It’s nice for us to talk about morals and standards, but we ain’t the ones getting wacked by a big ass fine because a bunch of ya-hoos burnt up the FCC switchboard cause they became upset about two guys kissing.

I’m no law expert but look into ‘F.C.C. vs. W.B.A.I.’ or ‘F.C.C. vs. FOX television stations’ . One vote the other way and those stations would have been in deep doo doo. And in the case of WBAI, only one person complained to get it all started.

Now here’s the joke, ready? If they put the Super Bowl on cable, different ball game. They could run the add, people could complain all they want. And it wouldn’t matter. Cable & Broadcast, two different animals.

So it gets down to this Rachel, and yeah it’s f’d up but if you complain? It doesn’t cost CBS, if the ya-hoos complain? it could and probably will cost them big bucks.

“I don’t even watch football, though I like Superbowl parties.” Rachel, you kill me! LOL!

“After reviewing the ad – which is entirely commercial in nature – our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot,” said CBS in a statement. “As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions.”

Sources said the network felt the site was using the tried-and-true tactic of generating free publicity by submitting a Super Bowl ad they knew was likely to be rejected and was ultimately unwilling to pay for.

Down-low (sexual slang): Men who identify as straight, but have sex with men on the side without disclosing this to their female sexual partner(s).

Sounds like a site for married men/men in the closet to hook up with other men on the down low. I don’ think it should be aired…. It promotes cheating and their tag line makes it sound like a big sex party operation. Not very family oriented.

Because of shows like Brothers and Sisters, that have same sex kissing, I don’t know if it was so much the guys kissing as it was the actual content/purpose of the site. The kissing was funny and cheesy, not racy.

(Because you know, I don’t watch sports and I wouldn’t complain about this or any other ad.
Basically, I don’t have a dog in this hunt)

The aforementioned Snickers ad got the company some heat for it’s ending and some of it may have spilled over onto CBS. The 2004 Super Bowl, which was also broadcast by CBS was the one with the infamous “wardrobe malfunction”, so I don’t know how much you can blame the network for being skittish — the last two times they hosted the broadcast, there was some kind of controversy.

But, I don’t see how scantily-clad women or sexy commercials are a “double-standard”. They should appeal to the Super Bowl demographic and garner few complaints, while a couple of non-gay actors, non-kissing in rip-off of an overlong Mad TV skit is obviously engineered to generate publicity. After all, since they probably don’t have the money and put together a rather amateurish ad, how hard did Mancrush fight to be included?

Every year we get PETA ads that are designed to be rejected and GoDaddy got a lot of press from the consideration and the airing. Yes, it would be nice if CBS had accepted the ad, but it’s their airtime and perhaps after the wardrobe malfunction, they’re bending too far in the other direction. And, as the whole ABC/Adam Lambert thing/fallout has shown, context is something that had to be taken into consideration.

No controversy!

This is a no brainer from the start, The Tebow add has nothing to do with it, that add is not controversial at all. (Democrat Underground get over it.)

Myself, I have no problem with the add, If anything it looked like a spoof. Rachel, they are getting more free miles out of this then if their add would have run. I’m with Magister on this part, if CBS would have said “Show us the Money”. Mancruch would have backed out. How much capitol can they possibly have?

Though I have to admit, it would have been fun to see Malkin, World Net & Pawn Vannity go nuts.

Yesterday, when the ad started popping up around the blogosphere, I pulled up a YouTube of the snickers ad from 2007 and I see other groups doing the same. In my mind, it’s almost an apples to oranges comparison, except one is (arguably) “pro” and the other “anti”.

Personally, I have no problem with the ad from a thematic angle. Though if I were CBS, I’d want secured payment in advance and if I were the head of Mancrunch, I’d really have to wonder if this would be the best use of my limited advertising dollars. I mean, you could probably sponsor a year’s worth of Brothers & Sisters and the entire Bravo lineup for that kind of money.

IOW: Of course it’s a publicity stunt by the website. How would they have the money? Have they ever advertised anywhere else? Ever? What percentage of the Super Bowl audience is a potential customer for their product, while how many people have heard the free publicity generated by their rejection and what percentage of their target demographic consider them heroes?

Plus, they have the added benefit of having other broadcast and cable networks jumping at the chance to prove they’re not homophobic and airing the ad in prime time to Mancrunch’s intended audience (which I’m sure isn’t the Super Bowl demographic).

From beginning to end, this was just a BRILLIANT ploy by Mancrunch’s PR team.

On the other hand (be it good bad or indifferent) showing 2 men in a homosexual “lip-lock” to an audience of superbowl fans (yes primarily men) will offend millions, an enormous risk of lost revenue. I think it’s safe to say the 95% of men that are NOT homosexuals don’t really care a whole lot what 2 guys do in the privacy of their home or their bedroom, but I can guarantee you that 95% of us don’t want to WATCH it.

I don’t get all the angst from others about the Tebow ad. It hasn’t been seen by anyone but CBS and those involved in the production. It might be wise to hold one’s fire rather than risk looking foolish. If the ad itself is innocuous….and just a heart warming tale, the screamers are going to look just like that. Screamers.