It's that time of year again, when every player worth their PR department will holler Banned super bowl commercial about their tasteless dreck (PETA played that card hard last year with their banned veggie sex ad)... But this year, the rules have changed ever so slightly with the approval of the Tim Tebow ad. When CBS approved the script for that, the claims of "Banned by CBS" seem a lot more credible, even if they are rejected with this note:
"CBS Standards and Practices has reviewed your proposed Super Bowl ad and concluded that the creative is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday," the rejection letter said, according to Fox. "Moreover, our Sales Department has had difficulty verifying your organization's credit status."
Not everyone can caugh up almost $3 million for a little airtime, even if prices dropped slightly this year, so sending in something that will obviously be rejected is the cheaper smarter way of getting a lot of press attention. Just ask Godaddy, they've turned it into an art form.
Mancrunch.com execs however protest and say it wasn't their credit status that prompted CBS to dump them from the Bowl, NBC reports. It was discrimination - and this accusation can't be brushed off when Tim Tebow's pro-life ad with Christian group Focus on the Family is allowed to run during the game.
We are very disappointed in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl," said a rep for Mancrunch.com, who called on "every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS."
I have to agree with CBS that the creative, and execution, is sup-bar for a potential super bowl ad. It looks like it was shot for 80 bucks. But hey, if Doritos can do it, House Rules that competes in the crash the superbowl cost only $80, then why can't Mancrunch? Man up CBS if you really are willing to air more advocacy ads, go all the way. Perhaps it's time for United Church of Christ to try and get that Bouncer commercial that was rejected by CBS in 2004 on the air again. By the way, am I the only one feeling a sense of deja vu here? Could've sworn I saw and totally ignored a similar ad and bannage claim from Mancrunch last year.