By Keith Devlin @profkeithdevlin

The August/September issue of the MAA magazine FOCUS has a wonderful article by Jonathan Weisbrod about a Superbowl-week beer commercial starring renowned mathematics professor Ken Ono of the University of Virginia. (The URL given in FOCUS to access the commercial is no longer valid, but the link I just gave works as of this moment of writing.)

Given the financial stakes involved in a Superbowl-week commercial, I’ll assume that I am correct in thinking it’s a great commercial for beer, but marketing is not my domain. Mathematics, on the other hand, is my schtick, mathematics outreach in particular; and in my view it’s a superb commercial for mathematics. Just listen to what Professor Ono says about the role of mathematics in modern society; and remember he is speaking to a large television audience throughout the week leading up to the Superbowl. How often do mathematicians get to address that kind of audience?

Ono himself explains why he agreed to do the ad, in the FOCUS article interview with him. His rationale is almost* identical with the one I had in agreeing to do a sixty-second radio commercial for a brand of whisky with The Daily Show star Rob Corddry back in 2004.

[* I needed the modifier “almost” in that statement because I am a mathematician writing here for a mathematically literate audience; for a mass audience, I’d say our rationales are “identical” - period. Different audiences require different approaches - that’s very pertinent to this essay.]

In both our cases what makes the commercial work is the unexpected appearance of a known professional (in mathematics of all subjects) in the advertising world (for alcoholic beverages of all products).

I knew when I agreed to do my commercial that there would be mathematicians who disapproved strongly of my “endorsing” alcoholic beverages.

ASIDE: I suspect a commercial for coffee would get greater acceptance, given its purported role in advancing the discipline, but there are also mathematicians who think we should stay well clear of the commercial world altogether. [Though exceptions are made when it comes to publishing books and cashing the annual royalty check, as too with accepting honoraria for giving guest lectures, and charging fees for consulting when industry or government comes calling. And of course the colleges and universities that employ us are all commercial enterprises of one form or another.]

In the end I reasoned as did Ono: I would do it as long as neither mathematics nor I was being made fun of. We recognized we were brought in precisely because we are “the real thing”, with the esteemed nature and societal importance of mathematics being the key factors that made the ad work. Plus, we got a chance to say (however briefly) something that conveys the nature and relevance of math. That made it worthwhile accepting the gig.

In the end, Ono was able to show and say more on screen in a big budget TV-commercial than I did in a radio short, though neither of us knew at the time what would be used in the final cut. Radio and TV are like that. You can make sure that you and the field will be treated with respect, though that really starts out as a given if the advertisers want to feature a real expert. But you can expect that you will be part of an entertainment segment; one way or another they will have fun with you and mathematics (but not at you and mathematics). That’s the point. If they diminish you or the discipline, their “joke” is dead.

In fact, my experience in recording the commercial was very similar to Ono’s, except that I did mine in my office over the phone, not in a film studio in another state. Ono describes his recording experience in the FOCUS article. For me, they essentially subjected me to a “late-night-chat-show” like interview lasting about two hours (with frequent breaks) that ranged all over the place. I had no idea which bits they would select for the final ad. I don’t think they did either as we recorded. It was all a big fishing expedition, based, I suspect, on them having listened to some of my NPR Math Guy segments. I am sure they started with a much more definite plan with Ono, given the nature and cost of video production; and indeed Ono observes that he was very much putty in their hands.

At least for me (and clearly Ono, and a number of other mathematicians I could name, including some very famous ones), at the end of the day, agreeing to “play the mass media game” comes down to a belief that it is bad for the subject if we, and more significantly the rest of society, view mathematics as an esoteric Walled Garden, somehow separate from the everyday world.

Part of the story we tell to our students is that mathematics is important in the world. As mathematicians, we have to be fully a part of that world; not just when we are off duty, but as practicing math professionals. And given the high degree to which modern society depends on mathematics, we can afford to occasionally allow ourselves and our discipline to be used in a joke to sell stuff. [And we should not shy away from split infinitives if that makes for more colloquial language in a magazine article.]

Yes, alcoholic beverages are a tricky case, and not all will agree on doing that. (I would not under any circumstances do a commercial to sell guns. I too have my limits.) You just have to take each case on its merits. But if you find yourself in a similar situation to Ono and me, I would encourage you to take the opportunity to get the message about math out to a large audience you would not otherwise be able to reach. Beneficial oceans can result from small drops like this.

Anyway, I want to thank Professor Ono for so brilliantly promoting mathematics to a large TV audience. It helps our field enormously to show people that mathematicians, even the most distinguished, are regular folks, just like their audience. Living in a Walled Garden, or being perceived that way, is simply not good for us ­– or for the society whose lives depends upon, and are heavily governed by, mathematics.