»» Columnists

Is The Gay Kiss Super Bowl Ad Controversy Starting To Unravel?

by Michael Triplett | 7:16 am, February 3rd, 2010

» 8 comments

It was an irresistible story. A gay-hookup site called ManCrunch submitted an ad to CBS for inclusion during the Super Bowl. The company leaks to the media that they expect to be turned down because the ad includes two men kissing and CBS instantly became the villain in the annual ritual of Super Bowl ad drama.

Less than a week later, the tide has slowly begun to turn and attention is now focused on the people behind ManCrunch and whether the media that focused on the story and the gay community that helped fan the outrage have been played by people manufacturing a controversy to increase attention for the website and who aren’t all that supportive of gays?

When news of the rejected ad first surfaced, people quickly jumped on the anti-CBS bandwagon and somehow saw ManCrunch as the latest bottle thrown at the Stonewall rebellion. Amid the Focus on the Family ad controversy, CBS rejecting an ad featuring two guys “kissing” was an undeniable symbol of everything-that-is-wrong with how CBS has handled Super Bowl ads.

But is a company that wants to cater to men on the “down low” and produces an ad that features a “kiss” and set-up you’d expect on Spike TV or a Jackass movie really worthy of martyr status? Is it possible that the real homophobic villains in this annual morality play are ManCrunch and their cynical exploitation of the media, the gay community and those sympathetic towards gay people?

In an email, ManCrunch spokeswoman Elissa Butcher told Mediaite that the allegations that the ad was a hoax to get attention was “completely false” and she said that the networks ad denial represented a serious harm to the gay community.

CBS’ rejection has now opened the door to other networks potentially rejecting our commercial. From a cultural perspective that will set the gay movement back decades and from a business standpoint that will really hinder our company’s efforts to advertise in the US. Our service doesn’t belong in the late night time slots reserved for 1-900 ads. We should be allowed to advertise anywhere Match and eHarmony are allowed to.

Manufacturing a controversy by submitting a controversial ad for the Super Bowl isn’t new, but the willingness of the media to play along year-after-year appears to be never ending. The annual kabuki dance between publicity seekers, the networks, and the media means the networks are blamed for not being open-minded while no one questions the cynical motives of potential advertisers

While many people who originally saw the ad on YouTube questioned the production quality of the ad, there was very little information about the Toronto-based company who said they were launching a new hook-up site for men. Some people who talked to MediaCrunch spokespeople realized they are the same people who repped AshleyMadison.com, the service for married men and the single women who like them. According to Butcher, both sites are owned by the holding company Avid Life Media and ManCrunch was created because the gay community lacked “an online dating site that promoted lasting relationships” as opposed to being “sex-driven.”

As Alex Blaze at Bilerico Project points out, the two websites have almost identical terms-of-service statements, specifically providing “an interactive way for like minded users to explore whether they wish to meet each other, chat with each other and/or explore extra-marital relationships.” The small print at ManCrunch says the service is for men who want to “open up about the down low.” The “down low” is code for men who date and marry women, but also have sex with men.

>>>Real or not? Skeptics from across the blogosphere wonder what’s really going on here.>>>>

Pages: 1 2

AshleyMadison, CBS Super Bowl, fox news, GLAAD, Hollywood Reporter, ManCrunch, Mancrunch Ad Superbowl, Spike TV

The Real Royal King

This underscores CBS’ wisdom in declining this add and its folly in accepting the Tebow ad. The venue is simply inappropriate for either.
sarainitaly

Great analysis, Michael. The unfortunate thing is that using cheap tactics like these they are going to cause the movement to lose supporters, not gain them. I think an ad about finding a life partner is a far cry from an ad that promotes the down low, and a place where “many many men come out to play”.

The networks have portrayed gay relationships including displays of affection, since Will and Grace to Brothers and Sisters. So it doesn’t ring true that CBS’s motive for declining the ad was homophobic. Positive role models have done wonders for reversing negative images of the gay community. Ellen is a star! (in fact, I wish more minorites, women and African Americans, would push for more positive rolls in the media, and less stereotypical rolls that only perpetuate the stereotypes.)

This ad, in my opinion, perpetuates a negative stereotype that gay men are sex fiends and all on the downlow.
The Real Royal King

I would note that there are sites devoted to heterosexual flings and even adulterous flings. Some of these are even advertised, or have been advertised, on Greta Van Susteren’s blog. I suppose we are all in agreement that these sites ought not be advertised on television, either?
sarainitaly

The Real Royal King says:
February 3, 2010 at 8:29 am

Really? Such as? I do agree that they should not be aired during family friendly programming, especially on a major network. Greta at 10pm on cable… i think that is a safe hour. Heck, soap operas are a walking advertisement for adulty. hahah But am curious what the ads are.

I don’t know why people need to spend money to advertise adultery. They can just buy Andrew Youngs book. haha Seriously though, yuck. Why, and why?

But, straight people aren’t fighting an uphill battle, trying to overcome inequality. If they want to advertise their adultry, they are only hurting themselves, and ensuring divorce lawyers can continue to thrive. A gay site adveritsing down low, IMHO, is hurting the entire community by perpetuating those stereotypes. Might not be fair, but I think it is true.

It’s kind of like Italian Americans getting upset about Jersey Shores, or whatever it is called. And I despise those shows like Jerry Springer or Tia Tequila/Rock of Love/brett Michaels – it is SO bad for women who fight to overcome stereotypes. And it is just plain gross.
The Real Royal King

I’ll condemn both. I see no value in bootycall.com.
liberalontogeny

Kudos to M. Triplett and Mediaite. Seemed to me there was lots of courage to run this story and including an angle on media’s alleged blind “running with stories”. Mainly launched with Triplett’s line:

“The annual kabuki dance between publicity seekers, the networks, and the media means the networks are blamed for not being open-minded while no one questions the cynical motives of potential advertisers”

I have no idea if Ad a hoax or not. Whether Mancrunch intentions sincere or not, unraveling or not. The courage and kudos comes because Mediaite just days ago ran this story:

Disgust with CBS double standard

Congrats on transparency and balance.
Fidoohki

I just want to see the ads and make my own decisions.If they are done tastefully then I have no
problem with them. If they are standard BS ads then they should be taken out. Simple.
writer

It’s sort of like Janet Jackson flashing a boobie. I don’t really object to it, but an audience with kids watching isn’t really the place for it.