CBS has rejected a Super Bowl ad submitted by ManCrunch.com, a gay dating site that shows two male football fans making out. The network said that the commercial violated its standards and sources suggested it was just a ploy to get publicity. ManCrunch has called the move discriminatory and pointed to controversial commercials that have run in the past.
The network sent the company a fairly vague letter, telling them ““CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network’s Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” It is not clear what “the creative” references but one can guess.
The network also said that its sales department had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad.
Site spokesperson Elissa Buchter said that they spent more than $100,000 on the ad and has raised $40 million from investors.
PETA previously garnered considerable attention with an ad that was rejected for the Superbowl, here. I agreed with that decision considering the audience. Families want to watch the Superbowl without having to explain sexual content — whether heterosexual or homosexual.
This type of ad is likely to be more harmful and helpful to the gay rights movement, which is already losing ground in state referendums. Indeed, some gay sites are questioning the motives or bona fides of the company.
The ad above is called “Playing for the Same Team” and depicts two male football fans making out. I have to say that the commercial seems pretty low grade for the Superbowl. What do you think? Was this just a publicity stunt or a serious effort at an ad placement?
I strongly disagree with JT’s position. The station is acting as a morality censor, arbitrarily deciding what is appropriate for “families” and what is not. As mespo points out, this reveals certain values of the station, and more broadly, society at large. CBS’ motive, of course, is profit. They don’t want anything that clashes with the values of the audience and makes them turn off the TV (as implausible as that may seem for the Super Bowl) — the tried and true beer and boobage CBS has deemed appropriately uncontroversial.
What happens when CBS decides that your lifestyle is too controversial, JT? Would you back the same decision if CBS deemed an ad for your law firm not appropriate for “families” because you appear frequently on “that god damned liberal station” or “speak up for them turrists”?
The other guy seems to saying to himself,should I stay or should I go?
“I agreed with that decision considering the audience. Families want to watch the Superbowl without having to explain sexual content — whether heterosexual or homosexual.”
***********
Now those beer and vodka commercials are ok along with that fantasy walk down memory lane with the Tebow cult … that’s cool too. No sex in any of that. Bottom line is that if CBS gets into the business of persuading folks to do more than buy soap, they’d best be aware of the consequences of perceived unfairness. It means less viewers, more pressure on their advertisers, and hassles galore. No one can tell me that there weren’t plenty of less controversial product vendors lined up to hawk their wares on this football feastday.
People with a Constitutional fetish?
“Oh, Preamble! Do that voodoo that you do so well! And don’t neglect my Bill of Rights! Pay attention to that Separation of Powers doctrine too, you wild thing you!”
So EmpireCookie,
You do know that the link is going to get this site hooked up with some of the kinky sites now. Maybe the professor can start an “Alternative” web site.
Off Topic,
Report: Muslim cleric was shot 21 times in Dearborn raid
An autopsy report shows that a Muslim cleric who died in an October shoot-out with federal agents was shot 21 times, then handcuffed, according to a person familiar with the case.
The handcuffing apparently occurred after the shooting and was in line with procedure, the person said.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100130/NEWS02/100130008/1319/Report-Muslim-cleric-shot-21-times-in-FBI-raid
I guess that they didn’t want his hands free when the 70 Virgins came a calling.
EmpireCookie,
I am sure Swartsmore Mom may have meant something about the position of the missionary’s.
Thanks, I did need the chuckle.
Not too spiritual for a Sunday morning Ecookie.
Ecookie,
We still like you. That was very, very informative and yet early on a Sunday morning….WOW. Not a Women on Women Dating site. Ordinary usage and meaning…
And I’m glad I did. Because as we can see from Phoebe post the gay community is getting punk’d by someone who may not have their best interest at heart.
Thats ok I read the article too but kept getting distracted.
OOPS Sorry! I did not notice that. I just read the article.
Empirecookie it would have been nice if you copied and pasted instead of sending us to a website where men are getting copied and pasted.
For the men here who don’t want to see another mans face being impaled by a jousting rod, don’t go to the link by empirecookie unless you want to get jiggy with it.
Apparently, Mancrunch isn’t a gay owned business or a gay dating site at all http://www.gaydailyhot.com/2010/01/before-you-get-too-upset-about-the-rejected-gay-dating-site-ad.html
Anonymously yours
“Or accept reality that some playing Pro Ball are really gay.”
xxoo
“suggested it was just a ploy to get publicity.”
Isn’t that the definition of advertising?
JT
“Was this just a publicity stunt or a serious effort at an ad placement?”
From what I have read from the gay community, this was in direct response to the Focus on the Family Tebow ad.
“Families want to watch the Superbowl without have to explain sexual content — whether heterosexual or homosexual.”
The ad itself may have been a bit over the top, but I think it is necessary to break the spell on this idea that homosexual partnership is an awkward topic. It’s not. We need to get used to the fact that it’s a normal part of society and it creates happy loving families. I would not blink an eye if this ad was played alongside one for Ax Body Spray or some such.
RC what an embarrassment to the DOJ and this administration. How many times did they tease us with prosecuting torture. Every time they did the presidents poll numbers went up slightly and there was Hope from many that it would move forward. Now we see there is no Change.
Site spokesperson Elissa Buchter said that they spent more than $100,000 on the ad and has raised $40 million from investors.
The network also said that its sales department had difficulty verifying the credit of the site to guarantee payment of the estimated $2.5 million cost to air the ad.
I was gonna say something smells fishy but it’s two guys in the video. So I think it’s do do.
Oh my, It seems that they should have verified the payment and then dismissed it for that. Or have stated that they had the ad line up all taken care of or run the thing and have some really pissed off people. Or accept reality that some playing Pro Ball are really gay.
But on both sides some are not gonna be happy.
Sorry to be so off topic, but this’ll get your blood boiling on a Sunday morning. I just saw this at Huffington Post (first two paragraphs):
Justice Official Clears Bush Lawyers in Torture Memo Probe
Newsweek
By Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman
For weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going to be upset: an upcoming Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional-misconduct allegations.
While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.