It could just be for reducing churn and keeping the status quo. It’s a prisoners dilemma, if geico spends a million on advertising then they might gain some customers from say progressive. Progressive would then also also have to advertise to attract customers back so they will spend a million on advertising too, now both are spending a million to keep the status quo. If you take a step back and look at the big picture it’s basically everyday people paying higher premiums that go to the advertising company, celebrity etc.
The car insurance market is pretty static, there’s no opportunity to expand the market outside general population growth since everyone already has a car and has car insurance, so expansion is difficult especially since there arent many differentiating factors, so companies tend to advertise to just keep there current market share. Charity on the other hand has plenty of room for expansion, it can be as much as the disposable income of the country, if you watch an aspca ad and donate your likely to keep donating to the other causes you support, assuming you have the disposable income.
But they’re hosting it in a different petro-atate this year. They might actually agree cutting emissions is a thing that may need to be done , possibly, in the foreseeable or distant future.