"Mancrunch", Gay dating site's Super Bowl ad rejected by CBS,,,whos right?

**Whisper** · January 29th, 2010, 10:54 PM

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) --

Super Bowl network CBS rejected an ad Friday from ManCrunch.com, a gay dating Web site.

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."

(CBS, Fortune 500) said it turned down the ad partly for financial reasons, but ManCrunch believes that there's more to it than that.

"It's straight-up discrimination," said Elissa Buchter, spokeswoman for the Toronto-based dating site.

Jacobs of CBS declined to comment on the charge of discrimination.

Buchter provided a copy of the CBS rejection letter to CNNMoney, which states that the ad "is not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday."

The letter also states that the CBS sales department "has had difficulty verifying [ManCrunch's] credit status."

Buchter said that basing the rejection on credit status doesn't make sense because "we offered to pay cash." But Jacobs said CBS has no record of any such offer.

CBS is charging up to $3 million for 30-second spots. Buchter said ManCrunch would have been charged $2.5 million for its ad and would have had no trouble paying it, since the newly formed company recently raised $40 million from investors.

Shortly before ManCrunch announced the rejection, Jacobs of CBS said her company was reviewing the ad and it was "just one of many."

Jacobs also said the spots were "virtually sold out. We have one, maybe two spots left."

ManCrunch's ad, which can be viewed on its Web site, shows two men watching the Super Bowl. Their hands brush each other in the potato chip bowl, which inspires a passionate, male-on-male make-out session.

ManCrunch is not alone. Godaddy, an online retailer of Web site domain names, is running an ad in the Super Bowl this year but it had another ad rejected by CBS in the process. The rejected ad features a man named Lola.

This year's Super Bowl, between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints, will be played Feb. 7 at Sun Life Stadium near Miami. The facility in Miami Gardens, Fla., formerly called Dolphin Stadium, was recently renamed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news...ad_super_bowl/

I saw it earlier today and to me looks like 2 guys goofing off more then anything,kinda like a spoof

**Aslan** · January 29th, 2010, 11:01 PM

CBS is charging up to $3 million for 30-second spots.

....and Mancrunch just got a shitload of free advertising.
I have to say the guy on the left at the very end was classic.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MQWFiIrBLA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- ManCrunch SuperBowl Commercial[/ame]

**Pene784** · January 30th, 2010, 12:03 PM

With tons of families watching I don't think any make out ads would be appropriate.

**mjmsepm** · January 30th, 2010, 12:31 PM

They show other dating commercials like EHarmony with people kissing.I dont think they show them during the super bowl though, I don't think it is because it is a gay commercial because many of their prime-time shows have a gay story line. It is because it is a family show and making out doesn't send good vibes kinda like why the half time show sucks now!

Then again beer commercials are not so family friendly either.

**runecire** · January 30th, 2010, 01:35 PM

"Daddy, did you see that commercial? Is that what you do with Uncle Billy Bob when you go to his house to watch football? Will I get to do that when I am older?"

**Whisper** · January 30th, 2010, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by runecire

"Daddy, did you see that commercial? Is that what you do with Uncle Billy Bob when you go to his house to watch football? Will I get to do that when I am older?"

LOL I know its a hard issue with what to have on and what not to.Easiest thing ,my kids were not allowed to watch TV during the week,bottom line.Weekends they were and it was a treat really.But week days they had to be reading or outside or in whatever they were in at the time baseball,dance,etc.So I guess I really didnt pay attention to commercials.And after the wardrobe malfunction theres more scrutiny on whats airing during superbowl

**Pete Bondurant** · January 30th, 2010, 04:25 PM

I hope they will get rid of that gay, insurance hawking, fucking lizard with the Cockney accent.

**Whisper** · January 30th, 2010, 04:42 PM

Im searching my records PETE I have the "Last commercial Made By Geiko Gecko" but I cant find it ill post it for you when I do.He gets eaten lol

**shamrocker** · January 30th, 2010, 04:56 PM

I don't know, but it could inspire husbands with ugly wives to spontaneously call their wives and say, "Baby, you're beautiful!" I mean, this sort of thing grosses-me-out, and I have childhood friends (quite a few) who turned-out gay... no problem. Now, I don't drink, and a beer commercial doesn't disturb me to watch one; but this sort of thing makes me cringe. I'm guessing the majority of the population would react the same... just saying.

**malq** · January 30th, 2010, 05:08 PM

I don't see way anyone has to press the boundries and be controversial at all on the most viewed forums available. Llets keep it family friendly. The kids will certainly be viewing it and it is hardly the forum to invite such discussion. There are other platforms to introduce that to your kids, however you feel appropriate. As much as the gay community want to see themselves as mainstream they are not. Not any more than the legalize pot movement. I think anyone would agree that that topic doesn't belong there either.
I am not saying I am for against the cause just the spirit of the arena does not support that.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · January 30th, 2010, 05:27 PM

How about an AdultFriendFinder.com ad during the Superbowl. That would be fun.

**DamagedGoods** · January 30th, 2010, 10:03 PM

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature

Water is entirely liquid in nature too!!

**MC30** · January 31st, 2010, 12:56 AM

i thought it was awesome. babycrazy said ewww. so where do i stand? is it something to be considered natural or is it ewww?

i (myself) thought it was funny as hell.

btw its already been shown on tv.

**Steph** · January 31st, 2010, 03:49 AM

I don't have a problem with the ad...I think the pro-same sex marriage and legalization of pot movements are further ahead than people realize, but I think this was brought out after the Tebow (sorry if spelled wrong) anti-choice ad came into public knowledge. If they really wanted it in the superbowl, the entire process would have happened earlier. Genius, in a PR way for the ad company though, now that's some free publicity.

I'm calling BS on the "family friendly" ads excuse though...didn't that website "ashleymadison" have a commercial a few years back? Nothing says family friendly like a website for married people to have affairs on!!!

**Aslan** · January 31st, 2010, 04:04 AM

Here's an idea!

Don't make a cheap ass home video that includes unlicensed NFL gear in it to try and pretend to sell your service. Or try and pretend you have the 3 million that's being asked for.
Has anyone been to their site? (I wouldn't recommend it) low rent low rent low rent.
They are doing this for publicity, plain and simple.
And you know what?
It worked.

**Whisper** · January 31st, 2010, 01:27 PM

I rememeber that,I had forgotten all about it I havent seen that website around in quite awhile

**Athena** · January 31st, 2010, 06:01 PM

Yeah, I don't think the company was making a legitimate effort to get it seen during the Superbowl. I also don't think, however, that it's something that should be avoided so that parents can introduce it to their children their own way. We don't do that with sex, drugs and violence. Homosexuality is a part of society and, if people want to thrust themselves and their children under a rock, that's their choice. Let them throw out their TV altogether.

**62julietandvoid** · February 1st, 2010, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pene784

With tons of families watching I don't think any make out ads would be appropriate.

But it's OK to have two women fighting in bikinis or ripping each other's clothes off...

**Echo** · February 1st, 2010, 02:45 PM

Suddenly Prime Time TV in America is "family friendly? " Since when?

That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.

Also, most American Families have a gay person in their family. Whether they know it or not. They should probably educate themselves at some point.

**sanityslipping** · February 1st, 2010, 03:19 PM

My take on this... whether or not CBS thinks the commercial is family friendly or whatever excuse they gave for not wanting the commercial be it the money or whatever, it doesn't/ shouldn't fucking matter, they don't want it, and they don't want the company's money, big fucking deal. Suppose some company wanted to put a sign up in your yard for advertising, and they offered you some money, but no money had as yet, exchanged hands... You see the sign and decide, that you just don't want that shit in your yard, for what ever reason. It's your yard, your call and you know there's other companies out there w signs more to your liking willing to pay the same or more. You'd either go w no sign, or another company, right? Well, this is CBS's airtime, and they get to show who they want and what commercials they want (as long as it complies w the FCC or whoever it is that flips out over what they think everyone should or shouldn't see). That's it, end of story. It's CBS's call, they said No, suck it up, move on and take your 2.5 mil elsewhere. Good job getting free publicity by crying like a little bitch tho "they're discriminating against us boo hoo." It's CBS's choice, and for whatever reason, you didn't make the cut, be it because they didn't like the commercial, or maybe they thought the vast amount of viewers wouldn't want to see guys kissing, or maybe they genuinely thought they wouldn't get their money, or maybe it was a combination of all of em but really, I don't care, bottom line is CBS said No, so move the fuck on. Go advertise on LOGO or something

Seems like now a days, if you don't wanna be seen as the big bad meanie, you're supposed to just bend down and kiss everyone's ass, just to make sure that no body gets their widdle feelings hurt

**Athena** · February 1st, 2010, 04:15 PM

Normally I would agree, SS... But there's a difference between denying someone for "whatever reason" and denying someone because of their race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. Now, I don't know if that's what happened, here, but if it was, it may very well be illegal. Similarly, restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, but there are exclusions to that rule.

**MC30** · February 1st, 2010, 09:09 PM

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q5rgthgr0o"]YouTube- Californication Best Scene Ever! We're all gay?[/ame]

**MC30** · February 1st, 2010, 09:14 PM

cbs can do what they want. its their business. weither i agree. meh. maybe i just wont buy what they're selling.

**Aslan** · February 1st, 2010, 09:22 PM

Normally I would agree, SS... But there's a difference between denying someone for "whatever reason" and denying someone because of their race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. Now, I don't know if that's what happened, here, but if it was, it may very well be illegal. Similarly, restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone, but there are exclusions to that rule.

I'm not up to speed on Entertainment law but I'm not so sure I agree Athena. I am positive CBS has turned down proposed pilots in the past for shows that may have questionable content, ergo proving to be not beneficial to them as a company.
Loss of viewers = loss of revenue.

So if they deem openly gay ads (or cheapass ads) as something that doesn't put them in a positive light due to the repercussions, they shouldn't be forced to air them.
NBC and CNN turned down a Pro-Life ad last year. Obviously they didn't want to be seen as advocating one side over the other.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...aturing-obama/

Since CNN is paid programming (cable) that goes into privatization and that's fine (much like South Park saying 'shit' on the air after a set time period at night) NBC however is a public channel available without payment. So again, while I'm not quite familiar with what the laws are re: absolutely having to air certain things, I'm confident that CBS is fully aware that they are within their rights in this decision. Be it due to poor quality of the the video itself or the message it conveys (or both)
Plus everyone knows they should have been wearing Cowboy jerseys.

**battery jackson** · February 2nd, 2010, 12:31 PM

glad i wont have to see that. and i know i'm not the only one who feels that way.

**penelopejo** · February 2nd, 2010, 12:33 PM

And we're to expect something different from CBS?

When they bleeped out an entire performance from the grammy's?

I'm surprised they have 2 and a Half Men as one of their shows.

**Saffron** · February 2nd, 2010, 12:43 PM

I don't have a problem with them not accepting it IF they turned down all the slutty GoDaddy commercials this year and they turned down the Tebow commercial and everything else that isn't G rated... but they aren't so they should show it too if they have the CASH to pay for it.

**Athena** · February 2nd, 2010, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Aslan

I'm not up to speed on Entertainment law but I'm not so sure I agree Athena. I am positive CBS has turned down proposed pilots in the past for shows that may have questionable content, ergo proving to be not beneficial to them as a company.
Loss of viewers = loss of revenue.

So if they deem openly gay ads (or cheapass ads) as something that doesn't put them in a positive light due to the repercussions, they shouldn't be forced to air them.
NBC and CNN turned down a Pro-Life ad last year. Obviously they didn't want to be seen as advocating one side over the other.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...aturing-obama/

Since CNN is paid programming (cable) that goes into privatization and that's fine (much like South Park saying 'shit' on the air after a set time period at night) NBC however is a public channel available without payment. So again, while I'm not quite familiar with what the laws are re: absolutely having to air certain things, I'm confident that CBS is fully aware that they are within their rights in this decision. Be it due to poor quality of the the video itself or the message it conveys (or both)
Plus everyone knows they should have been wearing Cowboy jerseys.

Actually, now that I look at it, sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected status (I thought it was already), which means it would depend on the laws of the state the company is doing business in.

Should sexual orientation be a protected status in that state, however, I do not believe a company can discriminate against them based on that qualification alone. Sure, there could be other reasons to reject this ad and I'm sure there were. I'm just saying that networks have to abide by the same discrimination laws that other businesses do, which means they can't reject an add for "whatever reason", but instead, any reason outside of a protected status. This differs from rejecting a political ad, because such issues are not federally protected.