4
   

SUPER BOWL ADVERTISING - BANNED IN TAMPA

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 06:38 pm
According to the early evening news here, NBC has turned down this ad as "too political" for the Super Bowl; i.e. they don't want to run any political ads.



They banned this too, but they now have agreed to take it IF the sponsor will tone down just a wee bit of the sexual innuendo:



What do you think? Are either of these ads "political"?

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 2,455 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 07:58 pm
I think they're both really excellent ads, very effective.

I don't have any problem with them being too political.

I do wonder though, what Obama thinks of having his image used in this ad and if vegetarians really have better sex.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 10:21 pm
@boomerang,
I don't know what Obama might think, but I think he might be displeased since he is so very much pro choice. As for the other one--a bit risque for a family show I think but what I really want to know: were any vegetables harmed in the making of that ad? Smile
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 10:40 pm
I thought the top one was going to say this baby went on to become a murdering crackhead. Imagine my surprise! Of course, murdering crackheads look like that as embryos too.

I don't see those vegans having sex so much as masturbating a lot with vegetables. I'm sticking to meat.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:14 am
@NickFun,
So you don't think the ads were effective to get their point(s) across, Nick?

I thought they were well done though I thought the PETA ad should be X rated.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:52 am
Interesting that they didn't show any cucumbers....
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 11:21 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Interesting that they didn't show any cucumbers....


Laughing

I think NBC might even have raised their eyebrows higher.

I don't know why, but your comment made me think of this clip that absolutely made me guffaw:



0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 07:54 pm
@Foxfyre,
No Foxfyre. I think they did a lousy job. The Peta ad sows a couple of women alone sans partners. We see one with a sprig of broccoli near her crotch and another fondling a melon. This tells me vegans only have sex with themselves.

Like I said. Give me meat!
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 11:06 pm
@NickFun,
Hmm. I didn't think of it that way myself when I first saw it though it did occur to me that they used only women in the ad which wasn't the most effective way to send a message. If I had been designing it, it would have been couples sharing a rutabaga or something.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:04 am
@NickFun,
Weinie?
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:13 am
@roger,
OK, ok, ok, I'm going to have to check this out.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:22 am
@ossobuco,
What a pile o'beans, the first one. Histrionic violinist suasion, I say, speaking as a one time catholic.

Of course it is a video with point of view towards influencing politics, or supreme court choices, never mind the faux Obama glorification.


All right, gearing up for number two.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:29 am
@ossobuco,
Number 2,

kidding? I'm sure JoefromChicago could come up with the descriptive for this re logic.

For me, silly, and I'm a person who can follow vego arguments.




ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 12:32 am
@ossobuco,
Uh, oh, Boomer thinks they're excellent ads.





I'm from ad agency stock. Please subtract gloss when viewing.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:05 am
Well you can evaluate 'excellent' on ideology or you can evaluate 'excellent' based on the quality/effectiveness of the ad. I also rated them both effective because they were both extremely well done, they held your attention, and they got their message across without being preachy. (Rhetorical 'you' is used here of course.)

Advertising is supposed to influence and the most effective ads appeals to all five senses as much as possible. That's why so much research has gone into the colors to use on packaging, etc. (Speaking as one who was in the business for awhile.)

We all seemed to get the same message from the first though of course there will be differences re agreement with the message.

But I, as a straight woman, I think got the intended message from the PETA ad--and this is an organization I think that flew right out of the cuckoos nest--but Nickfun, as a man, got a much different impression.

So now I'm wondering . . .

NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:18 am
@Foxfyre,
If they had shown a couple of men jerking off over vegetables I think the message would have been different though they are, essentially, the same thing. Now we must ask ourselves, is masturbation sex? If so then the ad conveys the proper message. I rest my case.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 01:29 am
@Foxfyre,
Oh, phooey, you must like slip slide away.

But I'm not in the mood for arguing tonight.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 06:32 am
As an aside from on who lives in the Tampa area: You would think that all that was going on down here is the Super Bowl. My local newspaper is 3/4 sports. The hard news gets buried in page 20. I am totally disgusted.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 08:30 am
Neither of the ads are "on message" to me but I'm not their target market -- I hate football and won't be watching the Super Bowl. Still, I think they're both thought provoking.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2009 10:25 am
@NickFun,
But that's where I think we saw it differently. You saw it as self gratification. I saw it as women feeling and advertising that they were feeling very passionate. Smile My initial impression wasn't that they were getting it on alone.

Also, until the subject came up, I didn't see either of the ads as particularly political though some rightwing anti-PETA commentators took it that way and some apparently see the Catholicvote ad that way. And of course there are some who oppose the message from either.

I can appreciate Phoenix's frustration with Super Bowl mania too though it isn't so intense out here in the desert. Maybe its good to have something positive to focus on when there is so much misery re the recession right now, but it does sometimes to be really overhyped. And expensive.

Was watching the early morning news this morning, and they said last year a 30-second advertising slot during the Super Bowl was 2.7 million and this year it is an even 3 million though they thought only about half of the advertisers paid the full price and some got deals. I guess those advertisers get their money's worth but that seems like an awful lot. Especially for a couple of charitable organizations if NBC had accepted the ads from Catholicvote and PETA.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » SUPER BOWL ADVERTISING - BANNED IN TAMPA
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2019 at 02:04:28