8
Super Bowl snub lifts gay site's profile
Screen shot from Man Crunch's Web site
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Just when you thought Super Bowl ads couldn't get any more controversial, well they can't. At least not the ones you're going to see during the game. Not long after CBS agreed to run an anti-abortion spot this Sunday paid for by Focus on the Family, it rejected an ad from Man Crunch.
Yeah, I didn't know what it was either. It's a gay dating site. And it's getting a whole lot of free publicity thanks to the dust up. Just not nearly as much as it planned for. Marketplace's Sean Cole reports.
SEAN COLE: This story is like a crazy onion that keeps unpeeling until you get to a pungent core of truth. It starts with this Man Crunch ad. Two guys in warring football jerseys are on a couch watching their teams battle it out.
Sports Announcer: Ten, five, touchdown!
Fan 1: Oh, come on!
Fan 2: Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about baby.
They both reach into a bowl of potato chips. Their hands touch. And then they start ferociously making out.
SINGING: I wanna kiiiiiss this guy. I really, really, really wanna...
Cut to the logo: ManCrunch.com. Where many, many men come out to play. The ad was submitted a couple of weeks ago by Man Crunch's owner, a Canadian group called Avid Life Media. And when CBS said the spot didn't meet broadcast standards for the Super Bowl, Avid Life cried discrimination.
NOEL BIDERMAN: It can't be the ad that's unacceptable right? It's funny.
This is Noel Biderman, the president of Avid Life.
BIDERMAN: It's the kind of almost humorous thing you'd see on "Saturday Night Live." There's nothing wrong with the ad itself. What they don't like is the notion of the business behind it, and I think that's really what's going on.
A CBS spokeswoman told me the opposite. She said the network had other issues with the ad and that it would be open to working with Avid Life on alternative submissions. But soon the blogosphere and some of the mainstream media began expressing doubts about Avid Life and its intentions.
STEVE HALL: They're feigning shock.
Steve Hall runs a blog called AdRants. He says there is now a rich history of marketers creating Super Bowl ads they know will be rejected. It's a ploy, he says.
HALL: You know, in any given meeting, at any given brand, at one point or another, someone speaks up and says, oh, you know, we should just create an ad that we know is gonna get banned, and you know, then we can upload it on the Web, and everybody will look at it. And you know, we'll have all this free media exposure.
So at this point I thought I'd really gotten to the crux. Media manipulation disguised as moral outrage. Except for one thing. Noel Biderman freely admits having had that conversation in his boardroom.
BIDERMAN: Make no mistake about it, we have bright guys in our company and they said, OK. Do we want this to be rejected, Noel? Should we make a really racy ad or whatever? And I was like, no!
That wasn't his goal, he says. And I tend to believe him because he also says things like this.
BIDERMAN: I was gonna shepherd myself. I was gonna herald myself as the second coming of someone who's helping emancipate gay men into mainstream America. I know that sounds...
COLE: Wow.
BIDERMAN: Totally ridiculous.
COLE: That sounds ridiculous!
BIDERMAN: No, but it was around those notions.
This is the thing: Biderman did want a lot of buzz and controversy surrounding the ad. But only after it aired. The current controversy was just his Plan B. Plan A went like this:
BIDERMAN: Create an ad, get it aired on the Super Bowl. When the conservative groups that can't stand these people's way of life starts yelling and screaming, we're gonna take them on. To the community then that we're then trying to make members of our service, we hope we will look like heroes if we do this right. We will then build a brand that lasts for the next decade.
Biderman wanted to be debating this ad on Bill O'Reilly-type talk shows until the next Super Bowl. That, he says, would have really gotten Man Crunch's name out there. It's still manipulation. But it's not disguised as anything.
I'm Sean Cole for Marketplace.
JB, YOU are missing the point. The Tim Tebow ad has not even been shown, so for you to call it controversial is your first mistake... you've not even seen it. Second, your comment about "public airways" is ignorant, as the federal government does not own them and should regulate them by deciding what a private company can and can't show. Again, CBS is a private company, and can choose to accept advertising as they please. If a particular ad is offensive and in poor taste, as the Man Crunch is, CBS can decide not to accept it. That is what they have done because they understand the majority of people don't want to see offensive content! Finally, your comment about "public advocacy for a very right wing view of churches" fails to recognize that churches are conservative (right) by nature. The reason they are is because the Christian church is based on the Bible, which clearly states that homosexualtiy a sin. Left-leaning churches ignore that fact.
This story misses the big point, it's not about some small company trying to get free publicity, it's CBS's arbitrary reversal of it's own's non-issue ad stance with the very controversial Tim Tebow anti-abortion ad. CBS is using public airwaves so we should hold them accountable to have consistent and understandable rules. If they can reject the UCC church ad which is about inclusiveness without any kissing and accept the Focus on the Family ad which is at the very least divisive, it amounts to public advocacy for a very right wing view of churches. I expect more insight from marketplace and public radio.
To compare the two of these ads is ridiculous. I would bet my life that no less than 95% of Americans would find this ad severely inappropriate for children, let alone want to see it themselves. I am in that 95%. It's typical of NPR to present this as a newsworthy story, when it clear to any rational person that this was a ploy for free advertising. Way to take the bait NPR! I wouldn't expect anything less from a news outlet that has made advocating for gay rights "news" on a regular basis. There are many real news stories that deserve the time you devoted to this story, like our failing educational system, the massive debt our government has racked up, and health care reform to name a few.
Thank goodness CBS showed some sense. I do not care if my comment is not politically correct. Live and let live, but please do not rub it in our faces. Most of us do not want homosexuality to be viewed as 'normal' societal behavior. I certainly do not want my daughter to view it as generally accepted.
How tolerant of you, "Don m". I take it you don't think enough of your own opinion to attach your full name to it? Try to consider through your bigotry, if you will, the possibility that the "sons and daughters" to which you self-righteously refer, or your beloved grandsons or granddaughters, just might BE gay. And in your rush to promote "family values," you condemn millions of beloved children and grandchildren as something less than human. PERHAPS EVEN YOUR VERY OWN FLESH AND BLOOD. So is it not possible that there are members of your own family you DON'T value? Maybe you can try to display just a tiny effort at human compassion and pause a moment think about that, the next time you choose to belittle the daughter of ... oh, I don't know ... say, the former vice president of the United States?
This "funny" business is coming to a barracks or a submarine near you or your sons and daughters. Thank you President Obama, Secretary Gates and Adm Mullen. CBS should have aired it. I'm sure our deployed troops would have enjoyed it and felt priviledged to be risking their lives defending the rights of Man Crunch to do business and express themselves.
"On Wednesday, GLAAD released a Call to Action for community members and allies to speak out after CBS allowed the anti-gay group Focus on the Family to advertise during the Super Bowl after having unfairly denied that ability to the LGBT-inclusive United Church of Christ in previous years."
http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=1239
So, 1. be aware of GLAAD as a resource for accurate information about Gay issues in the media, and 2. thanks for finding this news-worthy.
