🏅 Top traders

JUDGE RULING:

I have learned about an edge case in which companies buy ads exclusively for certain regions rather than the national Super Bowl broadcast. I'm only going to include ads airing on the national broadcast, so for instance, Anthropic's ad last year: which was only five seconds long and only aired in San Francisco, would not be sufficient to trigger the market.

@DannyGibson

Including Uber eats?

@gills I'm going to rule YES unless @DannyGibson had a different intention and speaks up before Uber Eats or Uber are confirmed on way or the other

@gills including Uber Eats. Don't know if there's some different rules re subsidiaries and parent companies.

If we're counting a Beats Commercial as an YES for Apple, I'd submit an UberEats commercial is a YES for Uber.

@LeeBressler Does an ad for an AppleTV+-exclusive show like Severance count? Or it has to be for an Apple product (like an iPhone, Vision Pro, etc)?

@apetresc good q. I think it should - it’s still an apple product, even if the product is media and not a hard good.

@LeeBressler i don't really agree fwiw—there's a substantive difference between an ad for a company (or one of the products it produces) and an ad for a TV show produced (note: very different definition of "producing" there!) slash developed by a company. Compared to many TV shows, Severance is more clearly "owned" by a single company, but to make that universal, I think once you start defining TV shows & movies as being "ads for the company that funded them", you quickly get to somewhat silly results.

e.g. i would find it weird if someone claimed that the trailer for "jurassic world: rebirth" (expected to air during the super bowl) was sufficient to say that "Comcast had a Super Bowl ad", right? (as Comcast owns universal). no one describes that trailer as an advertisement for comcast, one of its products, or even that it's a "comcast with a super bowl ad", in general speech.

@Ziddletwix very fair point and a thoughtful way to look at it. I guess the thing is there is rarely an ad just for a company rather than for a product made by that company. Every once in a while you’ll see one about how some company is really good and honest without mentioning a product. But otherwise it’s hard to distinguish. Is an ad for Bud Light not a commercial for Anheuser Busch?

@LeeBressler to be clear, I do think that "ads for a product made by a company" should count for this market! a good comparison is the Kalshi market, where e.g. here's their clarification for Budweiser:

(1) The market called "Budweiser" refers to any advertisement regarding a product of the "Budweiser Family" as defined in Anheuser-Busch 10K filings. This includes but is not limited to Budweiser, Budweiser Select, Bud Light, and Bud Ice. An advertisement for "Cutwater" or "Nutrl" would not satisfy the payout criterion.

There's basically no such thing as an ad for Budweiser itself, and naturally ads for Bud Light count (but note even here that kalshi already excludes ads for other beverage products owned by the same company).

You can call "Severance" a "product created by Apple" in a very abstract sense, and it's not entirely wrong, but I don't think it captures the spirit of the question here, and I don't think people generally view it as an Apple product. It is a TV show whose production they fund, and they distribute it on their platform, but that is not equivalent to being an "Apple product".

That's why I compared it to "Jurassic World: Rebirth"—I do not think people would call it a "Comcast product", even if that same parent company funded its production and will distribute the film. Movies/TV shows are meaningfully separate entities, and are not products sold by the companies that contributed to their funding. (Note: there routinely are ads for streaming services, e.g. Disney+ a few years ago, and those are clearly products sold by the company, but that's a very different case).

FWIW, here is how Kalshi words its Apple clarification:

For Apple, if any product sold by Apple Inc. is advertised during the game, the market resolves to Yes. That includes, for example, Beats headphones.

I am fairly confident that they would not call "Severance" a "product sold by Apple", and thus this would not resolve their market YES, but they don't make it 100% explicit. But I agree "product sold by X" company should count, & yet I disagree because I think it is far too broad a definition to call "Severance" a "product sold by Apple".

(ultimately this will be decided by the creator i'm just opining. is there any reason to think severance will advertise during the super bowl? that would surprise me quite a bit)

@apetresc JUDGE RULING:

I agree with Ziddletwix here, a TV show created by apple for Apple TV is far enough removed from the "Apple" brand that I think it would confuse and annoy people if it triggered the market.

Woah, Perplexity references Manifold in search responses 👀

👀

@LeeBressler would this have to be an actual ad or would them plastering the halftime show with Apple Music and the announcers saying “the Apple Music halftime show” and stuff like that count?

@probajoelistic I would defer to how each of these is settled but my instinct would be that it has to be a traditional advertisement / commercial

@probajoelistic I agree with Lee's thinking here: it has to be a formal commercial which airs

Perplexity is spending its way to relevance. And added a widget to track a game. So, I'd say very likely.