So, yesterday, while tracking the issue of U of A’s problems with John Boozman’s commercial, I wrote:
My question, though, is whether Boozman actually addressed U of A’s concerns. As noted above, U of A explained that they “don’t generally like to have the university used in a way that seems to be, even tacitly, endorsing … a person.” They then added that there were “issues with the logo.” Obviously, Boozman addressed the issues with the logo, but — and maybe it’s just me — references to “Razorback Stadium,” “Coach Frank Broyles,” and still photos of actual Arkansas Razorback game footage would seem to still, at least tacitly, suggest ties between U of A and Boozman’s campaign. In short, I don’t know that pulling the logo actually removes the larger underlying issue.
I have contacted the University to try and answer that question. However, upon further review, it would certainly seem that the logo issue has yet to be fully resolved. Say what? Say this:
Small? Sure. But, then, it was Boozman’s people who claimed that the removal of all of the Razorback logos satisfied the concerns of the U of A. Thus, by definition, if one wasn’t removed, then even under Boozman’s interpretation, they have not fully addressed the University’s concerns, right?