Media Relations: media commentary and criticism

Monday, February 07, 2005


-- television -- terror-tits-r-us

I have to say, I do not understand the way the NFL and Fox think. Not even a little bit.

February 07, 2005
By Kris Oser

BONITA SPRINGS, Fla. ( -- Even though GoDaddy's Super Bowl ad is what they're talking about around the water coolers this morning, its ultimate impact may be negative, according to an instant online survey conducted during the game last night.

(photo caption) GoDaddy's busty star performed for a congressional panel. Watch the spot on the 'TV Spots of the Week' Video Page.

GoDaddy, a little-known Internet domain registration company, produced the evening's single most provocative commercial. Set in a mock congressional committee hearing, the spot starred a young women whose very large breasts were constrained within a very skimpy camisole that suffered a near "wardrobe malfunction." The story line was a satirical jab at the government's recent moves to more tightly regulate TV and radio content that falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.

Funny as it was, the spot received mixed reaction from online consumer blogs surveyed by Intelliseek of Cincinnati. During the game, the market research company monitored 40 blogs to measure which ads were likely to generate the most buzz or controversy the day after the game. "As for building buzz," said Intelliseek's marketing chief, Pete Blackshaw, "they've done a great job, but for a lot of people, it was just a cheap thrill and I'm not sure the ad will sustain itself with buzz." Among Intelliseek's panel of bloggers the GoDaddy spot, created by the Ad Store of New York, was "polarizing," Mr. Blackshaw said, and some people were surprised it made it on the air.

Not that I'm among their "surveyed bloggers", but count me as surprised that the ad aired at all. The NFL has had, somewhat understandably, a rather pointed lack of humor about last year's halftime show, otherwise known as The Tit That Toppled The Republic. Given everything that came from that flash of nipple on top of that woefully inappropriate halftime show, the NFL should be just a bit twitchy.

Nonetheless, the GoDaddy ad made it through -- once. And Budweiser's ad referring to the actual wardrobe malfunction that revealed the Nipple That Destroyed The Country was apparently immediately refused, despite having no actual breasts on display in any way, shape, or almost-but-not-quite-uncovered form.

Of course ... GoDaddy's ad did make it through only once.

The case of the missing Super Bowl ad
February 7, 2005: 2:12 PM EST
By Krysten Crawford, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The commercial that ran in the first quarter of last night's Super Bowl was hard to miss.

In it, a buxom brunette appears before a censorship committee to defend a proposed spot for the company, a reseller of Internet domain names. The commercial was meant to be in-your-face, a parody of how skittish network executives have become in the face of a government crackdown on bawdy programming.

For anyone who may have missed the spoof, it was supposed to run again in the second half.

It didn't.

Fox, the network that broadcast Sunday's game, pulled the second spot at the last minute after National Football League officials complained. The network ran a promo for "The Simpsons" instead.

Brian McCarthy, an NFL spokesman, confirmed Monday that league executives contacted Fox officials after seeing the ad, which they had not pre-screened. The reason, said McCarthy, "was exactly what many people felt. It was inappropriate."

So. Let me get this straight-ish.

The NFL was so jittery that it prescreened Budweiser's ad and rejected it. Despite Budweiser being more or less a known quantity, despite the lack of actual visible breastage, despite the ad being more or less funny. Instead, they allowed a company that had never before advertised on the Super Bowl -- a company that had seldom run television ads, period -- to put an ad on that was not prescreened, which referred directly to the results of the incident, if not the incident itself, and which was in quite impressively and deliberately bad taste.

You know ... somehow, I don't buy that. I don't believe that the NFL wouldn't have prescreened every single ad that was going to air. It's the Super Bowl, after all, their marquee game. I do not believe that a single solitary advertisement made it to air that wasn't at least initially approved by someone in the NFL and Fox. I strongly suspect that the ad was approved by someone with, like, a functioning sense of humor and irony, was seen by the higher-ups only when it aired, and said person with humor and irony was promptly taken out behind the stadium and shot. They they turned to Fox and said, "OK, so that ad with the breasts? Yeah, don't do that again. Thanks."

And so, the reign of the Tits of Terror continues.

Posted by iain at 11:53 AM in category media and society , television