The NFL Super Bowl Commercial: Has Dedication to Player Safety Really “Evolved”?

In between a fantastic Super Bowl game, gallons of salsa, Madonna’s half-time show, and many disappointing sexist commercials, I patiently waited for the last third quarter commercial break. Almost a week before, the New York Times ran a story about a Super Bowl commercial which would address player safety. The NFL was taking one minute of its own commercial time (valued in the millions) to talk about its commitment to the safety of its players...a commitment which has been questioned over the years.

The one minute spot opens in Canton, OH in 1906 and follows one long kick return 100 yards (and 100+ years). The design of the commercial is well done as it follows famous players through the years. As the years progress (as documented on yardage lines), the viewers see and hear a discussion of key safety innovations. For example, we see no helmets turn into leather helmets turn into plastic helmets. We also see the addition of the facemask and the elimination of dangerous hits on players (e.g., horse collar tackles). The voiceover (telling viewers, “Here’s to making the next century safer and more exciting than ever. Forever forward. Forever football”) is provided by a veteran linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens- Ray Lewis.

In any occupational setting, there is concern that creating a culture of safety can be difficult, especially when veterans want things to stay “how they’ve always been”. Lewis has 16 NFL seasons under his belt and a reputation for playing with intensity. In many cases, he would be the hardest kind of player to get on board. Therefore, it is ideal for the Evolution campaign to have recruited someone like Lewis as a champion for its mission!

I also thought that the choice of words “safer and more exciting” were important. One concern about the increase in equipment and restrictions on hits is that it destroys the essence and entertainment of football. That essence being big men hitting each other, playing through pain, and ultimately being declared “stronger” and “winner”. So for Ray Lewis to promise that game excitement will actually increase (along with safety) is quite important for a possibly skeptical audience.

In addition to the commercial, an accompanying website was launched to provide detailed information about the history of the game and various rule changes. The website provides a very cool interactive timeline which outlines each decade. For example, the 1960’s bring “the world’s first Super Bowl”. It also brings fibershell and plastic pads, universally worn facemasks and the banning of grasping a runner’s facemask (1962).

From a public health perspective, I’m impressed with the quality and persuasiveness of both the commercial and website. A successful campaign was really necessary for the NFL, considering that it has been criticized in the past for its lack of commitment to player safety. Most notably, there has been much concern about the NFL’s protocols for dealing with player concussions (and the short and long-term consequences of those injuries). In recent years, we have seen a variety of public health strategies to address concussions.

They have developed and/or expanded safety committees to compile and analyze head injury data. We have seen numerous policy changes regarding both on the field play and the treatment of injuries. For example, in 2009 the NFL adopted a stricter statement on return-to-play for a player who sustains a concussion. The 2009 statement advises that a player who suffers a concussion should not return to play or practice on the same day if he shows any signs or symptoms of a concussion that are outlined in the return-to-play statement. In addition, the NFL has increased its use of financial penalties for helmet to helmet hits which are especially dangerous.

We have also seen educational materials for coaches and players regarding concussions. In fact, Pop Health critiqued the materials released in summer 2010 (“Concussion: A Must Read for NFL Players”).

While there is still criticism of the NFL’s commitment to player safety and there is always room for improvement, I think the “Evolution” campaign is effective. Reflecting over 100 years of football through the commercial and website, it is clear to the audience that they have come a long way. They have used various public health strategies to reduce injuries (i.e., equipment innovation, policy change, education campaigns, and probably the hardest strategy- culture change). In Ray Lewis, they have effectively retained a respected veteran to champion the cause. Finally, they have reassured the fans that the game will remain (and even increase) in excitement despite additional safety measures.

What do you think? Was the commercial just a PR opportunity for the NFL to defend themselves against recent criticism and lawsuits regarding player concussions? Or did you find it to be an effective reflection of successful safety innovation coupled with a sincere commitment to player safety moving forward?

Let's Talk Safety Climate and the Airlines: "Welcome Aboard"

I spent the past few weeks out on vacation in the beautiful Pacific Northwest (which explains my brief absence from Pop Health). While the trip was wonderful, it is quite nice to be back on the blog. And in fact, my trip provided me with the inspiration for this post. On my return flight home, I encountered an array of travel nightmares (delays, mechanical problems, cancelled flights, lost luggage). While many people may just consider these as an inconvenience, they also got me thinking about my safety. As we sat at the gate and waited for test after test, my husband assured me that they wouldn't put us on the plane if it wasn't safe. However, I wondered aloud if that was true. With the pressure for the airlines to have better on-time statistics and less angry customers, can we be put on a plane that is unsafe? My experience with USAirways, the similar experiences that I read about on Twitter, and the information I found regarding their dysfunctional relationship with their Pilots Association got me interested in the safety climate of the airline industry.

Everyday we encounter airline advertising that hopes to recruit our business by highlighting a company's high standards for safety, comfort, reasonable prices, and customer service. The ads also try to capitalize on things that we value, for example- freedom. Some memorable slogans include, "You are now free to move about the country" (Southwest); "We love to fly and it shows" (Delta); "Come fly the friendly skies" (United). While these slogans are catchy and convincing, they represent the "espoused values" of the airlines. Espoused values are values and norms stated by the organization. They can often be found in companies' strategic plans, goals, and/or taglines. For example, USAirways has an initiative called "Customers First" which strives to address key service elements that affect their customers.

In addition to espoused values, we also find "enacted values"; these are the norms that are actually exhibited by employees. These values may or may not be in line with the espoused values. That is why even though "Customers First" can be an espoused value, you can still end up bumped off a flight and sleeping in the airport because the rude gate agent told you there was no flight availability. In order to hear about other customers experiences with enacted values, I turned to Twitter and was amazed by what I saw. There were hundreds of comments to or about @usairways that were identical to mine- lots of mechanical failures ending in flight cancellations and luggage that was lost for days. I understand Twitter may be skewed towards the negative because people are less likely to tweet about the on-time departures...however, if you look at another airline (e.g., @southwestair) you see almost nothing about mechanical problems.

A less biased way to learn about employees' values and their level of congruence with the organization executives, is to hear from them directly. Just a few weeks ago, the US Airline Pilot Association- USAPA (the union that represents USAirways pilots), posted on their website to alert customers to the pressure they are receiving from USAirways executives to fly under unsafe conditions. On June 16, 2011, a pilot with 30-years of experience was escorted from the airport after she refused to fly a plane overseas after it failed multiple safety checks. A second group of pilots refused to fly the plane as well. This is not the first time that USAPA has spoken out against the executives. In 2008, they posted a customer alert in USA Today because they were being pressured to fly with less fuel in order to save money.

The examination and measurement of espoused/enacted values and their connection to safety outcomes (e.g., occupational injuries) is the exciting field of safety climate research. The term "safety climate" was coined in 1980 by Dr. Dov Zohar and has been prevalent in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology literature before making its way into the public health literature. For those interested, the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention recently dedicated an issue to safety climate and occupational health.

Safety climate research has been used to assess the climate of a variety of industries (e.g., healthcare). I propose that it is essential for examining the values within individual airlines and their connection to safety outcomes (e.g., worker injuries, passenger injuries, mechanical failures, near-misses, etc). The discrepancy discussed above between employee and company values can become a very dangerous combination.