primetime programs from the major networks and trims commercials from the recordings, to function in reverse and allow users to view a recording of the Super Bowl that skips over the game itself and only shows the commercials.[13]

text: The popularity of video sharing websites such as YouTube have also allowed Super Bowl advertisements to become viral videos;[3] to take advantage of this, a growing number of advertisers have elected to post previews of their commercial, or even the full-length commercial, online prior to the game.[14] A notable example of this strategy occurred at Super Bowl XLV: on February 2, 2011, four days prior to the game, Volkswagen posted the full version of its Star Wars-themed ad "The Force" on YouTube. By Sunday, the ad had already received over 16 million views, and went on to be the most shared Super Bowl advertisement ever.[10][14] Ironically, until Super Bowl 50, official online streams of the Super Bowl provided by U.S. broadcasters did not include all of the commercials from the television broadcast; at Super Bowl XLIX, only 18 advertisers bought ad time within NBC's stream of the game (although NBC did post all of the ads on a Tumblr blog throughout the game).[15] At Super Bowl 50, CBS mandated that each advertiser's purchase cover both the television and digital broadcasts, meaning that for the first time, the online stream of Super Bowl 50 provided by CBS included all national commercials from the television broadcast.[16]

text: Cost[edit]

text: Owing to the large potential audience, the network broadcasting the Super Bowl can also charge a premium on advertising time during the game. A thirty-second commercial at Super Bowl I in 1967 cost US$37,500.[17] By contrast, Super Bowl XLVI set what was then a record for the price of a Super Bowl advertisement, selling 58 spots (including those longer than 30 seconds) during the game, generating $75 million USD for NBC; the most expensive advertisement sold for $5.84 million.[18] Super Bowl XLVII and Super Bowl XLVIII both set the average cost of a 30-second commercial at $4 million.[4][19] Super Bowl XLIX, also broadcast by NBC, surpassed that record with a base price of $4.5 million.[20]

text: Media executives projected that the cost of a 30-second commercial could exceed $5 million at Super Bowl 50,[21] a figure that CBS confirmed.[22] That price would serve as a plateau for the two subsequent games; Fox would match that figure for Super Bowl LI,[23] and NBC would slightly exceed for Super Bowl LII, although it never explicitly stated how much its base price would be.[24] Super Bowl LI would also, for the first time in the game's history, feature overtime play; four ads were broadcast between the end of regulation and the start of play, including two ads seen earlier in the game, and two ads that were sold for and also seen during the post-game show. While Fox had negotiated ad sales for overtime in the event it were to occur, it is unknown whether the network charged a premium on top of the base cost.[25] In comparison, Sunday Night Football, the flagship primetime game during the regular season, has an average cost of around $700,000 for 30 seconds of time.[26] The average cost of a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl increased by 87% between 2008 and 2017.[27] However, the $5 million per 30 seconds appears to have become a soft cap, as for the third year in a row, as of Super Bowl LII, this has been quoted as the rough cost per ad.[28]

text: The high cost of purchasing advertising time, on top of the cost of producing the commercial itself, has led to concerns by marketers that the increased sales that can result from a Super Bowl commercial does not recoup the cost of buying the ad time. Some advertisers, including Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, General Motors and Pepsi, chose to skip recent Super Bowls due to the high costs of advertising—although Pepsi would return in 2013, followed by GM in 2014. As a lower-cost alternative, some advertisers have elected to purchase advertising time during the games' extended pre-game shows (which, during Super Bowl XLVIII, ranged from $100,000 to $2 million), or from individual network affiliates that are broadcasting it.[4][29][30]

text: As the 2018 Winter Olympics marked the first time since 1992 that the Winter Olympics and Super Bowl will be shown by the same network in a single year, NBC offered advertisers the opportunity to purchase packages of time for their ads covering both Super Bowl LII and the Olympics. NBC stated that doing so would allow advertisers to amortize their expenses through additional airplay during the Olympics.[31]

text: Notable Super Bowl commercials[edit]

text: Many Super Bowl advertisements have become iconic and well-known because of their quality, unpredictability, humor, and use of special effects. In recent years, advertisers have also attempted to stand out from others by producing ads with cinematographic qualities, and ads that channel emotions and real-world issues.[1][32][33] The use of celebrity cameos has also been common in Super Bowl ads, ranging from then-unknown personalities, to unexpected combinations of celebrities, such as a 2007 CBS network promo for Late Show that featured David Letterman and Oprah Winfrey—whom Letterman had conflicts with following a joke directed at her during the 67th Academy Awards, and a 2010 sequel that also included Jay Leno (who was slated to return to its competitor, The Tonight Show, following a publicized conflict between NBC and Conan O'Brien).[32][34]

text: A number of brands, including Budweiser, Coca-Cola, and Master Lock, have been well known for their frequent appearances as advertisers during the Super Bowl.[32][33][35]

text: Early advertising[edit]

text: Several notable commercials aired during Super Bowl games during the 1970s. In a commercial during Super Bowl IV in 1970, Chicago Bears linebacker Dick Butkus endorsed Prestone, a brand of antifreeze, stating the tagline, "Because plugging holes is my business." The ad marked the first highly successful celebrity endorsement in Super Bowl advertising.[36] In 1973, lotion brand Noxzema aired a commercial starring Farrah Fawcett and quarterback Joe Namath, featuring Namath being literally "creamed" by Fawcett. Later in the decade, Fawcett would become better known for her role on the television series Charlie's Angels.[34]

text: At Super Bowl XI in 1977, Xerox aired an advertisement entitled "Monks"; starring Jack Eagle as Brother Dominic—a monk discovering that he could create copies of a manuscript using a new Xerox photocopier. The advertisement was so well received that Brother Dominic became the mascot of Xerox for years afterward. Xerox premiered a new version of "Monks" in January 2017 (although not as a Super Bowl ad), which updated the premise of the original ad to feature the company's modern products.Y&R New York's CEO Leslie Sims described "Monks" as being the "first viral ad", explaining that it "was the first commercial that got people to request to see it again on TV".[37][38]

text: Master Lock: "Tough Under Fire"[edit]

text: Among the most prominent of campaigns during early Super Bowl games were those of Master Lock. In 1965, the company had first run a television commercial demonstrating the strength of its padlocks, by having a person shoot it with a handgun in a failed attempt to breach it. The campaign was pulled after the company's advertising director, Edson F. Allen, realized the stunt could be imitated by those who were unsure of the commercial's authenticity. By the 1970s, Allen discussed the possibility of reviving the concept, but using a rifle rather than a handgun to make it harder to imitate. The resulting commercial would premiere in 1974 during Super Bowl VIII; despite concerns by the staff of Master Lock and their agency, Campbell Mithun, over the content of the ad, the commercial was well received by the general public.[35][39][40]

text: When Cramer-Krasselt took over as Master Lock's agency later in the year, the company decided to make the gun ads a tradition, and began to produce new ads themed around the concept (including one featuring skeptics of previous editions of the ad, and one showcasing the company's major corporate clients) for future Super Bowls during the subsequent decades (aside from a brief hiatus in 1986 and 1987), and the early 1990s. Allen went as far as describing the ads as an "event" that continued to attract media attention after the game. The Super Bowl ads helped improve Master Lock's market share; from 1973 through 1994, sales had increased from $35 million per year to $200 million per year. Master Lock's yearly Super Bowl commercials accounted for nearly all of the company's annual advertising budget.[35][39][41][42]

text: Coca-Cola[edit]

text: At Super Bowl XIV in 1980, Coca-Cola aired an advertisement popularly known as "Hey Kid, Catch!", featuring Pittsburgh Steelers All-Pro defensive lineman "Mean Joe" Greene being offered a Coca-Cola by a young fan—played by Tommy Okon,[43] drinking it in one sip, and tossing the kid his game-worn jersey as repayment. The advertisement was filmed in 1979 and premiered that October, but did not gain mainstream attention until its airing during Super Bowl XIV. "Hey Kid, Catch!" became one of Greene's most famous roles; the ad would win a Clio Award, spawn a made-for-TV movie on NBC entitled The Steeler and the Pittsburgh Kid, and be re-made for other markets with local athletes. In a 2011 poll by Advertising Age, readers named "Hey Kid, Catch!" as the best Super Bowl commercial of all-time.[44]

text: The ad also became the subject of parodies on television series, such as The Simpsons, and in other ads. At Super Bowl XLIII in 2009, Coca-Cola aired a parody of the ad for its Coca-Cola Zero brand starring Steelers safety Troy Polamalu. Continuing an ongoing theme in the promotion of Coke Zero, the ad was interrupted by a Coca-Cola "brand manager" accusing Polamalu of "stealing" their commercial; in response, Polamalu tackled him and ripped off his shirt to give to the child.[45][46] In 2012, Procter & Gamble aired a parody of the ad entitled "Stinky". The ad saw Greene reprise his role, but having the young fan throw Downy Unstoppables fabric softener to Greene instead of Coca-Cola, and the fan rejecting his jersey because it smelled.[47] In 2016, Joe Greene was reunited with Okon as part of a segment for CBS's Super Bowl's Greatest Commercials special.[43]

text: Coca-Cola has also used the Super Bowl for other campaigns: in 2009, the company aired new ads as part of its recently introduced Open Happiness campaign.[46] In 2014, the company aired the multiculturalism-themed ad "It's Beautiful", which featured scenes of Americans of various races and ethnicities, including the first ever same-sex couple featured in a Super Bowl commercial. However, the ad attracted controversy due to its use of a multilingual rendition of "America the Beautiful" as its soundtrack.[48][49] In 2015, the company aired ad entitled "#makeithappy"; themed around cyberbullying, the ad featured negative comments directed towards a teen being transformed into positive messages after a technician accidentally spills a bottle of Coca-Cola on a server.[33]

text: Macintosh: "1984"[edit]

text: At Super Bowl XVIII, Apple Computer broadcast an advertisement for its Macintosh computer entitled "1984", created by the agency Chiat/Day and directed by Ridley Scott. The advertisement, which incorporated elements inspired by the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, featured a woman wearing track-and-field clothing (including orange pants and a white shirt branded with an image of the Macintosh) sprinting into a large auditorium and hurling a large hammer into a screen (displaying a large Big Brother-like figure speaking to a massive assembly of drone-like people in the audience), concluding with the message "On January 24, Apple Computer will introduce the Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won’t be like '1984.'" The advertisement received critical acclaim from both viewers and critics alike for helping position the Macintosh as a unique entry into the personal computer market, and is often considered to be one of the best Super Bowl advertisements of all-time.[50][51][52]

text: The ad first aired nationally during Super Bowl XVIII. As the agency wanted "1984" to be eligible for that year's industry awards, which were only open to ads that aired during 1983, a low-profile premiere of the ad occurred on the Twin Falls, Idaho station KMVT on December 31, 1983 shortly before midnight.[53] Apple attempted to follow up "1984" the following year with a new ad entitled "Lemmings", to promote its Macintosh Office system. The ad, which featured blindfolded businessmen walking over the edge of a cliff in unison, was criticized for its "dark" theme and exaggerated premise. By contrast, "Lemmings" has been considered to be one of Apple's worst television advertisements.[54]

text: Budweiser[edit]

text: The beer brand Budweiser has long been a Super Bowl fixture. Its parent company Anheuser-Busch held a long-term contract with the NFL that allowed it to buy several slots of air time from the game's broadcaster each year at a steep discount, a contract that ran through Super Bowl 50;[21] the company continues to buy multiple commercials in each game.[55] Budweiser runs several advertising campaigns throughout each game, one of which has traditionally featured its mascots, the Budweiser Clydesdales.[56] The Clydesdales were included in at least one Super Bowl commercial every year from Super Bowl IX in 1975 through Super Bowl LI in 2017.[55] Budweiser's parent company Anheuser-Busch has been the most successful advertiser in the annual Super Bowl Ad Meter survey organized by USA Today, having finished first on the survey fourteen times.[1][2] When USA Today held an "All-Time Ad Meter" bracket tournament in 2014, two Budweiser commercials met in the finals; the winner was a 2008 ad spoofing Rocky, which went against its 1999 ad "Separated at Birth", which featured a pair of Dalmatian puppies given to two separate owners, but eventually seeing each other again after one became a mascot dog on the Clydesdales' carriage.[57]

text: As of 2015, Budweiser had won the survey thirteen times in fifteen years; its 2013 advertisement entitled "Brotherhood" focused on the relationship and emotional reunion of a clydesdale with its original trainer three years after leaving to become a Budweiser Clydesdale.[2][58] Prior to the game, Budweiser also invited users to vote via Twitter on a name for the new foal that would be featured in the ad.[56] A 2014 ad entitled "Puppy Love" featured a similar reunion between an adopted dog and another Budweiser Clydesdale.[1] Its most recent victory and its third in a row, 2015's "Lost Dog", featured a dog being rescued from a wolf by the Clydesdales.[59]

text: In 2017, Budweiser broadcast "Born the Hard Way", an ad which dramatized Anheuser-Busch co-founder Adolphus Busch's emigration to the United States from Germany to establish the company. The advertisement attracted controversy among supporters of U.S. president Donald Trump for being pro-immigration, in the wake of an executive order issued by Trump which briefly restricted entry into the country by residents of several countries with predominant Muslim populations. A boycott effort also emerged among Trump supporters.[60][61][62] Anheuser-Busch denied that the ad was meant to be a political message, as it had been in production for the past year, and that it was meant to "highlight the ambition of our founder, Adolphus Busch, and his unrelenting pursuit of the American dream."[61] Barring a brief appearance, the Clydesdales were not prominently featured during the ad. However, Budweiser's social media outlets promoted "ClydesdaleCam", a Facebook live stream of the Clydesdales watching the game in a stable and waiting to see their cameo.[63][64]

text: In 2018, Budweiser broadcast "Stand by You", an ad which chronicled Anheuser-Busch's disaster relief program of distributing cans of drinking water from its brewery in Cartersville, Georgia. The Clydesdales were, once again, downplayed from its television spots, with the brewery only airing a 5-second bumper in the second quarter to promote its streaming ClydesdaleCam event.[65][66] However, the Clydesdales were featured in several digital-oriented companion campaigns alongside the game, including ClydesdaleCam, a second, web-exclusive ad entitled "Beer Country", as well as themed Snapchat filters.[67]

text: Budweiser has introduced other campaigns during the Super Bowl as well. During Super Bowl XXIII, Budweiser aired an episodic series of commercials known as the Bud Bowl—which featured a football game between stop motion-animated beer bottles representing Budweiser and Bud Light, with commentary by Bob Costas and Paul Maguire. Proving popular, the Bud Bowl would return at subsequent Super Bowls; it had become so popular that some viewers actually wagered on the outcome of the Bud Bowl as if it were an actual event.[32][68][69] In 1995, Budweiser introduced the first of a series of ads featuring a group of three frogs named Bud, Weis, and Er. The frog ads were a major success for the brewery after the game, and ranked as one of its most popular advertising campaigns following its premiere.[70]

text: Anheuser-Busch has aired commercials for other beer brands during the game alongside Budweiser, such as Budweiser Black Crown, and Beck's Sapphire.[56] At Super Bowl LI, the company re-launched Busch,[71][72] and broadcast a Bud Light ad featuring the ghost of its former dog mascot Spuds MacKenzie.[73][74]

text: Chrysler[edit]

text: Chrysler, and the marques of its current parent company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, have made repeated appearances during the Super Bowl. From 2011 through 2014, Chrysler became known for running several notable long-form ads;[75] at Super Bowl XLV, Chrysler aired a two-minute long ad entitled "Born of Fire" to launch the Chrysler 200 and the company's new slogan "Imported from Detroit". The ad featured scenes depicting the history and revitalization of Detroit, as well as local rapper Eminem and his song "Lose Yourself". The ad was critically acclaimed, and won a Creative Arts Emmy Award for "Best Commercial" in 2011.[76][77][78]

text: During Super Bowl XLVI, Chrysler broadcast "Halftime in America", a two-minute long commercial directed by David Gordon Green, written by poet Matthew Dickman and narrated by actor Clint Eastwood. The commercial recounted the automotive industry crisis of 2008–10, set to scenes showing Americans in despair, but then in hope. The narration of the ad equated the emergence from the crisis to the second half of a football game, explaining that "All that matters now is what’s ahead: how do we come from behind? How do we come together? And how do we win? Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And what’s true about them is true about all of us. This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again, and when we do the world’s gonna hear the roar of our engines." The ad was heavily viewed online after the game, receiving over 4 million views on YouTube within 36 hours, but also attracted controversy due to its political overtones.[79]

text: Super Bowl XLVII featured an ad for Ram Trucks, which adapted Paul Harvey's 1978 speech "So God Made a Farmer." During Super Bowl 50, the company focused exclusively on its SUV brand Jeep. At Super Bowl LI, the company similarly focused exclusively on Alfa Romeo, as part of a campaign to re-launch the Fiat-owned brand in the United States.[80][81] Super Bowl LII featured two Ram Trucks commercials, the latter featuring an extract from a 1968 speech by Martin Luther King Jr., as well as three Jeep ads.[82][83]

text: The Dot-com Super Bowl[edit]

text: Super Bowl XXXIV (2000) became notable for featuring a large number of commercials from dot-com companies, to the extent that critics dubbed it the "Dot-com Super Bowl".[84] With a 30-second ad costing around $2.2 million, 20% of the commercial time sold went to dot-com companies—constituting $44 million of the $130 million spent in total on Super Bowl advertising time that year. Despite their aspirations and the boosts in traffic they received from the ads, all of the publicly held companies which advertised saw their stocks slump after the game as the dot-com bubble began to rapidly deflate. Some of the companies that advertised during the game—including Epidemic Marketing and Pets.com, had become defunct by the end of the year, and at Super Bowl XXXV, only three dot-com companies—E-Trade, HotJobs, and Monster.com—advertised during the game.[85][86]

text: Notable dot-com ads broadcast during the game included "If You Leave Me Now", an ad for Pets.com which introduced the website's iconic sock puppet mascot, a self-proclaimed "worst commercial on the Super Bowl" by LifeMinder.com that consisted only of text captions on a yellow background with "Chopsticks" playing in the background, and "Monkey"—a deliberately nonsensical E-Trade ad that featured a monkey dancing to "La Cucaracha", and the tagline "Well, we just wasted $2,000,000. What are you doing with your money?"[87][88][89] Electronic Data Systems also aired an ad during the game that featured cowboys who herded cats instead of cows.[32]

text: Doritos[edit]

text: In 2006, Doritos began holding a promotion known as Crash the Super Bowl, soliciting viewers to film their own Doritos commercials to possibly be aired during the game. At Super Bowl XLIII in 2009, an additional bonus prize of $1 million was added if any of the winning entries were named #1 on the Super Bowl Ad Meter survey results; Doritos would reach the #1 spot on the survey that year with an ad entitled "Free Doritos", created by Joe and Dave Herbert of Batesville, Indiana. The ad featured an office worker attempting to fulfill a prediction that he would receive free Doritos by smashing open a vending machine with a crystal ball.[90]

text: The following year, additional prizes of $600,000 and $400,000 were added for reaching second and third place on the poll, plus an additional $1 million bonus for each if three of the ads were to sweep the top three. A 2010 finalist, "UnderDog", reached second place on the poll.[90][91][92]

text: Another user-submitted Doritos ad, "The Cowboy Kid", finished in second place on the Ad Meter survey in 2014, winning $50,000. The contest itself was won by "Time Machine"; created by Ryan Thomas Andersen of Arizona and produced on a budget of only $300, the ad featured his son scamming his neighbor into giving him his bag of Doritos by claiming that he had built a time machine that was fueled by them. For winning the contest, Anderson received $1 million and an opportunity to work on set during the production of the film Avengers: Age of Ultron.[1][93]

text: GoDaddy[edit]

text: The domain registrar and web hosting company GoDaddy was well known for producing Super Bowl commercials featuring female spokespersons it dubbed "GoDaddy Girls", such as professional driver Danica Patrick, and for its 2011 ad, comedian Joan Rivers.[94] Many of the company's planned Super Bowl ads were allegedly rejected by broadcasters due to their risqué subject matter, leading to GoDaddy instead airing a "teaser" ad during the game that instructed viewers to watch the uncensored version of the ad on their website.[94]

text: The company's first appearance at Super Bowl XXXIX parodied the "wardrobe malfunction" that had occurred at last year's halftime show,[95] featuring a woman testifying to Congress about why GoDaddy wanted to advertise during the game, but a strap of her tank top coming undone. The ad was scheduled to air twice, but its second airing was pulled in response to concerns by Fox and the NFL over its content. The following year at Super Bowl XL, thirteen ad concepts were rejected by ABC due to their content.[94][96] In 2008, a GoDaddy ad entitled "Exposure" was rejected by Fox for using the word "beaver" as a double entendre. In turn, the ad was replaced with one advertising the availability of the ad on GoDaddy's website, attracting two million visits.[97] In October 2013, GoDaddy's chief marketing officer Barb Rechterman announced that the company would no longer air provocative ads during the Super Bowl, explaining that "our new brand of Super Bowl commercials will make it crystal clear what we do and who we stand for. We may be changing our approach, but as we've always said, we don't care what the critics think. We are all about our customers."[95]

text: GoDaddy's ad in 2015, "Journey Home", was controversial for different reasons: it featured a puppy travelling back to its owner after falling out of a pickup truck, only to learn that he had been sold to a new owner using a website built with GoDaddy. The ad was criticized by animal rights groups, who felt that it implied an endorsement of commercial puppy mills. GoDaddy quickly pulled the ad in response to the controversy; GoDaddy CEO Blake Irving explained that the ad's humor had "clearly missed the mark". PETA partially praised the ad for portraying the seller as being a "callous jerk", but explained that "The sale of animals online and from pet stores and breeders should be roundly condemned, and it was today. GoDaddy did the right thing by swiftly promoting adoption."[98][99]

text: "Small Business Big Game"[edit]

text: As a byproduct of the increased cost of ad time at the Super Bowl, financial software company Intuit made its debut at Super Bowl XLVIII by hosting a promotion known as "Small Business Big Game", in which small businesses with "inspiring" stories competed for a chance to earn a commercial during the Super Bowl funded by Intuit, as decided by user votes. Company CEO Brad D. Smith explained that the promotion was an extension of the company's goals to improve financial lives "in a way that you'd never imagine going back", while Ken Wach, senior vice president of marketing for Intuit's Small Business Group, explained that "normally you're looking at Budweiser ads or Chevy ads, so this was about putting small businesses on the national stage and shining the spotlight on them as heroes of the economy."[100]

text: The winner of the 2014 edition was GoldieBlox, a toy company with a focus on promoting mechanical engineering to young girls.[100] While the campaign was a success for the winner, resulting in increased prominence and sales, Wach felt that Intuit was not able to "sustain the momentum as much as we would have liked". At Super Bowl XLIX, Intuit did not hold the promotion, but still aired an ad for its own TurboTax product.[100] The contest returned in 2015 for Super Bowl 50, and was won by Death Wish Coffee.[101][102]

text: "I'm going to Disney World!"[edit]

text: Disney Parks is known for an advertising campaign associated with the Super Bowl entitled "What's Next?", but more popularly known as "I'm going to Disney World!". The ads feature a player from the winning team (typically the MVP) responding with the eponymous declaration after being asked what they would do after the game. These ads typically premiere on the day after the Super Bowl. The series began following Super Bowl XXI, and first featured Phil Simms of the New York Giants. Disney has reportedly offered players $30,000 if they participate in the commercial and visit a Disney theme park (usually Disney World or Disneyland) afterward, and has extended the campaign to champion players in other sports. At Super Bowl XL, Disney aired an in-game commercial themed around the campaign, featuring Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks players rehearsing the line in case they won.[103][104][105]

text: Local advertising during the Super Bowl[edit]

text: In order to dodge the high costs of obtaining national ad time, or to broadcast more regionalized campaigns, some advertisers elect to purchase local advertising time from the individual network affiliates airing the Super Bowl, such as the Church of Scientology—who bought local ad time in major urban markets such as New York City in 2014, and the Bank of Montreal to promote its BMO Harris Bank branches.[106][107] In 2012, Old Milwaukee broadcast a Super Bowl ad starring Will Ferrell; as an extension of the beer's regional campaign with the actor, the ad only aired in the city of North Platte, Nebraska.[108]

text: In 2014, several notable local ads were broadcast. The Utah Department of Transportation used the game to broadcast a public service announcement on seat belt usage for its Zero Fatalities campaign, which featured a depiction of a child who had died in a rollover crash because he did not use a seat belt.[109] In Savannah, Georgia, local personal injury lawyer Jamie Casino broadcast a two-minute long advertisement on WTGS, which featured a thriller-styled retelling of how he stopped representing "cold-hearted villains" to avenge the 2012 Labor Day shooting death of his brother Michael Biancosino, and Emily Pickels, after a subsequent statement by former police chief Willie Lovett who claimed that there were "no innocent victims", culminating with Casino digging through a grave with a sledgehammer.[110][111] The ad went viral after the game, with The Independent dubbing it "the most metal Super Bowl advert imaginable."[112][113] Tribune Broadcasting used local time on the Fox affiliates it owned to air an extended promo for Salem, a then-upcoming series on sister cable network WGN America.[114]

text: In 2015, Newcastle Brown Ale bought time on local NBC stations to air an ad that, as a commentary on the high cost of national Super Bowl advertising time, contained plugs for 37 other products and companies it had recruited in a crowdfunding campaign.[115][116] In Savannah, Georgia, Jamie Casino aired a sequel to his 2014 ad that focused on the "bullies" that he had encountered throughout his life.[117]

text: In 2016, St. Louis attorney Terry Crouppen aired a local ad in which he criticized Stan Kroenke for his decision to re-locate the St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles.[118][119]

text: In 2017, some Canadian companies bought local advertising time from Fox affiliates carried in the country, taking advantage of a new regulatory policy that made the Super Bowl available directly from U.S. stations via local television providers for the first time.[120]

text: In 2018, rock musician Alice Cooper appeared in a local ad for Desert Financial Credit Union, which played upon his band's song "School's Out" to promote its re-branding from Desert Schools Federal Credit Union.[121][122] Jamie Casino also returned with a new ad.[123] A local Subaru dealer in Muskegon, Michigan ran a simplistic ad containing only of the logos of the dealership, and the message "Congratulations Patriots!", despite the fact that the game was won by the Philadelphia Eagles. The dealership admitted that the ad was a "last minute calculated risk" and based on odds favoring the team.[124]

text: Controversial Super Bowl commercials[edit]

text: A number of Super Bowl commercials have been considered controversial by viewers and critics, or even outright blocked by networks' Standards and Practices departments, because of concerns surrounding their contents. Political advertising and most direct forms of issue-related advertising are usually not aired during the Super Bowl because of equal-time rules or other factors,[125] while the NFL forbids ads for gambling, hard liquor, and banned substances from airing during any of its telecasts.[126][127][128]

text: Just For Feet: "Kenyan Mission"[edit]

text: At Super Bowl XXXIII, footwear retailer Just For Feet aired its first Super Bowl ad. In the commercial, a barefoot Kenyan runner is tracked by a group of Caucasian men in a Humvee. The runner is offered drug-laced water which knocks him unconscious; when he wakes up, the runner discovers that the men had given him Nike shoes. The runner rejects the shoes and attempts to shake them off whilst running away.[129]

text: The ad was widely-criticized for its derogatory premise; Bob Garfield described the commercial as being "neo-colonialist", "culturally imperialist", and "probably racist", while Chuck McBride, creative director of Nike's agency Wieden+Kennedy, stated that he "couldn't believe that they had done this." Just For Feet had spent $7 million on the ad, including $1.7 million for the time, and the rest on production and promotional costs. Despite its concerns about its content, Just For Feet relied on the expertise of their hired agency, Saatchi & Saatchi, because they assured that the ad was their best work. Just For Feet CEO Harold Ruttenberg explained to Salon that "we took out advertisements. We gave away more than $1 million of product. Then the ad runs. And you would not believe the deluge of comments made about this company. I couldn't sleep for a solid month. And it's all because of these guys who said they knew everything."[129]

text: Just For Feet filed a $10 million lawsuit against Saatchi & Saatchi for malpractice, alleging that the agency was damaging its reputation and goodwill through its "appallingly unacceptable and shockingly unprofessional performance", which ran "contrary to the deepest held principles of Just for Feet, which has always sought to promote racial harmony, finds racism abhorrent, and condemns drug use." Just for Feet filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 1999, and the lawsuit was dropped. It was later found that the company had been engaging in accounting fraud.[129][130][131][132]

text: General Motors: "Robot"[edit]

text: At Super Bowl XLI, General Motors aired a 60-second ad entitled "Robot", which was meant to promote the powertrain warranty it offered for its vehicles. Themed around an "obsession" with quality, the ad depicted an assembly line robot being fired for dropping a screw. After attempting several alternative careers, the robot is depicted committing suicide by rolling off the edge of a bridge into a river. The sequence is interrupted to reveal that the events were just a dream, and that the robot had not been fired at all. Although ranking in ninth place on the Adbowl survey, "Robot" received criticism for its glamorization of suicide; the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) was a notable critic of the spot, as well as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and other suicide prevention groups. The AFSP stated that "the ad, in its carelessness, portrays suicide as a viable option when someone fails or loses their job."[133][134] Some critics also interpreted the ad's thematics as being in poor taste, as GM had laid off 35,000 factory workers in the previous year.[134][135]

text: A GM spokesperson defended the commercial as being "a story of GM's commitment to quality", and stated that this was "the predominant impression by previewers of the ad". GM pulled the original version of the ad from its YouTube page, and edited the ad to remove the suicide scene from future airings.[134][135]

text: Focus on the Family pro-life ad[edit]

text: At Super Bowl XLIV, the non-profit evangelical organization Focus on the Family aired an advertisement featuring then-Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. Prior to becoming pregnant with Tim, and while serving as Baptist missionaries in the Philippines, Pam had contracted amoebic dysentery and fell into a coma. She discovered she was pregnant while recovering. Because of the medications used to treat her, the fetus experienced a severe placental abruption.[136] Doctors expected a stillbirth and recommended an abortion. The Tebows decided against it, citing their strong faith.[136] In the ad, Pam described Tim as a "miracle baby" who "almost didn't make it into this world", and remarked that "with all our family's been through, we have to be tough"—after which she was tackled by Tim. The ad itself made no reference to abortion or Christianity, and directed viewers to the organization's website.[137][138]

text: The then-unseen ad drew criticism from some women's rights groups, who asked CBS to pull the ad because they felt it would be divisive. Planned Parenthood released a video response of its own featuring fellow NFL player Sean James.[139][140] The claim that Tebow's family chose not to perform an abortion was also widely criticized; as abortion is illegal in the Philippines, critics felt that it was implausible that a doctor would recommend the procedure in the first place.[138][141] CBS's decision to run the ad was also criticized for deviating from its past policy of rejecting issue and advocacy-based commercials during the Super Bowl, including those by left leaning or perceived left leaning groups such as PETA, MoveOn.org and the United Church of Christ (which wanted to run an ad that was pro-same-sex marriage). However, CBS stated that "we have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms on the issue."[142]

text: Ashley Madison and ManCrunch[edit]

text: Avid Life Media, an operator of online dating services, has had two Super Bowl ads rejected by broadcasters. In 2009, NBC rejected an ad for the extramarital dating site Ashley Madison, which featured the tagline "Who Are You Doing After the Game?", from appearing during Super Bowl XLIII.[143] Avid Life Media's CEO Noel Biderman felt the rejection was "ridiculous", noting an apparent double standard of allowing advertisements for alcoholic beverages to air during NFL games despite the number of deaths attributed to them. Biderman considered the NFL demographic to be a core audience of the site, and promised to "find a way to let them know about the existence of this service."[143]

text: The following year at Super Bowl XLIV, an advertisement for Ashley Madison's sister site ManCrunch—a dating website for homosexual relationships—was rejected by CBS. The ad featured two male football fans reaching into the same bowl of chips, and after a brief pause, passionately kissing and dry humping each other, much to the surprise of another man present. Company spokesperson Elissa Buchter considered the rejection to be discrimination, by contending that CBS would not have objected to the ad had it featured a kiss between a man and a woman, and acknowledging the frequent airplay of advertisements for erectile dysfunction medications on U.S. television as a double standard. Fellow spokesperson Dominic Friesen stated that the company was "very disappointed" of CBS's decision, noting that the network had allowed the aforementioned Focus on the Family ad to air during the game.[144][145] A New York Post writer felt that their ad was "no more racy than nearly any beer commercial not starring the Budweiser Clydesdales".[146]

text: Avid Life was also accused of ambush marketing by critics, who argued that the company was intentionally submitting ads that would get rejected by broadcasters and receive free publicity from the ensuing controversy, thus removing the need to actually buy ad time during the game. However, the company denied these claims, and indicated that it did have serious intentions to purchase ad time during the game if its commercials were accepted.[144][145] In an article posted following the 2015 security breach of Ashley Madison, a former CBS standards & practices employee stated that the ManCrunch ad had actually been rejected for its use of NFL trademarks, and not because of its content.[147]

text: PETA[edit]

text: Animal rights activist organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known for its salacious and shocking publicity stunts, has routinely submitted Super Bowl ads that have been rejected. Most of the advertisements have been explicitly sexual in nature. In 2018, PETA submitted a blasphemous advertisement instead, with a priest (portrayed by James Cromwell) telling a meat industry executive that he could not be forgiven for the sins of what PETA claimed were deceptive advertisements, even if he confessed. NBC expressed willingness to air the 2018 advertisement on the condition that the organization would buy additional ads during the 2018 Winter Olympics, which would have doubled the price; PETA refused and accused the network of price gouging.[148]

text: Randall Terry anti-abortion ad[edit]

text: In 2012, Randall Terry attempted to use a provision in Federal Communications Commission policies requiring "reasonable access" to local advertising time for political candidates within 45 days of an election or primary, to force several NBC stations to air a graphic anti-abortion attack ad during Super Bowl XLVI that featured images of blood-covered fetuses. Following a complaint by the Chicago-based NBC-owned station WMAQ, the FCC ruled that Terry could not expect reasonable access to advertising time during the Super Bowl because of the magnitude of the event and the limited amount of local advertising time available. Furthermore, it was also found that Terry did not show enough evidence that he was a bona fide candidate eligible to receive ad time in the first place.[149][150]

text: Chrysler: "Halftime in America"[edit]

text: Chrysler's Super Bowl XLVI ad "Halftime in America" was controversial due to its political overtones, especially as it came during the lead-up to the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Critics interpreted the ad as being in support of re-electing Barack Obama, due to his support of George W. Bush's bailout of Chrysler whilst acting as a Democratic senator,[151] and that the metaphor of "halftime in America" also symbolized the performance of Obama's first four-year term as president going into his re-election campaign. It was also noted that Eastwood had made statements against the bailouts in 2011, had stated that he "couldn’t recall ever voting for a Democratic presidential candidate", and that he was a supporter of Republican candidate John McCain during the 2008 campaign; Eastwood would later appear as a surprise guest at the 2012 Republican National Convention in support of nominee Mitt Romney, addressing an empty chair meant to represent Obama.[79][152][153]

text: SodaStream[edit]

text: In 2013, SodaStream submitted a Super Bowl advertisement directed by Alex Bogusky, which featured a pair of Coca-Cola and Pepsi deliverymen finding their bottles exploding and disappearing when another person uses the SodaStream to make their own beverages; representing a disruption of the soft drink market. The ad was rejected by CBS for its direct attacks towards the two rival companies.[154] A Forbes writer expressed concern that the network may have had intentionally shown protectionism towards the two soft drink companies (who have been long-time Super Bowl advertisers), and drew comparisons to a recent incident where the CBS-owned technology news site CNET was controversially forced by its parent company to block Dish Network's Hopper with Sling digital video recorder from being considered Best in Show at CES 2013 because the broadcaster was in active litigation over an automatic commercial skipping feature on the device.[155][156][157]

text: An older SodaStream commercial was shown in its place, which also featured exploding pop bottles in a similar fashion, but with no direct references to any other brand;[154] ironically, this particular ad had been banned in the United Kingdom by Clearcast for being considered "a denigration of the bottled drinks market."[158]

text: Another SodaStream ad featuring Scarlett Johansson was produced for and aired during Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014; the supposed rejection of an initial version for containing the line "Sorry, Coke and Pepsi" was overshadowed by growing controversies around the company's use of a factory that was located in an Israeli settlement on the West Bank.[159][160]

text: Coca-Cola: "It's Beautiful"[edit]

text: In 2014, Coca-Cola aired a Super Bowl advertisement entitled "It's Beautiful"; themed around multiculturalism, the ad featured scenes depicting Americans of various ethnicities, along with a same-sex couple—the first to ever appear in a Super Bowl ad, set to a rendition of the patriotic hymn "America The Beautiful" with lyrics sung in multiple languages.[48][161]

text: The ad was divisive, with users taking to Twitter under the hashtag "#SpeakAmerican" to discuss their views and opinions on its content: those against the ad argued that per the melting pot principle, Coca-Cola should not have used languages other than English, the most common language of the country, to promote its products to ethnic minorities, and former Republican Congressman Allen West stated that "If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing 'America the Beautiful' in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come—doggone we are on the road to perdition." By contrast, others praised the ad for celebrating the diversity of American people. Guardian writer Jill Filipovic noted that the company had been increasingly targeting minorities, such as Latino Americans (who are more likely to be heavy drinkers of soft drinks because of their low cost) and drew comparisons to the marketing of cigarettes to women, but that "before we applaud Coke's advertising diversity, we should ask: do we really want Coke to diversify?"[48][49][161]

text: The commercial was re-aired prior to kickoff at Super Bowl LI, eliciting similar criticism.[162]

text: Nationwide Insurance: "Boy"[edit]

text: At Super Bowl XLIX in 2015, after an eight-year hiatus, Nationwide Insurance returned to the game with two new advertisements. The second of these advertisements, "Boy" (also commonly referred to as "Make Safe Happen"),[163] featured a child explaining that he couldn't grow up because he had already died—followed by scenes of an overflowing bathtub (implying drowning), spilled cleaning products (implying poisoning), and a television having fallen off of a wall. The ad was intended to promote Nationwide's child protection campaign Make Safe Happen; operated in partnership with Safe Kids USA and Nationwide Children's Hospital, it aims to draw awareness to deaths caused by preventable household accidents.[164][165][166]

text: Viewers and critics acknowledged that the subject matter of "Boy" was a major contrast to other, upbeat and comedic ads broadcast during Super Bowl XLIX (including Nationwide's second ad, "Invisible Mindy"). Reception towards the ad was overwhelmingly negative; viewers criticized the company via social media for its decision to broadcast an ad dealing with such subject matter during the Super Bowl, Amobee estimated only 12% of reactions to the ad on Twitter were positive, and it ranked near the bottom of the USA Today Ad Meter results. Nationwide CMO Matthew Jauchius defended the ad, noting that the negative response was "a little stronger than we anticipated", and that "Boy" was intended to "begin a dialogue to make safe happen for children everywhere."[167][168][169] Jauchius later exited Nationwide two months after the advertisement aired.[170]

text: 84 Lumber: "The Journey"[edit]

text: Building supply company 84 Lumber debuted at Super Bowl LI with "The Journey"; the ad depicted a mother and daughter migrating from Mexico to the United States border, only to discover that a wall had been built on it. However, after the daughter presented a handmade version of the U.S. flag that she had made with pieces of fabric collected along the way, the two discover a giant door in the wall. The ending of the ad is accompanied by the tagline "The will to succeed is always welcome here."[171][172][173]

text: The original version of the ad was rejected by Fox, as they believed that the border wall imagery was too politically sensitive in the wake of the election of Donald Trump as president, whose campaign promises included a plan to build a wall across the entire border. The company's agency stated that it intended to present an edited version of the ad during the game, and promote the full, nearly 6-minute ad, streaming on 84 Lumber's website.[171][174][175][176] The company reported that its website received a total of over 6 million visits in the hour following the airing, and received over 300,000 requests in a minute after the ad aired, causing it to crash.[171]

text: GNC: "Courage to Change"[edit]

text: On January 31, 2017, it was reported that an advertisement for the health store chain GNC had been rejected by the NFL for broadcast during Super Bowl LI. The ad had been rejected due to the company's inclusion on a list of "prohibited companies" issued by the NFL Players Association; a small number of GNC's products contain DHEA and Synephrine, which are performance-enhancing substances banned by the NFL. Inclusion on this list prohibits NFL players from promoting or endorsing the company. NFL policies do not allow advertising for “dietary or nutritional supplements that contain ingredients other than vitamins and minerals, energy drinks, or any prohibited substance”. Advertisements for health stores are not banned, provided that they do not reference such products. GNC's advertisement featured motivational themes as part of a larger "Courage to Change" marketing campaign, and did not make any references to specific products sold by the chain.[177][126][127]

text: On February 2, 2017, it was reported that GNC had threatened to sue Fox over the rejection. The letter of intent stated that the contents of GNC's commercial had been "expressly approved" twice by Fox, and that the broadcaster did not inform GNC that ads broadcast during the Super Bowl were subject to approval by the NFL or any league policies. The company stated that Fox had "induced GNC to spend millions of dollars in production costs and in the development of a national, coordinated marketing and rebranding campaign centered around this advertisement."[178][177]

text: Ram Trucks: "Built to Serve"[edit]

text: In 2018, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles marque Ram Trucks aired a commercial entitled "Built to Serve", as one of two Ram ads during the game. It featured an extract from the "Drum Major Instinct" sermon given by Martin Luther King Jr. on February 4, 1968—exactly 50 years prior to Super Bowl LII, wherein King explained the virtues of serving others. The speech was, in turn, set to footage of people using their Ram vehicles to help others.[179][180]

text: The ad was largely criticized, as viewers considered it to be in bad taste for FCA to use the words of Martin Luther King to promote a product. In particular, it was pointed out that King had made comments criticizing the advertising industry within the exact same sermon; he described advertisers as being "gentlemen of massive verbal persuasion", explaining that "in order to be a man of distinction, you must drink this whiskey. In order to make your neighbors envious, you must drive this type of car. In order to be lovely to love you must wear this kind of lipstick or this kind of perfume. And you know, before you know it, you're just buying that stuff." William B. Wachtel, co-founder of the Drum Major Institute, stated that "In a twist of irony, one of the specific evils Dr. King condemned was the exploitation of the drum major instinct by advertisers, particularly car advertisers".[181][179][180] Current Affairs posted a parody of the commercial on YouTube, in which the original audio was overdubbed with this section of the speech.[182][183]

text: Use of the speech was approved by Intellectual Properties Management, the exclusive commercial licensor of King's estate. A representative of the organization stated that they approved the ad because its overall message "embodied Dr. King's philosophy that true greatness is achieved by serving others."[180][82][181][179] Although the King Center distanced itself from the ad by stating that it was not responsible for its licensing, it was pointed out that Intellectual Properties Management was based within the facilities of the King Center to begin with, and thus had close ties to the family. Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik argued that King's rights should be managed by a larger group of historians and scholars through an "open and transparent" process, rather than just his close family, "so at least we don't have a situation where some corporation drapes itself in King's preacherly robes while the estate issues fatuous excuses that a TV commercial embodies 'Dr. King's philosophy'."[184][183]

text: Internationally[edit]

text: The Super Bowl commercials are generally limited to the American television broadcast of the game. This prevents international viewers from watching the game with these often iconic commercials. Online postings of the commercials on sites such as YouTube have partially alleviated the issue,[185][186] while NBC posted the Super Bowl XLIX commercials on a Tumblr blog as they aired during the game for the benefit of its U.S. online stream (which did not contain all of the same ads as the television feed).[15]

text: Complaints about the U.S. Super Bowl ads are common in Canada; although U.S. network affiliates are widely available on pay television providers in the country, "simultaneous substitution" regulations give Canadian television networks the right to request that a U.S. feed of a program be replaced with its Canadian counterpart on these providers if it is airing a program in simulcast with a U.S. network. This rule is intended to protect the investments of Canadian broadcasters in exclusive domestic broadcast rights, and also protect Canadian advertisers who had purchased their own advertising time on the Canadian network. As a result, most American Super Bowl ads are effectively "blacked out" by the Canadian broadcaster.[185][186][187] Members of Parliament Bob Nault and Wayne Easter have stated that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada's telecom regulator, has only received around 100 specific complaints about Super Bowl ads in relation to the simsub rules.[188]

text: Some U.S.-based advertisers, particularly PepsiCo and Anheuser-Busch (via its Canadian subsidiary Labatt), do buy ad time during the Canadian broadcast on CTV, owned by Bell Media—the broadcasting subsidiary of Canadian telecommunications firm BCE and the current rightsholder of the game, to air at least some of their American commercials, but many Canadian advertisers simply re-air ads from their regular rotation, or air the same ad multiple times over the course of the game, neither of which is typical during the U.S. network broadcast.[186] Reasons cited by Canadian advertisers for these practices include the additional talent and post-production fees that would be required to broadcast the American ads in Canada, and the perceived lower "cultural resonance" of the game for Canadian viewers as opposed to Americans.[186] As such, and because Canada's population is approximately a tenth of the United States', advertising time costs a fraction of the price to air an ad on the U.S. broadcast: prices ranged between $170,000 to $200,000 for a 30-second slot on CTV's telecast of Super Bowl XLIX.[106][189]

text: On the other hand, in the 2010s, there were a growing number of Super Bowl ads produced specifically for the Canadian broadcast: Hyundai's Canadian subsidiary began airing its own Super Bowl ads in 2010,[190] and Budweiser produced the hockey-themed "Flash Fans" to air during the Canadian broadcast of Super Bowl XLVI. The following year, two Canadian companies—BlackBerry and Gildan Activewear, made their debut as U.S. Super Bowl advertisers; their ads were also broadcast in Canada alongside those by McDonald's Canada, who debuted its "Our Food. Your Questions." campaign, Budweiser's internet-connected hockey goal lights, and Hyundai Canada's "Gaspocalypse", promoting the Sonata Hybrid.[106] Budweiser expanded its goal light campaign for Super Bowl 50, which featured an ad introducing a 20 foot (6.1 m)-tall goal lamp used as part of a promotional campaign leading towards the 2016 World Cup of Hockey.[191]

text: Canadian simsub ban[edit]

text: On January 29, 2015, the CRTC announced a proposal to forbid the invocation of simultaneous substitution on the Super Bowl telecast, thus allowing U.S. feeds of the event to co-exist with those of Canadian rightsholders on pay television providers. The decision came as a result of a series of hearings held by the CRTC known as Let's Talk TV, which explored reforms of the Canadian television industry: the Commission cited viewer frustration over the use of simsubs, especially surrounding the Super Bowl, and argued that the commercials were an "integral part" of the game due to their cultural significance.[189][192] In March 2015, Bell filed an appeal against this decision, arguing that the move would devalue its exclusive broadcast rights to the game, and violated the Broadcasting Act, which forbids the "making of regulations singling out a particular program or licensee."[193] A report commissioned by Bell estimated that without this lucrative exclusivity, it would lose about US$13.6 million per-year.[194]

text: In spite of the complaints and legal action, the CRTC issued an order on August 19, 2016 that officially implemented the new rule. On September 6, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Bell Media's lawsuit for being premature, because it was filed before the CRTC had formally implemented the rules.[195][196] On November 2, 2016, Bell was granted an appeal.[197] In the lead-up to Super Bowl LI (which would be the first game to fall under this policy), a number of stakeholders, including the NFL, Bell Media, local unions. as well as politicians from both Canada and the U.S., called upon the CRTC to reverse the ruling. U.S. senators Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson wrote to an ambassador that the CRTC's decision "sends a troubling signal about the value Canada places on its largest trading partner, best customer and close friend." Bell had also urged prime minister Justin Trudeau to invoke section 26(2) of the Broadcasting Act (which grants the government power to require the broadcasting of programming that is "of urgent importance to Canadians", and had only been invoked once before to mandate the broadcast of a major speech by a Prime Minister) to override the CRTC policy and still require that the Super Bowl LI telecast be subject to simsub.[194][198]

text: Court action on the CRTC ruling was not taken in time for the game, meaning that Super Bowl LI was the first to be available through Canadian television providers without being subject to simsub.[199] Some Canadian advertisers, such as Leon's and Pizza Pizza, took advantage of the decision by purchasing local ad time from U.S. Fox affiliates carried in Canada, to broadcast commercials aimed at the Canadian audience. The sales manager of Spokane's affiliate KAYU-TV praised the change for helping increase demand for its limited local inventory; the station is carried on cable in the significantly larger Canadian markets of Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta.[120]

text: Neither Nielsen or Numeris (Canada's main television ratings provider) calculate Canadian viewership of U.S. television channels, so it is unknown exactly how many Canadian viewers watched the game directly from Fox stations rather than CTV.[120] Following the game, it was reported that viewership of Super Bowl LI on CTV, in addition to CTV Two and TSN (which simulcast the game in order to increase the saturation of Bell-owned properties carrying it, and offered an on-air sweepstakes as a publicity stunt to attract viewers), was down by 39% over Super Bowl 50.[199][200][200][201]

text: On December 19, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Bell Media's case, ruling that the CRTC's policy was reasonable.[202] Bell Media once again filed for an appeal in January 2018, this time in the Supreme Court of Canada.[203]


document_title: Top Chef (season 10)

question_text: top chef season 10 last chance kitchen winner

root

text: Top Chef (season 10)

text: Contestants[edit]

text: The cast of the tenth season of Top Chef initially consisted of 21 contestants.[2] After the qualifying challenges in the first episode, the pool of chefs was narrowed down to 15. Former Top Chef competitors Josie Smith-Malave (Top Chef: Los Angeles), Chris "CJ" Jacobson (Top Chef: Miami), and Stefan Richter (Top Chef: New York) joined the competition during the second episode. Brooke Williamson, Sheldon Simeon, and John Tesar later returned to compete in Top Chef: Charleston.[6] All three made it to the final part of the season, where Tesar finished in fourth, Simeon finished third, and Williamson was the season's winner.

tag: p

text: Eliminated in qualifying rounds[edit]

text:
Name
Hometown
Current Residence
Age

Tina Bourbeau
New York, New York
New York, New York
42

Stephanie Cmar
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts
27

Anthony Gray
Macon, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia
35

Gina Keatley
Boston, Massachusetts
Harlem, New York
32

Daniel O'Brien
Clarkson, New York
Washington, D.C.
32

Jorel Pierce
Denver, Colorado
Denver, Colorado
28

tag: table

text: Top 18[edit]

text:
Name
Hometown
Current Residence
Age

Elizabeth "Lizzie" Binder
Durban, South Africa
San Francisco, California
37

Chrissy Camba
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
31

Micah Fields
Los Angeles, California
Los Angeles, California
28

Eliza Gavin
Telluride, Colorado
Telluride, Colorado
38

Chris "CJ" Jacobson
El Toro, California
Studio City, California
36

Jeffrey Jew
Washington, D.C.
St. Petersburg, Florida
34

Kristen Kish
Kentwood, Michigan
Boston, Massachusetts
28

Danyele McPherson
Waynesville, North Carolina
Dallas, Texas
31

Carla Pellegrino
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Las Vegas, Nevada
43

Stefan Richter
Tampere, Finland
Santa Monica, California
40

Sheldon Simeon
Hilo, Hawaii
Lahaina, Hawaii
30

Josie Smith-Malave
Miami, Florida
San Francisco, California
37

John Tesar
New York, New York
Dallas, Texas
54

Joshua "Josh" Valentine
Del City, Oklahoma
Dallas, Texas
33

Bart Vandaele
Roeselare, Belgium
Washington, D.C.
42

Tyler Wiard
Denver, Colorado
Denver, Colorado
41

Brooke Williamson
Los Angeles, California
Redondo Beach, California
34

Kuniko Yagi
Maebashi, Japan
Los Angeles, California
35

text: Contestant progress[edit]

text:
Episode #
22
3
4
54
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Quickfire Challenge
Winner(s)
John
Kuniko1
Sheldon1
Josie
John
Bart
Sheldon
Brooke
Kristen
Micah
Micah
Brooke
N/A
Stefan1
Sheldon1
Sheldon1
Brooke1
N/A
N/A

Contestant
Elimination Challenge Results

1
Kristen
IN
IN
WIN
IN
HIGH
WIN
IN
WIN
WIN
OUT

IN5
WINNER

2
Brooke
LOW
IN
IN
LOW
WIN
HIGH
WIN
HIGH
IN
IN
LOW
WIN
WIN
WIN
IN
RUNNER-UP

3
Sheldon
HIGH
LOW
IN
IN
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
IN
WIN
WIN
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
OUT

4
Josh
IN
IN
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
WIN
HIGH
LOW
OUT

5
Lizzie
IN
HIGH
HIGH
IN
IN
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW
IN
HIGH
HIGH
OUT

6
Stefan
LOW3
IN
HIGH
LOW
IN
HIGH
IN
IN
IN
IN
LOW
OUT

7
Josie
LOW3
LOW
IN
IN
IN
LOW
LOW
IN
LOW
LOW
OUT

8
Micah
IN
IN
IN
IN
LOW
LOW
HIGH
IN
OUT

9
John
HIGH
IN
IN
LOW
HIGH
LOW
WIN
OUT

10
Bart
LOW
IN
IN
IN
IN
LOW
OUT

11
Danyele
IN
IN
IN
IN
LOW
OUT

12
Eliza
IN
IN
IN
IN
OUT

13
CJ
LOW3
HIGH
LOW
OUT

Tyler
IN
LOW
HIGH
OUT

15
Carla
IN
WIN
OUT

16
Chrissy
IN
IN
OUT

17
Kuniko
WIN
OUT

18
Jeffrey
OUT

text:
^Note 1 : The chef(s) did not receive immunity for winning the Quickfire Challenge.
^Note 2 : Due to the qualifying rounds, the show did not use its traditional elimination format until the second episode.
^Note 3 : Former Top Chef contestants CJ, Josie, and Stefan entered the competition following the Quickfire Challenge.
^Note 4 : Due to the poor quality of the dishes served in the Elimination Challenge, no winner was declared.
^Note 5 : Kristen won Last Chance Kitchen and returned to the competition.

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Original air date

140
1
"The Ultimate Chef Test"
November 7, 2012 (2012-11-07)

Qualifying Challenge: The 21 chefs were separated into four groups and sent to the restaurants of judges Tom Colicchio, Emeril Lagasse, Wolfgang Puck, and Hugh Acheson. The judges devised their own challenges to evaluate the potential contestants and selected which chefs would compete for the Top Chef title in Seattle.

Group 1 (Colicchio): Anthony, John, Jorel, Lizzie, Micah

ELIMINATED: Anthony and Jorel

Group 2 (Lagasse): Jeffrey, Josh, Kristen, Stephanie, Tina

ELIMINATED: Stephanie and Tina

Group 3 (Puck): Carla, Chrissy, Daniel, Eliza, Kuniko, Tyler

ELIMINATED: Daniel

Group 4 (Acheson): Bart, Brooke, Danyele, Gina, Sheldon

ELIMINATED: Gina

141
2
"A Shock at the Space Needle"
November 14, 2012 (2012-11-14)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs separated themselves into teams of three and had to create a dish that highlighted the local shellfish. The winning team drew knives to determine which individual would receive immunity. Past Top Chef contestants, Chris "CJ" Jacobson, Josie Smith-Malave, and Stefan Richter officially joined the competition following the challenge.

Orange Team: Carla, Chrissy, Lizzie
Yellow Team: Danyele, Eliza, Josh
Green Team: Kristen, Micah, Tyler
Blue Team: John, Kuniko, Sheldon
Gray Team: Bart, Brooke, Jeffrey

WINNER: Blue Team (Geoduck Sashimi with Ponzu, Apple & Cucumber)

Elimination Challenge: Using the same teams from the Quickfire, the chefs traveled to the Space Needle to make a dish using regional ingredients.

Red Team: CJ, Josie, Stefan
Orange Team: Carla, Chrissy, Lizzie
Yellow Team: Danyele, Eliza, Josh
Green Team: Kristen, Micah, Tyler
Blue Team: John, Kuniko, Sheldon
Gray Team: Bart, Brooke, Jeffrey

WINNER: Kuniko (Chili Oil Poached Cod with Dashi & Spot Prawn Shabu Shabu)
ELIMINATED: Jeffrey (Pan Roasted Halibut with Mushrooms, English Peas, Wheat Beer & Herb Sabayon)

142
3
"Tom vs. Emeril: Turkeypocalypse"
November 21, 2012 (2012-11-21)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs were tasked with creating international dumplings, inspired by whatever country they took on a map; they had 5 minutes on an Amazon Kindle Fire to look up whatever they needed to know about their type of dumpling.

WINNER: Josie (Mandu - Pork, Tofu & Shiitake Mushroom Filling)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs worked in two teams, led by Tom Colicchio (Red) and Emeril Lagasse (Gray), to cook a Thanksgiving meal to benefit FareStart.

Red Team: Bart, Carla, CJ, Eliza, Josh, Lizzie, Micah, Stefan
Gray Team: Brooke, Chrissy, Danyele, John, Josie, Kristen, Kuniko, Sheldon, Tyler

WINNER: Carla (Carrot Soup with Turkey Meatballs)
ELIMINATED: Kuniko (Potato Pavé)

143
4
"'50s Food Flashback"
November 28, 2012 (2012-11-28)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs were asked to butcher a part of a whole piece of beef and cook a dish with that cut.

WINNER: John (Braised Oxtails and Potato Gnocchi with Roasted Vegetables & Celery)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs recreated dishes from a classic 1950's menu from the restaurant Canlis. The winner received $10,000.

WINNER: Kristen (Dry-Roasted Sautéed Mushrooms with Crispy-Fried Shallots)
ELIMINATED: Chrissy (Canlis' Special Salad) and Carla (Whole Milk-Fed Squab with Red Wine Reduction)

144
5
"Pike Place Pickle"
December 5, 2012 (2012-12-05)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs paired up and created a breakfast on a stick for 50 people at Pike Place Market.

WINNERS: Bart and Sheldon (Green Forest Breakfast Sandwich: Eggs, Cheese, Pancetta, Bacon & Spinach)

Elimination Challenge: The same teams were kept for the Elimination Challenge. The chefs were asked to create a dish, by drawing knives, to feature an ingredient created by the vendors at Pike Place Market. The winners would have received $10,000; however, due to the poor quality of the meal, the reward was pulled off the table.

Bart and Sheldon: Salmon Candy
Danyele and Lizzie: Coconut Curry Chocolate
John and Josh: Truffled Popcorn
Eliza and Josie: Cardamom Bitters
Brooke and Stefan: Rose Petal Jelly
CJ and Tyler: Spicy Dill Pickles
Kristen and Micah: Cheese Curds

ELIMINATED: CJ and Tyler (Pork Crumpet Burger with Fried Spicy Dill Pickles)

145
6
"Even the Famous Come Home"
December 12, 2012 (2012-12-12)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs were asked to cook a holiday-themed sweet and savory dish that reminds them of their heritage using Truvia baking blend sugar. However, there was only one knife available for all the chefs; those who needed to use it were forced to either share it or improvise using other tools or methods.

WINNER: Brooke (Apple Crostata with Cheddar Cheese, Candied Pine Nuts & Apple Salad)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs were tasked to cater a homecoming party for actors Anna Faris and Chris Pratt, along with their families and friends. The winner received a Toyota Prius c.

WINNER: Brooke (Lamb-Stuffed Squid on Black Rice with Coconut Milk)
ELIMINATED: Eliza (Elk Ribeye with Elk Sausage Polenta, Spiced Carrots & Huckleberry Port Sauce)

146
7
"Foiled Again"
December 19, 2012 (2012-12-19)

Quickfire Challenge: All ingredients in the Top Chef pantry were completely wrapped in Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil. The chefs had 30 minutes to make whatever they wanted, with the limitation that each chef must incorporate any ingredient he or she unwrapped. In addition, all pots, pans, and bowls were off-limits; only the aluminum foil could be used as a cooking vessel.

WINNER: Kristen (Almond & Chocolate Sponge Cake)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs paired up and competed against each other to make dishes that featured berries from Remlinger's Farm. The winner of the Quickfire Challenge was allowed to cook by themselves. The dishes were served to 150 guests, who voted which contestant had the better dish in each head-to-head battle (below in bold). The winner received $10,000.

Danyele vs. Josh: Blueberries
Bart vs. Brooke: Blackberries
Stefan vs. John: Gooseberries
Josie vs. Lizzie: Raspberries
Micah vs. Sheldon: Strawberries
Kristen: Tayberries

WINNER: Kristen (Matcha Goat Milk Custard with Macerated Tayberries)
ELIMINATED: Danyele (Chicken Pine Nut Terrine with Blueberry Mostarda)

147
8
"Jalapeño Business"
December 26, 2012 (2012-12-26)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs were challenged to make either a hot or cold preparation of oysters that they had harvested themselves from local oyster beds in Bow, Washington. The winner received $5,000.

WINNER: Micah (Crispy Fried Oysters with Arugula Salad, Hot Sauce & Lemon)

Elimination Challenge: In teams of two, the chefs had to cater an after-game party for a Seattle roller derby team, the Rat City Rollergirls. The dishes each team cooked were inspired by the name of one of the rollergirls.

Josie and Bart: Teriyaki Terror
John and Brooke: Kutta Rump
Lizzie and Micah: Jalapeño Business
Kristen and Stefan: Eddie Shredder
Josh and Sheldon: Tempura Tantrum

WINNERS: Brooke and John (Thai Beef with Lobster Jasmine Rice & Thai Slaw)
ELIMINATED: Bart (Steak Teriyaki with Forbidden Rice, Beet Blood & Green Papaya Salad)

148
9
"Past Suppers"
January 2, 2013 (2013-01-02)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs were tested on their knife skills. Beginning in three teams of three, the contestants had to sharpen dull knives enough to cut cleanly through paper. The two teams to finish the fastest advanced to the next round preparing 50 potatoes using the Tourné cutting method. The members of the winning team continued to the final round, competing against each other to break down the rack of two rabbits. A chef cutting themselves was treated as an automatic disqualification. The winner received a custom chef's knife from master bladesmith Bob Kramer, worth roughly $4,000, and immunity from elimination.

WINNER: Micah

Elimination Challenge: Each chef cooked a dish inspired by a memorable moment from a previous season of Top Chef, but had to prepare a healthier version than the original. The winner received $15,000, and their dish would be used as inspiration for a new Top Chef Healthy Choice frozen entrée. In a surprise twist, the bottom two contestants competed head-to-head based on a memorable moment from this season: CJ's elimination in Episode 5.

Season 1: Josie - Dave saying to Tiffani "I'm not your bitch, bitch" after Restaurant Wars.
Season 2: Stefan - Marcel and Betty's fight during the TGI Fridays challenge.
Season 3: John - Howie referencing Anthony Bourdain's book at the judges' table after failing to plate part of his dish.
Season 4: Sheldon - The fight in the stew room with Spike, Antonia, Jennifer, Dale, and Lisa after Zoi's departure.
Season 5: Lizzie - Jamie making the same scallop dish from a previous episode and Fabio saying "It's Top Chef, not Top Scallop."
Season 6: Josh - The chefs cooking for 300 airmen at an Air Force base.
Season 7: Brooke - Alex winning a challenge for a dish with pea purée after Ed mysteriously lost his.
Season 8: Kristen - Carla's excitement over getting the chance to make chicken pot pie on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.
Season 9: Micah - Beverly and Heather's fight at the judges' table.

WINNER: Kristen (Poached Chicken Breast, Carrot Purée, with Garlic & Tofu Emulsion)
ELIMINATED: John (Umami Risotto with Chicken, Salmon Roe, Burdock Root & Carrot Emulsion; Lamb Burger with Fried Egg and Spicy Pickle, Tomato & Pomegranate Salad)

149
10
"Battle Before the War"
January 9, 2013 (2013-01-09)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs had 15 minutes to prepare a dish containing ginger. The winner received immunity from elimination.

WINNER: Brooke (Ginger-Caramel Squid with Fresh Lime & Chili Powder)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs created a restaurant concept, and presented their concept via a representative dish at the Taste of Seattle Food Festival. The two winning chefs each received $10,000 and acted as executive chef for their teams during Restaurant Wars in the next episode. The two winners picked their teams from the other remaining contestants without knowing the results of the elimination, guaranteeing that one would be handicapped in the following challenge.

WINNERS: Kristen (Atelier Kwan - Onsen Egg with Camembert-Mustard Sauce & Buttered Radishes) and Sheldon (Urbano - Sour Tamarind Soup with Pork Belly, Shrimp & Snapper)
ELIMINATED: Micah (Raw - Salmon, Snapper, Hamachi, Squid, Scallop & Mackerel with Raw Vegetables)

150
11
"Restaurant Wars"
January 16, 2013 (2013-01-16)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs had 48 hours to create a restaurant pop-up based on the winning concepts from the prior episode: Urbano (modern Filipino) and Atelier Kwan (reinterpreted classical French). They set up both the dining area and the kitchen area, and executed a multi-course dinner service. One member from the losing team was eligible for elimination. The winner received a Toyota Avalon.

Atelier Kwan: Brooke, Josie, Kristen, Lizzie

Charcuterie: Rabbit, Pickled Turnips & Yellow Beets in Chicken & Rabbit Broth (Lizzie)
Bouillabaisse: Halibut, Dungeness Crab, Bay Scallops with Shellfish Broth (Josie)
Beef Bourguignon: Braised Short Rib, Garlic Purée, Mushrooms & Carrots (Kristen)
Baked Gougères, St. Agur Blue Cheese, Roasted Radish & Stone Fruit Compote (Brooke)
Almond Cake Macaron with Coconut Custard & Caramel Buttercream (Kristen)

Urbano: Josh, Sheldon, Stefan

Kilawen: Yellowtail with Cilantro, Spicy Chili & White Soy Sauces (Stefan)
Balut: Poached Egg, Duck Confit & Foie Gras Mousse (Josh)
Miki: Prawns, Tapioca Roll with Achiote (Sheldon)
Adobo: Pork Belly with Mung Bean Purée & Pea Shoots Salad (Sheldon)
Halo-Halo: Coconut Sorbet, Avocado Mousse, Banana & Shredded Coconut (Josh)
Dark Chocolate with Macadamia Nuts, Ginger & Peppermint Oil (Stefan)

WINNER: Sheldon
ELIMINATED: Kristen

151
12
"Wolfgang Clucks"
January 23, 2013 (2013-01-23)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs had 30 minutes to create a dish to impress a sushi master. The winner received $5,000. From this point forward, the winners of the Quickfire no longer received immunity from elimination.

WINNER: Stefan (Yellowtail with Grilled Shiitake & Raw Lobster with Seaweed and Unagi)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs had to make a fried chicken dish for a dinner party. The winner received a year's supply of Terlato wine.

WINNER: Josh (Smoked Fried Chicken with Hot Sauce & Blue Cheese)
ELIMINATED: Josie (Chicken with Black Garlic, Cayenne, Thyme & Hot Sauce with Daikon Salad)

152
13
"Chefs at Sea"
January 30, 2013 (2013-01-30)

Quickfire Challenge: The competition left Seattle and boarded a cruise ship en route to Juneau, Alaska. The chefs prepared 200 portions of a one-bite appetizer incorporating iceberg lettuce. The winner received an advantage in the following Elimination Challenge.

WINNER: Sheldon (Vietnamese Lettuce Wrap with Pork, Shrimp & Pickled Iceberg Hearts)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs prepared a creative reinterpretation of a surf and turf. The winner of the Quickfire Challenge was allowed to choose their two proteins first, which became off-limits to the rest of the competitors.

WINNER: Brooke (Mussels & Frog Legs with Celery Root & Fennel Purée, Papadums & Shallot Chutney)
ELIMINATED: Stefan (Braised Pork Belly with Beer Sauce, Parsnip & Eel Ravioli)

153
14
"Kings of Alaska"
February 6, 2013 (2013-02-06)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs had 30 minutes to create a dish highlighting Alaskan crab. The winner received $5,000.

WINNER: Sheldon (King Crab, Dungeness Crab "Miso," Pine-Smoked Asparagus & Charred Corn)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs had to make a dish using salmon and sourdough bread for the residents of Juneau. The winner received a trip for two to Costa Rica.

WINNER: Brooke (Sockeye Salmon & Seafood Broth with Mustard Seed Caviar & Dill Sourdough)
ELIMINATED: Lizzie (Citrus & Beet Glazed Salmon Slider with Poppyseed Bun & Pickles)

154
15
"Glacial Gourmand"
February 13, 2013 (2013-02-13)

Quickfire Challenge: The chefs prepared a meal for the athletes training for the Iditarod using only the supplies already available at their training camp.

WINNER: Brooke (Pan-Roasted Halibut, Panzanella Salad with Red Currant & Beet Vinaigrette)

Elimination Challenge: The chefs cooked a dish inspired by their memory of the moment they decided to become a chef.

WINNER: Brooke (Braised Chicken, Grilled Quail with Carrot Barley & Pickled Vegetables )
ELIMINATED: Josh (Foie Gras Three Ways: Torchon, Pan-Seared & Profiterole)

155
16
"Finale Part 1"
February 20, 2013 (2013-02-20)

Elimination Challenge: After the competition moved to Los Angeles for the finale, the remaining chefs were given three hours to prepare an appetizer, a main course, and a dessert course to be served that night at Tom Colicchio's Craft restaurant. In addition, the chefs must run the kitchen during the dinner service, expedited by Colicchio himself, finishing and plating courses to order.

ELIMINATED: Sheldon (Sashimi Spot Prawns, Court Bouillon, Radish & Asian Herbs; Roasted Quail, Pine Nut Purée, Garam Masala & Tangerine; White Chocolate Mousse with Apple & Fennel)

156
17
"Finale Part 2"
February 27, 2013 (2013-02-27)

Elimination Challenge: Cooking in an Iron Chef-style arena in front of the judges, their friends and families, and all nine previous Top Chef champions, the finalists each prepared up to five courses of a meal to be served to the judges and audience. Kristen was assisted by Josh, Lizzie, and Sheldon. Brooke was assisted by CJ, Kuniko, and Stefan. Each course would be critiqued head-to-head by the judges, who would immediately vote on a winner for the round. The first chef to win three rounds would be crowned "Top Chef".

First Course (No restriction):

Brooke: Crispy Pig Ear & Chicory Salad, Six-Minute Egg, Apricot Jam & Candied Kumquats
Kristen: Chicken Liver Mousse with Frisée, Mustard, Prune, Hazelnuts & Pumpernickel

WINNER: Kristen (1-0)

Second Course (Scallops):

Brooke: Seared Scallop with Salt Cod Purée, Speck, Black Currant & Mustard Seed Vinaigrette
Kristen: Citrus and Lavender Cured Scallop with Bitter Orange, Meyer Lemon & Apple

WINNER: Brooke (1-1)

Third Course (No restriction):

Brooke: Vadouvan Fried Chicken Wing with Sumac Yogurt-Tahini & Pickled Kohlrabi Fattoush
Kristen: Celery Root Purée with Bone Marrow, Mushrooms, Bitter Greens & Radishes

WINNER: Kristen (2-1)

Fourth Course (Red Snapper):

Brooke: Braised Pork Cheek & Red Snapper with Collard Green Slaw & Sorrel Purée
Kristen: Red Snapper with Leeks, Little Gem Lettuce, Tarragon, Uni & Shellfish Nage

WINNER: Kristen (3-1)

WINNER: Kristen
RUNNER-UP: Brooke

text: Last Chance Kitchen[edit]

text:
No.
Title
Original air date

1
"Carla vs. Chrissy vs. Kuniko vs. Jeffrey"
November 28, 2012 (2012-11-28)

Challenge: The chefs were given a chance to redeem themselves by creating a dish incorporating the same ingredients from the dishes that eliminated them.

Carla: Whole Squab with Baked Tomato & Morels
Chrissy: Canlis' Special Salad
Jeffrey: Pan-Roasted Halibut with Peas & Morels
Kuniko: Lemongrass Cream Potato Chowder

WINNER: Kuniko

2
"CJ and Tyler vs. Kuniko"
December 5, 2012 (2012-12-05)

Challenge: The chefs were tasked with making a dessert. Because CJ and Tyler were eliminated from the main competition as a team, the two contestants had to work together to create their dish.

CJ and Tyler: Hay Ice Cream with Cherry Fritter, Cherries & Arugula
Kuniko: Frozen Bananas with Fruit Compote & Lemon Curd

WINNERS: CJ and Tyler
SAVED: Jeffrey

3
"Eliza vs. CJ vs. Tyler"
December 12, 2012 (2012-12-12)

Challenge: The chefs had to create a well-composed dish highlighting pickles and carrots.

CJ: Pan-Roasted Rainbow Trout, Carrot Purée & Charred Pickles
Eliza: Brown Butter Carrot Mash, Crusted Scallops, Corn & Pickle Succotash
Tyler: Deconstructed Ceviche with Pickles & Carrots

WINNER: CJ
SAVED: Kuniko

4
"Danyele vs. CJ"
December 19, 2012 (2012-12-19)

Challenge: The chefs were required to make a sandwich using lunch meat.

CJ: Vietnamese-Inspired Ham & Butter Sandwich with Apple & Radicchio
Danyele Oven-Roasted Turkey, Bacon & Avocado Sandwich with Pickled Onions

WINNER: CJ
SAVED: Kuniko

5
"Bart vs. CJ"
December 26, 2012 (2012-12-26)

Challenge: The chefs had to use chicken breast to create a flavorful dish.

Bart: Roasted Chicken with Carrots, Greek Yogurt, Tea-Infused Sauce & Speculoos Cookies
CJ: Marinated Chicken Breast with Mushroom Reduction, Greek Yogurt & Roasted Lettuces

WINNER: CJ
SAVED: Kuniko

6
"John vs. CJ"
January 2, 2013 (2013-01-02)

Challenge: The chefs were allowed to cook any dish, but were required to use pots and pans bought from a yard sale.

CJ: Seared Diver Scallop, Foie Gras Dashi with Mango & Caviar
John: Corn Velouté & Succotash with Roasted Lobster & Seared Foie Gras

WINNER: CJ
SAVED: Kuniko

7
"Micah vs. CJ"
January 9, 2013 (2013-01-09)

Challenge: The chefs had to prepare their best tartare.

CJ: Beef Heart Tartare with Chili, Pickled Duck Skin & Tomato Water
Micah: Bison Carpaccio & Duck Tartare with Quail Egg Yolk, Pickled Carrots, Chilis & Arugula

WINNER: CJ
SAVED: Kuniko

8
"Kristen vs. CJ"
January 16, 2013 (2013-01-16)

Challenge: The chefs got to choose an ingredient, a cuisine, and a cooking technique that they had to incorporate into their dishes, as well as a time limit. They decided that they had to prepare a French-inspired snapper dish with a smoked element in 30 minutes.

CJ: Brown Butter Snapper with Creamed Morel, Smoked Mashed Potatoes & Ratatouille
Kristen: Bouillabaisse of Snapper, Crème Fraîche, Smoked Butter, Fennel & Radish

WINNER: Kristen
SAVED: Kuniko

9
"Josie vs. Kristen"
January 23, 2013 (2013-01-23)

Challenge: The chefs had to break down a salmon, portion 10 identical pieces, and create well-composed dishes for Tom and the eliminated contestants.

Josie: Fennel Pollen Dusted Salmon with Fennel, Radish & Tarragon Salad
Kristen: Crispy Salmon with Pickled Pineapple, Raisins, Shaved Cauliflower & Crème Fraîche

WINNER: Kristen
SAVED: CJ

10
"Stefan vs. Kristen"
January 30, 2013 (2013-01-30)

Challenge: The chefs cooked dishes using offal.

Kristen: Chicken Livers with Garlic and Mustard Caramel, Pickled Fruit & Herb Salad
Stefan: Beuscherl of Innards with Cream Sauce, Bread Galette, Liver & Parsley Salad

WINNER: Kristen
SAVED: CJ

11
"Lizzie vs. Kristen"
February 6, 2013 (2013-02-06)

Challenge: The chefs made a dish over a campfire using Alaskan fish.

Kristen: Cod with Coconut Broth, Clam Juice, Lime, Chili-Marinated Tomato, Corn & Petite Herbs
Lizzie: Poached Salmon Stew with Fennel, Leek, Hungarian Paprika & Sweet Pepper Flakes

WINNER: Kristen
SAVED: Lizzie

12
"Josh vs. Lizzie vs. Kristen"
February 13, 2013 (2013-02-13)

Challenge: The chefs received the simple challenge of creating a great plate of food.

Josh: Venison with Coriander, Brown Sugar and Black Pepper Cure, Kale & Shaved Carrot
Kristen: Semolina Orecchiette with Brown Butter, Pomegranate, Apple & Fresh Herbs
Lizzie: Black Cod in Black Pepper Vinegar, Savoy Cabbage & Spaetzle

WINNER: Kristen


document_title: List of ecological tourist sites in Ghana

question_text: tourist sites in the greater accra region of ghana

text: Ashanti region[edit]

text:
Adanwomase Kente weaving
Ahwiaa wood carvings
Bobiri Butterfly sanctuary [1]
Ntonso Adinkra Arts and crafts village
Bonwire Kente Weaving
Lake Bosumtwi
Kumasi Zoo
Pankrono pottery

tag: ul

text: Brong Ahafo region[edit]

text:
Asumura
Boaben-Fiema monkey sanctuary [2]
Buoyem[3]
Tanoboase

text: Central Region[edit]

text: Kakum National Park[4]

text: Eastern region[edit]

text:
Adjeikrom[5]
Afram Plains
Akim Abompe
Boti Waterfall
Bunso Aboretum
Kutunse earth satellite

text: Greater Accra region[edit]

text:
Shai Hills
Achimota Forest Reserve

text: Northern region[edit]

text:
Daboya
Mole National Park
Larabanga Mosque

text: Upper East region[edit]

text:
Paga
Sirigu
Tengzug

text: Upper West region[edit]

text:
Gwollu
Wechiau

text: Volta region[edit]

text:
Amedzofe
Kpetoe
Liati Wote
Kyabobo National Park
Tiafi-Atome
Wli Waterfalls
Avu-Lagoon

text: Western region[edit]

text:
Ankasa National Park[6]
Nzulezu[7] A village on stilts
Wassa Domama[8] rock shrine


document_title: Sheri Sangji case

question_text: in 2008 a graduate student died in laboratory while working with tbuli

text: Sheri Sangji case

text: The Sheri Sangji case is the first criminal case resulting from an academic laboratory accident.[1][2][3]

text: The case arose from a fatal accident that occurred in the chemistry laboratory of Patrick Harran at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Research assistant Sheharbano "Sheri" Sangji[4] suffered severe burns from a fire that occurred on December 29, 2008 when a plastic syringe she was using to transfer the pyrophoric reagent tert-butyllithium from one sealed container to another came apart, spilling the chemical, and igniting a fire. Sangji was not wearing a protective lab coat and her clothing caught fire, resulting in severe burns that led to her death 18 days later.[5][6]

text: An investigation was conducted by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), which protects the public and workers from safety hazards and enforces the U.S. State of California's occupational and public safety laws.[7]

text: In 2009, Cal/OSHA fined UCLA $31,875 for violations relating to the fire and in 2011, the Los Angeles District Attorney filed felony charges against the Regents of the University of California and Patrick Harran for “willful violation of safety regulations”. Harran and UCLA contended that her death was a tragic accident, not a crime.

text: In 2012, UCLA and the district attorney reached a settlement terminating prosecution against the Regents of the University of California. Harran and the district attorney later reached an agreement in which Harran agreed to make a donation to a local burn center and do community service. The charges will be dropped if Harran fulfils the conditions of the agreement.[8]

text: Sangji's death and Harran's legal proceedings have led to a significant increase in the safety standards of research laboratories in academic settings.[9]

text: Sangji's family was unhappy with the terms of the settlement with Harran. Sangji's sister, Naveen, has called the sanctions against Harran and UCLA "barely a slap on the wrist."[10][11] The Sangji's family remarked, "[t]his settlement, like the previous one with UCLA, is barely a slap on the wrist for the responsible individual."[12] She noted that previous safety violations in his lab were not corrected before her sister's death and that UCLA had ignored the "wake-up calls" of earlier accidents in other labs. She decried the nearly $4.5 million in legal fees — enough to buy 86,000 lab coats. "Had UCLA spent even a tiny fraction of this money and effort on laboratory and chemical safety training and fire resistant gear … Sheri might still be with us today," Naveen said.[10][11]