“The Super Bowl is not only the championship of the two best American football teams, it’s also a showcase for ad agencies,” said Colin Rogero, a partner at 76 Words, a Democratic ad consultancy. “And so if you consider that the context, [Bloomberg and Trump are] going to be in between some of the greatest, most creative work done all year for ad campaigns.”

And that’s where Rogero and other political ad-makers say both Bloomberg and Trump will fall flat. Against those commercials, they don’t think Bloomberg’s or Trump’s spots are likely to draw much attention.

“The goal on the Super Bowl, whether you’re a beer company or an automobile manufacturer or a politician, is to have everybody talking about your ad the next day,” said Fred Davis, a Republican ad-maker and founder of Strategic Perception, a California ad firm. “This isn’t going to be the Bloomberg ad and that isn’t going to be the Trump ad we saw.”

Davis, who has produced political Super Bowl ads in regional markets, said the spots don't tells viewers anything new or unexpected about the candidates. To get people to put down their beers and chicken wings, the candidates would have needed to do something surprising or entertaining. For Trump, that could’ve been a commercial showing his humility, Davis said. Bloomberg, who has long been known as a leading gun control advocate, could’ve highlighted a part of his life the public doesn’t already know about, he added. Trump might shock Super Bowl viewers with his second ad, but the public won’t know until it airs during the game.

Trump’s first 30-second ad highlights the country’s economic growth under his presidency while cutting between clips of his rallies, military ships and planes and industrial workers. “And ladies and gentleman, the best is yet to come,” Trump says, closing out the ad as his supporters applaud.

If Trump’s “Stronger, Safer, More Prosperous” spot is a 30-second shot of “Everything is great” spin, Bloomberg’s one-minute ad is a far more somber reminder that the country has some big problems to confront. Bloomberg, a former New York mayor who has made gun control a signature issue, barely speaks in the ad. Instead, it’s narrated by Calandrian Simpson Kemp, a Texas woman whose son, George H. Kemp, was shot to death in 2013. As the camera pans through photos of a young George in football gear, Kemp says: “When I heard Mike was stepping into the ring, I thought, ‘Now we have a dog in the fight.’”

“It’s a serious ad,” Bloomberg told Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show. “It’s not about selling corn chips and beer.”

Ad-makers don’t think the commercials will sway any voters. But while most people have made up their minds about Trump, who’s a household name, experts say Bloomberg’s ad purchase will give him a little more bang for his buck because he can get his name in front of people who haven’t yet heard of him.

“A huge proportion of Americans don’t even know who Michael Bloomberg is,” said John Geer, dean of Vanderbilt University’s College of Arts and Sciences and a political science professor who has written about presidential ad campaigns. “He’s providing some baseline information for lots of Americans and he’s gained a huge audience. So there's actually much more of an upside as far as just giving people that initial impression of Bloomberg than there is with Trump.”

Bloomberg is betting on a barrage of ads to deliver him the Democratic nomination. The billionaire’s self-funded campaign is expected to drop $300 million on TV spots by March, when he is set to be on the ballot for the first time. And his strategy appears to be working. Though he entered the race much later than other candidates, he now polls about even to Pete Buttigieg and ahead of Sen. Amy Klobuchar in national surveys.

Trump has few political points to gain with his Super Bowl ad, experts said. So why did he spend the money?

“It’s all ego,” said Mark Longabaugh, a partner at Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, a Democratic media consulting firm working with Andrew Yang’s campaign. “He's not going to let Mike Bloomberg advertise in the biggest national sporting event of the year with the biggest audience.”

The announcement of Trump’s Super Bowl ad buy came just hours after the New York Times reported Bloomberg’s TV spot in January. “The president’s decision to stay aggressive and keep the campaign open after his first election gave us a huge head start on his reelection,” Brad Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager, said in a statement at the time. “Now 300 days out we are throttling up. The president has built an awesome, high-performance, omnichannel machine and it’s time to give it some gas.”

But is there a risk to elbowing explicitly political messages into the middle of the NFL’s holiest of days? After all, football fans threatened boycotts in 2017 when players began dropping to their knees during the national anthem to protest police brutality. Trump inflamed the conflict when he excoriated players, owners and the league for allowing the protests to continue. The league moved to fine teams whose players protest during the national anthem, sparking movements to boycott the sport altogether.

Though some might scoff at the TV when Trump or Bloomberg appears on the screen, experts and strategists said the campaigns probably don’t need to worry about their ads inflaming tensions on or off the field because the spots are so quick and noncontroversial.

“People are very well aware you need ads and commercials to keep players on the field,” said Alice Stewart, a Republican consultant who has worked as communications director on multiple presidential campaigns. “They understand that.”

Politicians have long run ads during the game, but only locally where the rates are more in line with their campaign budgets.

The sheer cost of national airtime during the Super Bowl has kept political candidates from buying national ads in the past, said Erika Franklin Fowler, an associate professor of government at Wesleyan University and director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political ad spending.

One $10 million Super Bowl ad is more than Bernie Sanders’ campaign has spent on TV spots since he announced his candidacy last February (Sanders is third only to Bloomberg and Tom Steyer in ad spending this cycle), according to Wesleyan data.

For campaigns that have cash to burn—like Bloomberg’s and Trump’s—the Super Bowl is a clear opportunity for a candidate to reach a large swath of the country at once, communications experts said. And that, more than contributing to the national water cooler chatter, may be the ultimate goal for the two men.

“I think anytime you can get your message out there to a large audience, it’s positive,” Stewart said.