CBS Nixes Gay Dating Ad During Super Bowl Options

[Flipper]

So, the airing of an outright fairy tale (Tebow's mother claims that Filipino physicians urged an abortion of little Timmy, abortion is illegal in the Phillipines, the likelyhood of her story being true is next to nil) is fine.

The endless airing of erectile dysfunction drugs, whose sole purpose is to help men--gay and straight--to be able to fuck, also fine.

Two dudes kissing? Unacceptable.

CBS' "standards and practices" begin and end at "we don't want a barrage of email generated by a handful of uptight psuedo moralists" (the uproar over Janet Jackson was almost entirely a creation of one zealot named Brent Bozell). No, it is not a civil rights issue, it's an issue of two-faced corporate cowardice.

The point you're missing is that this isn't about the nature of the content of a given set of commercials, comparatively inane, silly or otherwise. It's about a lumbering corporate megalith rolling the dice on projected and subsequent television ratings.

Is it base pandering?

Of course.

But you have to realize that this kind of shit, where it comes down to ad revenue is %100 equal opportunity. If the networks/a corporate sponsor like Ford though a Ford commercial with two guys barebacking in a pink F-150 would attract a shitload of viewers/sell a shitload of trucks, they'd go for it in a heartbeat.

The only way turning the gay ad money down would be hypocritical is if it wasn't a pure matter of targeted demographics, which it totally is.

Misplaced outrage over this whole deal.

[Flipper]

The gay targeted Supebowl Ad has already happened anyway.

Memba Carson Kressley pecker-footing it down the steet to the sounds of "Stayin' Alive", then turning around to check out a buff young dude's ass?

It was actually a pretty funny spot.

This post has been edited by Flipper: Jan 31 2010, 12:14 PM

[Johnny Angel]

The point you're missing is that this isn't about the nature of the content of a given set of commercials, comparatively inane, silly or otherwise. It's about a lumbering corporate megalith rolling the dice on projected and subsequent television ratings.

Is it base pandering?

Of course.

But you have to realize that this kind of shit, where it comes down to ad revenue is %100 equal opportunity. If the networks/a corporate sponsor like Ford though a Ford commercial with two guys barebacking in a pink F-150 would attract a shitload of viewers/sell a shitload of trucks, they'd go for it in a heartbeat.

The only way turning the gay ad money down would be hypocritical is if it wasn't a pure matter of targeted demographics, which it totally is.

Misplaced outrage over this whole deal.

You're partially right, of course--but if ratings were the only issue, the ManCrunch ad would have been accepted and, in fact, hyped.

The reason the ad was nixed was solely because they didn't want L Brent Bozell and William Donahue (figuratively) up their asses. The Janet Jackson idiocy scared the shit out of them--and for what, Flipper? A cursory check revealed that 90% of the complaints about her (awesome) nipple were generated by Bozell himself off a single website. You'd think they'd have learned but they didn't.

Most likely scenario is that ManCrunch knew it was in a win win: the ad airs, a freakout, and it replays 3,000,000 times on YouTube and DOES hit its target demo. It doesn't and now millions of people have heard of them that never would have. The loser here is CBS, who turned down free money out of silliness.

[mhaverty]

2008 SuperBowl audience: 98 million people.

Fox average audience:, day part: 2.9 million.

Given that a fair amount of Fox viewers will be watching the SB anyway, where on earth did you come up with this improbable/ludicrous theory? Other than "as someone whose every thought revolves around/ is utterly obsessed with partisan politics that believes everyone thinks like I do".

"Boost their credibility with the Fox set"? In media, especially in a one time event, "credibility" is not an issue. In fact, in all media there are only two major considerations now--revenues and debt. And not getting complaints, which runs third.

So, by running this ad (in your mind), CBS is calculating a huge boost in new conservative (and generally elderly, which they don't really seek anyway) fans who ALREADY HAVE A NETWORK OF THEIR OWN, WHICH THEY'LL NEVER LEAVE.

Hopeless.

Hey dummy. CBS needs eyeballs on their channel at times other than 60 Minutes and the Superbowl. It's a network that broadcasts 7 days a week 365 days a year.

This post has been edited by mhaverty: Jan 31 2010, 12:53 PM

[mhaverty]

There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about this business decision. The network people simply (and probably correctly) realized that this kind of ad wasn't going to be widely well received by a Super Bowl audience, whereas a Pro-life ad might be.

Anyone viewing this as some kind of civil rights tragedy is an idiot.

100%. Only the far Left can take an ad that says "sometimes the better decision is not to have an abortion" and turn it in to a full on assault on Roe v. Wade. Guess what assholes? Not only are there a large group of people who think abortion is wrong but there is also a huge group who think abortion should simple be safe, rare, and......... legal. Guess what else assholes? This group in the middle thinks Tebow is a kook too.

[mhaverty]

You're partially right, of course--but if ratings were the only issue, the ManCrunch ad would have been accepted and, in fact, hyped.

The reason the ad was nixed was solely because they didn't want L Brent Bozell and William Donahue (figuratively) up their asses. The Janet Jackson idiocy scared the shit out of them--and for what, Flipper? A cursory check revealed that 90% of the complaints about her (awesome) nipple were generated by Bozell himself off a single website. You'd think they'd have learned but they didn't.

Exactly shithead because it would have cost them money. What was it you said about hopeless?

This post has been edited by mhaverty: Jan 31 2010, 01:00 PM

[Johnny Angel]

Exactly shithead because it would have cost them money. What was it you said about hopeless?

"Dummy", "Shithead".........

Such an angry little man. A frightened little flower.

Running the ad would cost them nothing. Try reading comprehension.

[mhaverty]

"Dummy", "Shithead".........

Such an angry little man. A frightened little flower.

Running the ad would cost them nothing. Try reading comprehension.

You are the guy who tells us over and over that the reason right wing radio works is because conservatives have to hear what they want to hear and centrists and lefties can tolerate it right? Do the math Mr. Wonderful. Better yet.... let me do it for you since you seem to be a little slower than usual today. Gay ads hurt the image of CBS as a whole network and business because there are millions of fools who will be upset by it and change the station not just during the superbowl but in the future, whereas conservative ads make a lot of people happy and the rest are ambivilent. The decison goes far beyond the 2 million dollars and one program. Understand now? You do understand that the reason networks pay the NFL ridiculous amounts of money to broadcast the bowl isn't to make money on one day but to use it as a vehicle to promote their line up for the rest of the year. After the first burst of ads sit back and count how many plugs and ads there are for the rest of their line up.

This post has been edited by mhaverty: Jan 31 2010, 01:31 PM

[Johnny Angel]

You are the guy who tells us over and over that the reason right wing (talk) radio works is because conservatives have to hear what they want to hear and centrists and lefties can tolerate it right? (well, yeah, and?) Do the math Mr. Wonderful. (talk radio's audience is about 11-13% of the entire radio audience, doesn't the other 87% count jess a little bit more?) Better yet.... let me do it for you since you seem to be a little slower than usual today. Gay ads hurt the image of CBS as a whole network and business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_&_Grace) because there are millions of fools who will be upset by it and change the station not just during the superbowl but in the future, whereas conservative ads make a lot of (actually some, but not all that many) people happy (hence the lack of controversy, right?) and the rest are ambivilent. (Ahem: according to your reasoning and own words, conservatives are fools. Yet you identify yourself as conservative. WTF?) The decison goes far beyond the 2 million dollars and one program. Understand now? You do understand that the reason networks pay the NFL ridiculous amounts of money to broadcast the bowl isn't to make money on one day but to use it as a vehicle to promote their line up for the rest of the year (it's a one time event in January--CBS' lineup in September has not yet been set)(The actual reason is that it's a ratings bonanza for ONE DAY with a guaranteed enormous audience and ad revenues are high. Period). After the first burst of ads sit back and count how many plugs and ads there are for the rest of their line up. (see above).