FOX yanked repeat GoDaddy commercial airing

Sane

Scholar
S
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
71
Glad to see that GoDaddy.com wasn't afraid to produce a Super Bowl ad poking fun at the fallout from Janet Jackson's exposed breast last year.

Seems that the NFL told FOX not to air the repeat GoDaddy ad due to its "controversial" content. So FOX nixed the second showing that should have aired during the final 2-minute warning (story here).

Because it was a close game, a lot of people would still be watching then. But it seems that GoDaddy will get plenty of exposure from this and possibly some damages associated with the yanking of the second airing.

Bud Light had produced an ad where a stage hand during last year's super bowl uses Jackson's outfit to open a beer. He notices that he damaged the outfit (the part that malfunctions) and tip-toes out of the dressing room. Anheiser decided not to air the ad.

This is just silly.
 
It was the best thing that godaddy.com could have hoped for! I mean c'mon, they produced a spot that parodies censorship....then promptly got censored!
:i:

-z
 
Fox confirmed killing the ad but provided no explanation for why it allowed it to air in the first place.
Click to expand...
That's a tough one. There are 5 million reasons that I can think of.

Nor would Fox confirm whether the NFL had applied pressure to kill the spot.
Click to expand...
Another toughie.

I was kind of hoping that Paul McCartney would flash a nipple after singing.

CBL
 
Personally, I found the deoderant commercial much more offensive. "If you don't buy our deoderant, you're a pussy".
 
At least it's the free market reacting to public values and not being censored by government.

It's dumb, but if they want to lose the revenue from running the ad, it's their choice. I don't think many people here watch FOX anyway, except to see the "When ___'s Attack" reruns.
 
Phrost said:
At least it's the free market reacting to public values and not being censored by government.

It's dumb, but if they want to lose the revenue from running the ad, it's their choice. I don't think many people here watch FOX anyway, except to see the "When ___'s Attack" reruns.
Click to expand...

Except the decisions are based on a fear of government action (FAA fines), not free market reactions (consumer boycotts).
 
Well, I do have to admit, I'm not going to really cry over this, because the commercial in question was crap. The Budweiser one that they didn't air? That one would have likely been good. They suck at making beer, but they make damn good commercials.

Hence, while I don't give a flying monkey butt about the GoDaddy crapola, I do agree that this Jackson reaction (ain' ah clevah?) is overdone.

Psst, DaveW. FCC fines. I don't think the Federal Avaiation Administration fines advertisers. ;)
 
DaveW said:
Except the decisions are based on a fear of government action (FAA fines), not free market reactions (consumer boycotts).
Click to expand...
What possible action could the government take on this or any ad making fun of the Janet Jackson imbroglio (absent actual forbidden nudity, profanity)?
 
I saw the ad a couple of days before the superbowl on a news program. I though it was a joke, or a practice take or something. I couldn't believe anyone would think it was a good idea to pay millions to put that on the air. Anyway, the NFL and Fox were perfectly aware of the content of the ad before the first showing. Maybe it was really godaddy.com that pulled the second showing, realizing that they had been taken by an incompetent ad agency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom