//** * * */

GoDaddy.com tries to clear ad for Super Bowl XL

Last year GoDaddy.com Super Bowl ad got banned, well sort of. The original, a spoof of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" got banned but another edited version that was considered OK by the censors ran. And now, they are trying to get another ad (or ads) through ABC for 2006. Although it doesn't sound like they are having much luck so far.

On Parsons' blog he doesn't give any hints to what the content of the ads might be. But he does say he thinks the "best ads are polarizing".

In my opinion, in order for a television commercial to be effective, it has to be polarizing. This week, "USA Today" published its annual list of top television advertisements for 2005. "USA Today" showed Go Daddy’s Super Bowl ad to be both the 4th most liked — and the 4th most disliked — ad. That’s about as polarizing as it gets!

Perhaps I'm jaded but it's hard to say whether or not we'll see another media circus around the banned Godaddy.com ad this year. I really hope not.

And as much as "polarizing" ads are "effective" they are also usually just cheap "shock-vertising" more than anything else. Although to be fair, Bud Light's "Wardrobe Malfunction" spoof ad also didn't make it to air during the Super Bowl either last year. Which would make one think that it might have more to do with the fact it was spoofing a specific event, rather than it being so "shocking". Because it really wasn't so shocking as much as it was lame.

The only thing I will say is that at least Parsons does get that you can't be everything to everyone.

One thing that does make me think we might see a circus on this though is that if their viral ad last year (the one that they didn't get to air) got so much coverage and was made viewable on their site (bringing people to their url) and was effective, why not just do another viral ad? Well, they have to make it appear as if it's something that's "too hot for TV" and give it the cache of a banned ad so that people will go to see it. Because in and of itself, at least with their ad last year, the only reason for it to become a viral was because the ad had been banned and people wanted to see what the chatter was all about. But if it was to be used and launched as solely a viral campaign, would it have been as effective? Would as many people have actively sought out the spot to view? Doubtful.

GoDaddy - Strap / Censorship hearings - (2005) 0:30 (USA)

Adland® is supported by your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi coffee.
Anonymous Adgrunt's picture
Files must be less than 1 MB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png wav avi mpeg mpg mov rm flv wmv 3gp mp4 m4v.
Dabitch's picture

Ugh! Well since the cheapest PR trick in the book worked so well for them last year... Ten bucks their rejected concept has some sex in it.

caffeinegoddess's picture

Yeah I'm sure it does. Looks like this is going to attempt to be another media circus too, according to a press conference from today. When you don't have any real ideas, just throw a as-nude-as-you-can-get-through-the-censors chick in. hack.hack.hack. Oh, sorry I've got a cough. ;)

Dabitch's picture

As long as other hacks write about it... It works!

caffeinegoddess's picture

Hahaha! Looks like it is...17 news bits listed on google news. ;)