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?
Elaine.M:
I am going to try and take a swing at that question,that may be for when the ad says if this situation continues for over (4) hours to call your doctor?
The second tub may be filled with ice water until the doctor arrives.:-))
Elaine M.,
I haven’t paid enough attention to them to say that I have noticed the one with two bathtubs. I’m just happy to not have a little one asking questions about the ads.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGI8BqGfHcU&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
I wish TV networks would ban those ubiquitous ads for drugs that help men with erectile dysfunction–especially the Cialis ads. Can anybody explain the two bathtubs in those commericials? Is there some symbolism I’m missing?
Former Federal LEO,
I should say, I think I got what “pardon me” meant. I interpreted it as meaning the 69% of men were in favor of airing the ad.
Former Federal LEO,
I knew what “pardon me” meant. Unfortunately, you didn’t get the humor associated with the FOX News math.
me = men
Pardon Me?
That was cleaver. Very…. ass opposed to 99 per cent of the me or 66 per cent of the women or is it the other way around? Lets get a definitive answer from ECookie….
Duh!
Those “69” men (per pardon me’s pun) could actually total in the millions–unfortunately.
“In a recent poll, 69 men were in favor of airing the ads.”
Well, if history will reliably repeat itself, that would mena the FOX News will soon be reporting that 76% are still against it. :>)
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/
Mike Kilpatrick:
Do you know Michael Fitzpatrick or Patrick Fitzmichael? Or maybe Peter Fitznizentite?
In a recent poll, 69 men were in favor of airing the ads.
“just a ploy to get publicity”…uh…aren’t all TV ads a ploy to get publicity?
eniobob,
Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad May Be Based On Falsehood
Posted: 01-29-10 09:25 PM
Focus On The Family, Gloria Allred Tim Tebow, Nfl, Pam Tebow, Super Bowl, Super Bowl XLIV, Tim Tebow, Tim Tebow Ad, Tim Tebow Commercial, Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad, Tim Tebow Super Bowl Commercial, Sports News
A commercial featuring Tim Tebow and his mother Pam that is likely to air during Super Bowl XLIV may be rife with inaccuracies, according to power lawyer Gloria Allred.
The ad, which is expected to promote an anti-choice message, will be based on the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” The Christian conservative group Focus on the Family has paid for the spot. James Dobson, the group’s founder, has a history of inflammatory statements and once said that gay marriage
will “destroy the earth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-m_n_442808.html
On the other hand, Mancrunch has reaped a ton of absolutely free exposure due to the controversy. It gets to keep its 2.5 Million and get its message out.
Seems like CBS is the biggest loser here.
Duh: that’s actually a pretty funny idea for an ad. I also agree that CBS has the right to be stupid about a pretty harmless ad. It’s more lowkey than most the annual Go Daddy spots (which my id enjoys).
That said, the commercial is definitely offensive to me as it depicts what appears to be a Packer fan and a Vikings fan making out.
That’s disgusting.
Duh (or anyone else),
I am not a lawyer, but is there any law enforcing anti-discriminatory practices for advertising? That is, prohibiting the kinds of things that CBS is doing now?
CBS does broadcast on the public airwaves (that is, the spectrum allocated to them, which is publicly owned) so there is a public interest involved.
I definately had a giggle while watching the ad. It’s a shame that the decision to not run it during Superbowl was made. I believe that it’s important that more positive exposure be given to homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. There remain far too many men and women living their lives as a lie out of fear of not being accepted by society.
I should point out that even though I don’t have a problem with the ad, I must concur with CBS’s right to choose what is aired on their network. The keyword there is “their network”. I think the decision is stupid, and I think it will cause more problems for CBS than anything that would ever come from airing the ad, but I’ve gotta support a right to operate one’s business in the way the owner feels best.
The government can restrict content (a valid intrusion on the First Amendment), but I don’t believe they should be able to force content. I don’t even like the sound of “You shall show this to the people”.
I found the ad above to be funny. I sure didn’t see anything that I found to be potentially offensive to superbowl viewers. To me, the ad represents two straigt guys that got caught up in the moment. You know, like the time you and your buddy are walking back from the concession stand, with your hands full of beer and nachos, and your team intercepts a ball on the 2 yard line and takes it all the way down the field for a touchdown. I know the first instinct is to drop the nachos (a man never drops his beer) and high-five, but damn-it, those nachos are looking really tasty; so you just kiss. :>)
I know. It sounds like I just came up with an idea for another commercial. Bud Light. Are you here? I want recognition. :>)