NFL/Fox Censorship Of GoDaddy's Ad Brings Millions to GoDaddy's Web Site

[fornax]

As so often happens, trying to censor something has excatly the opposite effect. And the girl IS hot 🙂

Bob Parsons Blog with link to the ads

 

[Harvey]

Fox 'em if they can't take a joke. 😎

 

[bamacre]

Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

 

[datalink7]

Yah, I saw it while I watched the super bowl 😕

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

Janet Jackson exposed herself last year, and they aren't going to let her back. What's your point?

 

[fornax]

I see this has made Drudge... GoDaddy better get more bandwidth 🙂

 

[cwjerome]

When are some whiners going to wake up and realize time and place are everything and that people didn't get upset over an exposed bag of silicone? I didn't appreciate the cheap stunt in that context, just as I wouldn't much like a serious philosophical debate on Kant while watching a decent porno.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
When are some whiners going to wake up and realize time and place are everything and that people didn't get upset over an exposed bag of silicone?

And where have you been that you know they were silicone? You naughty boy. You've been holding out on us. 😎

I didn't appreciate the cheap stunt in that context, just as I wouldn't much like a serious philosophical debate on Kant while watching a decent porno.

What??? You've never had a deep philosophical discussion while getting laid??? And you lost your sense of humor at the same time??? :roll: Oh... The down and dirty crying shame of such a tragic combined loss! :Q

:beer: :laugh: :music:

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

Janet Jackson exposed herself last year, and they aren't going to let her back. What's your point?

Ooh snippy. My point is that they knew the contents of the commercial ahead of time and had already shown it once. It is the height of idiocy and pointlessness to pull it afterwards.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

Supposedly the NFL didn't like the ad so they asked FOX not to show it anymore.

 

[SuRgEoN]

Turns out to be a positive for godaddy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

Supposedly the NFL didn't like the ad so they asked FOX not to show it anymore.

Yep. It was pulled at the request of the NFL. Fox was not the deciding factor in this. If Fox had their druthers they'd be rebroadcasting Janet's boob if they thought it would boost ratings.

Vicious hits and violence only are allowed by the NFL. Jiggling jubblies are a big non-no...unless it's a cheerleader's, then it's OK.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuRgEoN
Turns out to be a positive for godaddy.

In more ways than one. Godaddy, will be able to sue Fox and possibly the NFL.

Pay $5million for 2 thirty second spots.
Sue Fox for not airing the second spot.
Profit.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuRgEoN
Turns out to be a positive for godaddy.

In more ways than one. Godaddy, will be able to sue Fox and possibly the NFL.

Pay $5million for 2 thirty second spots.
Sue Fox for not airing the second spot.
Profit.

After the fiasco last year, it's highly doubtful Fox was in any sort of breach of contract. There was surely a discretionary clause that would allow Fox (or the NFL) to pull a commercial they felt exceeded certain standards (no matter how ridiculously namby-pamby those standards were).

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

Supposedly the NFL didn't like the ad so they asked FOX not to show it anymore.

Yep. It was pulled at the request of the NFL. Fox was not the deciding factor in this. If Fox had their druthers they'd be rebroadcasting Janet's boob if they thought it would boost ratings.

Vicious hits and violence only are allowed by the NFL. Jiggling jubblies are a big non-no...unless it's a cheerleader's, then it's OK.

I don't know, I saw a serious lack of cheerleader shots during the game, fewer than usual.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: bamacre
Yeah, Fox, the land of Married with Children, Simpsons, and Family Guy, and king of censorship. :roll:


It's not about censorship, it's the fact that 2 billion people are watching and you try your best not to offend too many of them.

Now, do I agree with what they did? Doesn't matter, I agree that they have the right to do what they did.

But they had approved it two weeks earlier and shown it once during gametime already.

Supposedly the NFL didn't like the ad so they asked FOX not to show it anymore.

Yep. It was pulled at the request of the NFL. Fox was not the deciding factor in this. If Fox had their druthers they'd be rebroadcasting Janet's boob if they thought it would boost ratings.

Vicious hits and violence only are allowed by the NFL. Jiggling jubblies are a big non-no...unless it's a cheerleader's, then it's OK.

I don't know, I saw a serious lack of cheerleader shots during the game, fewer than usual.

They did cut down on cheerleader shots this year so they could concentrate on that pinnacle of family values - violence and smack talk. 😉