Super Bowl Rejects Gay Dating Ad

[The Pecman]

Gay dating site's Super Bowl ad rejected by CBS

ManCrunch says that CBS's decision to nix its ad is 'straight-up discrimination.'

By Aaron Smith,

CNNMoney.com staff writer

January 29, 2010: 4:43 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Super Bowl network CBS rejected an ad Friday from ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site.

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."

CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) said it turned down the ad partly for financial reasons, but ManCrunch believes that there's more to it than that.

"It's straight-up discrimination," said Elissa Buchter, spokeswoman for the Toronto-based dating site.

Jacobs of CBS declined to comment on the charge of discrimination.

Buchter provided a copy of the CBS rejection letter to CNNMoney, which states that the ad "is not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday."

The letter also states that the CBS sales department "has had difficulty verifying [ManCrunch's] credit status."

Buchter said that basing the rejection on credit status doesn't make sense because "we offered to pay cash." But Jacobs said CBS has no record of any such offer.

CBS is charging up to $3 million for 30-second spots. Buchter said ManCrunch would have been charged $2.5 million for its ad and would have had no trouble paying it, since the newly formed company recently raised $40 million from investors.

Shortly before ManCrunch announced the rejection, Jacobs of CBS said her company was reviewing the ad and it was "just one of many."

Jacobs also said the spots were "virtually sold out. We have one, maybe two spots left."

ManCrunch's ad, which can be viewed on its Web site, shows two men watching the Super Bowl. Their hands brush each other in the potato chip bowl, which inspires a passionate, male-on-male make-out session.

ManCrunch is not alone. Godaddy, an online retailer of Web site domain names, is running an ad in the Super Bowl this year but it had another ad rejected by CBS in the process. The rejected ad features a man named Lola.

This year's Super Bowl, between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints, will be played Feb. 7 at Sun Life Stadium near Miami. The facility in Miami Gardens, Fla., formerly called Dolphin Stadium, was recently renamed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/compa..._ad_super_bowl/

[The Pecman]

The ad itself is not that great:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQWFiIrBLA

I suspect they really had no intention of having this appear on network TV, and really did this for the publicity. It's a pretty cheaply-made production, not nearly up to the slick ads you traditionally see during the game.

Having said that: I see absolutely nothing objectionable or racy in the spot, besides two guys kissing each other. It's funny in a limited way, and certainly not raunchy. They've aired far worse stuff on the Super Bowl.

Note (for non-U.S. members) that the U.S. Super Bowl broadcast typically has as many as 50,000,000 viewers and is often the #1 most-watched TV broadcast of the year, with commercials commanding rates of about $3,000,000 per one :30 seconds ad.

[Trab]

I couldn't help but laugh at the signage behind them. "No Entry", "This equipment starts and stops automatically", and of course the red octagon with the arrow. Very suggestive, but funny.

[Cole Parker]

I though it was funny.

C

[JamesSavik]

SUE.

[E.J.]

They don't want to run that ad, but will run one from Focus on the Family.

Story Link

[The Pecman]

Yeah, the Focus on the Family anti-abortion spot did give me pause. But at the same time, the two issues aren't connected.

My take is, if ManCrunch had done a well-produced, non-raunchy commercial -- more along the lines of a straight dating service -- there might not have been an objection. If the emphasis had been on romance and a relationship rather than just sex, it would've been a lot more subtle and still gotten the point across.

Look at it this way: if a heterosexual dating service did an ad where a guy and a girl started going at it on the couch, it would still be in bad taste.

If I didn't know better, I'd say they put out this press release just to get publicity, and never really intended to spend the $3 million on a real ad -- knowing that a lot of people would watch the commercial on the net.

[colinian]

I agree with The Pecman. My opinion is that the ManCrunch ad is juvenile and ridiculous.

Colin

[DesDownunder]

$3 million for a 30 second commercial and they pay cash. I'll run the ad in my video store all day for that kind of money.

The whole thing, the money, the rejection, the ad itself, the idea that money can buy anything, are just abhorrent, to me anyway.

[The Pecman]

$3 million for a 30 second commercial and they pay cash. I'll run the ad in my video store all day for that kind of money.

CBS also rejected a kind of questionable ad from GoDaddy, too, and their spots have gone a little over-the-line lately (hot girl testifying in Congress has her top falls off during her questioning).

Also, at least one gay site says the same thing I do: that it's a very heavy-handed, poorly-done commercial that kind of caters to stereotypes. They make a great point, which is that the punchline is, "wow, imagine that... two macho football fans are actually gay!"

The editorial is at this link. I'm glad somebody else noticed this was a real cheaply-made commercial, and it's kind of low class.

If it were a slick commercial on the level of an EHarmony ad, then CBS could not have rejected it solely on the basis of its content.

[JamesSavik]

I agree with The Pecman. My opinion is that the ManCrunch ad is juvenile and ridiculous.

Colin

Which adds that are airing are NOT juvenile and ridiculous?

The pigeons trying to crap on the Nissan Avalon, the pizza rolls that are more popular than toy robots or the frat boys in their underwear fighting over a keg of budweiser?

If that were the criteria, no ads would air.

[The Pecman]

Which ads that are airing are NOT juvenile and ridiculous?

How about the beautiful Toyota Prius commercial (all shot in Australia) where the car drives down an animated road surrounded by thousands of children, all disguised as green trees and flowers?

How about the commercials that make you think? How about the ones that surprise you and make you laugh? Or the ones that tell you about a technology that will change your life?

I'm not saying that every commercial has to be profound. But this is a heavy-handed, sledgehammer concept that caters to a stereotype, it's not too funny, and it's cheap and poorly produced. The eHarmony commercials -- the same idea, only promoting romance and relationships for straight people -- are a model of restraint, and at least have good production values. (I think the company is bigoted, since they don't allow gay or bisexual members, but that's a different problem.)

The editorial I linked to at Queerty.com covers this extremely well.

[JamesSavik]

Super-bowl ads are a model of

[colinian]

Which adds that are airing are NOT juvenile and ridiculous?

The pigeons trying to crap on the Nissan Avalon, the pizza rolls that are more popular than toy robots or the frat boys in their underwear fighting over a keg of budweiser?

If that were the criteria, no ads would air.

Now you understand what I was getting at! Until someone comes up with an intelligent ad (but isn't this an oxymoron?), ban all Superbowl ads! Ban ALL ads!

Colin

[DesDownunder]

Now you understand what I was getting at! Until someone comes up with an intelligent ad (but isn't this an oxymoron?), ban all Superbowl ads! Ban ALL ads!

Colin

I've been saying "Ban all ads" since I was your age, Colin.

No one listens.

[TalonRider]

The more stupider, the more outrageous they make the commercial, the more you will remember it when you see the product in the stores.