Man Crunch...

[Larry Gude]

...CBS is, I think, considering running this commercial;



This is just ####ed up.

Homophobes will be cancelling Super bowl parties in droves...or at least eliminating chip bowls.

 

[SEABREEZE 1957]

CBS didn't pick it up & now ManCrunch.com is calling discrimination. Sheesh....You know if this were a 'straight person' dating site ad, it would be just as dumb.

 

[Tilted]

I'd guess that ManCrunch.com doesn't really care about getting the ad aired during the Super Bowl - in fact, they may prefer to not have to exhaust the working capital that it would cost to air it. It would seem that submitting it, and the attention that it is drawing, will serve the purpose of introducing them to the marketplace.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'd guess that ManCrunch.com doesn't really care about getting the ad aired during the Super Bowl - in fact, they may prefer to not have to exhaust the working capital that it would cost to air it. It would seem that submitting it, and the attention that it is drawing, will serve the purpose of introducing them to the marketplace.

Do it on the cheap

But it's still a dumb commercial.

 

[FromTexas]

Do it on the cheap

But it's still a dumb commercial.

It was dumb, but I think its retarded to not let them air it if they have the funds to pay for it. We have seen many stupid superbowl commercials over the years.

 

[vraiblonde]

It was dumb, but I think its retarded to not let them air it if they have the funds to pay for it. We have seen many stupid superbowl commercials over the years.

Nah, Tilted's right - they don't really want to spend the x-million$ for a spot in the SuperBowl. They just wanted the free publicity. Pretty smart!

 

[FromTexas]

Nah, Tilted's right - they don't really want to spend the x-million$ for a spot in the SuperBowl. They just wanted the free publicity. Pretty smart!

I believe that. However, if the network didn't reject the ad, it wouldn't have worked.

 

[Larry Gude]

I believe that. However, if the network didn't reject the ad, it wouldn't have worked.

You've got to be kidding. It would have been a nuclear bomb going off if that commercial airs during super bowl. Wardrobe malfunction? Big deal. Controversial artists? Boring.

Think of how many people have NOT seen it as of yet. They got some free pop, sure, and that may have been all they wanted but, that ad would have generated a firestorm. This isn't late night comedy tv. This is the super bowl.



KABOOM.

 

[nachomama]

I just threw up in my mouth.

 

[aps45819]

That was less disgusting than LaToilet Jackson's boob

 

[Black-Francis]

In other Super Bowl news there is a sexual predator advisory concerning Pete...

 

[Tilted]

Do it on the cheap

But it's still a dumb commercial.

I agree - that's a big part of why I don't think they really cared about getting it aired (during the Super Bowl). There's little chance that's the ad they are going with if they are gonna spend the money necessary to air it. It would have shock value and introduce them to the world - but I'm sure they could come up with a way to do that AND leave a favorable impression of themselves with the target market.

 

[hvp05]

It was dumb, but I think its retarded to not let them air it if they have the funds to pay for it. We have seen many stupid superbowl commercials over the years.

As has been mentioned, the NFL knows its market. The League can afford to be selective because so many companies are vying for limited spots. Innovation is good; uniqueness is good; even shock value can be good; being repulsive is not good.

The First Amendment gives us the right to speak, but not the right to make others listen.

 

[Tilted]

Video - CNBC.com

A brief discussion of Super Bowl ad issues, including a suggestion that there was concern over whether or not ManCrunch would have been able to pay, had its ad been accepted. It adds to the argument that they were just trying to get some cheap pub.