SUPER BOWL ADVERTISING - BANNED IN TAMPA

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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:

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!

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.

Weinie?

OK, ok, ok, I'm going to have to check this out.

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.

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.

Uh, oh, Boomer thinks they're excellent ads.





I'm from ad agency stock. Please subtract gloss when viewing.

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 . . .

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.

Oh, phooey, you must like slip slide away.

But I'm not in the mood for arguing tonight.

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.

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.

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. 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.