[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade

Oktoberfest tightens security after a deadly knife attack in western Germany

Wild Walrus Just Wanted to Take A Summer Vacation Across Europe

[Video] 'Days of democracy are GONE' seethes Neil Oliver as 'JAIL' awaits Brits DARING to speak up

Police robot dodges a bullet, teargasses a man, and pins him to the ground during a standoff in Texas

Julian Assange EXPOSED

Howling mad! Fury as school allows pupil suffering from 'species dysphoria' to identify as a WOLF

"I Thank God": Heroic Woman Saves Arkansas Trooper From Attack By Drunk Illegal Alien

Taxpayers Left In The Dust On Policy For Trans Inmates In Minnesota

Progressive Policy Backfire Turns Liberals Into Gun Owners

PURE EVIL: Israel booby-trapped CHILDRENS TOYS with explosives to kill Lebanese children

These Are The World's Most Reliable Car Brands

Swing State Renters Earn 17% Less Than Needed To Afford A Typical Apartment

Fort Wayne man faces charges for keeping over 10 lbs of fentanyl in Airbnb

🚨 Secret Service Announces EMERGENCY LIVE Trump Assassination Press Conference | LIVE Right Now [Livestream in progress]

More Political Perverts, Kamala's Cringe-fest On Oprah, And A Great Moment For Trump

It's really amazing! Planet chocolate cake eaten by hitting it with a hammer [Slow news day]

Bombshell Drops: Israel Was In On It! w/ Ben Swann

Cash Jordan: NYC Starts Paying Migrants $4,000 Each... To Leave

Shirtless Trump Supporter Puts CNN ‘Reporter’ in Her Place With Awesome Responses

Iraqi Resistance Attacks Two Vital Targets In Israels Haifa

Ex-Border Patrol Chief Says He Was Instructed By Biden-Harris Admin To Hide Terrorist Encounters

Israeli invasion of Lebanon 'will lead to DOOMSDAY' and all-out war,

PragerUMiss Universe Bankrupt after Trans Takeover: Former Judge Weighs In

Longtime Democratic Campaign Operative Quits the Party After What She Saw at the DNC

Dr. Lindsey Doe is teaching people that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation…

Big Mike & Barry Surrender Law Licenses What Are They Hiding?

Covid Vaccines Sharply Raise Risk of Death or Heart Failure, Major New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows

Here Comes Diversity MEME

Secret Service Investigating Elon Musk Over Twitter/X Joke


Sports
See other Sports Articles

Title: "GoDaddy" founder: Don't want your kid to see Janet Jackson's boob? You might be a "out-of-touch religious fundamentalist"
Source: WND
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42739
Published: Feb 7, 2005
Author: Unattributed
Post Date: 2005-02-07 08:04:40 by Jhoffa_
Keywords: fundamentalist", "GoDaddy", "out-of-touch
Views: 5066
Comments: 33

Internet company reveals 'breast' ad of Super Bowl GoDaddy.com pushes envelope in parody of Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'

An Internet domain-registrar company tried to capitalize on the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" scandal tonight with a commercial featuring a buxom young woman whose flimsy top repeatedly comes undone while testifying before "broadcast censorship hearings."

The ad was produced by GoDaddy.com, of Scottsdale, Ariz. The company claims to be the largest Internet domain-name registrar. GoDaddy.com hyped its ad as "the year's funniest and most entertaining commercial spot. Considering the fact that Super Bowl ads score just as big with fans as the game itself, that's a tall order. But in its own take on this year's media censorship debate, GoDaddy.com is likely to be the most talked about Super Bowl XXXIX ad."

While a longer version of the commercial that aired was rejected by the Fox Television Network, the aired version seemed certain to reignite the nationwide controversy that erupted after last year's Super Bowl halftime show featuring Janet Jackson's top coming undone, baring her breast.

"The ad campaign is a light-hearted approach to the censorship hysteria while inviting Internet users to 'make a name with Go Daddy,'" explained the company.

A statement from the company continued: "You've never seen any advertising like Go Daddy's, which is far and away the most sassy of this year's Super Bowl and will build awareness of Go Daddy's industry-low prices for domain-name registration and related Internet services. More than any other registrar in the world, Go Daddy enables individuals and businesses to acquire, create and safeguard their unique identities and brands on the Internet. Its core businesses are domain-name registration, Web site hosting, secure SSL certificates and Web-based e-mail accounts. In addition, the company offers Web site development and email marketing tools, search engine optimization, a shopping cart, merchant accounts and more – all of which facilitate secure, reliable e-Commerce transactions."

GoDaddy.com claims to be "very profitable" and ranked as the eighth fastest-growing technology company in 2004 among the Inc. 500.

The ad reportedly came about when GoDaddy.com founder Bob Parsons told ad-agency executive Paul Cappelli, "I would love to have a beautiful woman with a nice ample chest with my company name across her shirt."

Between September and early December, Cappelli and his staff worked on 50 scripts that included Parsons' idea and 25 more that didn't. The independent New York agency and Parsons finally agreed on the idea of a Senate hearing in which a woman wearing a GoDaddy.com T-shirt auditions for the commercial.

"Initially, the panel was going to be made up of old men dressed as nuns," Cappelli told AdWeek. "I just wanted the image to be people who were out-of-touch religious fundamentalists."

The commercial was designed to have a C-SPAN feel and the ad includes a logo for G-SPIN in the corner frame.

The idea of poking fun at broadcast censorship "seemed the most topical," Cappelli says, "and we just thought it really had the potential to be drop-dead funny. And it also had a message to it. The message really is that there does seem to be a censorship feeling around the networks. When one small group of people raise their voices, everyone else has to cower in the corner. It was kind of a joke about what happened last year, and it's gotten worse since then."

The 30-second ad reportedly cost $2.4 million.

"They've certainly gotten their money out of the ads," Phoenix public relations executive Nick Quan told the Arizona Republic. "They couldn't have cost much more than $100,000 to produce, and they've already gotten millions of dollars worth of publicity."

While GoDaddy's original commercial made it past Fox's censors, a similar one, produced for a second Super Bowl spot subsequently purchased by GoDaddy, was quickly rejected. That ad is one of several commercials produced for Sunday's 39th annual Super Bowl that have been rejected or pulled by their creators.

One ad rejected by the Fox Network featured legendary actor Mickey Rooney promoting Airborne, the natural cold remedy. The commercial shows the 84-year-old Rooney in a sauna, dressed in a towel.

When someone behind him coughs, a startled Rooney overreacts, jumping up, screaming and leaving, as he drops his towel. His bare behind was exposed for about two seconds. Executives with Airborne say the ad is not sexual, likening it to showing a baby's bottom.

Ford Motor Co. pulled a planned commercial with a clergyman "lusting" over a Lincoln Mark LT pickup truck when a group representing victims of sexual abuse by priests complained.

Anheuser-Busch, the game's biggest advertiser, pulled an ad spoofing the Janet Jackson fiasco at last year's Super Bowl after consulting with the Fox and the National Football League.

The Janet Jackson incident drew a $550,000 indecency fine for CBS, which is appealing the decision.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

#1. To: All (#0)

I don't watch sports, so maybe I've got something to learn here. Tell me, is there a nudity warning broadcast before the SuperBowl.. informing parents that this football game may feature material that is inappropriate for children?

Perhaps there is, but I doubt it..

Till they add one, don't try to have your cake and eat it too.

Don't try to intentionally sneak this stuff by parents, for fear they will turn the channel, and then simultaneously deride them for being offended.

IMO, it's reasonable to either:

1) Keep the nudity out.

2) Take the hit and honestly describe your show. Yes, yes.. I know that runs the risk of parents tuning out, but that's the price you pay, isn't it?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   8:11:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jhoffa_ (#1)

I think all TV should be completely nude, all the time, so no one would watch, except those who would do nothing but watch 24/7, and those poeple need to be kept off the streets anyway.

Seriously though, I don't really have a problem with nudity on TV as lond as it's not explicitly pornographic. It's the norm in Europe, and for the most part they seem to have quite a bit less psychotic behaviour. I can't remember the last time Sweden carpet-bombed a remote tribal village, for instance.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   8:25:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Dakmar (#2)

I don't have a problem with nudity in the SuperBowl. Their game, thay can have it their way, imo..

However, I do have a problem with sneaking this stuff in on people and then mocking them for being shocked.

You know, a person might get the idea that they want those old, fuddy-duddy, religious fundamentalist ad revenues to come rolling in, while making fun of the same viewers who make them possible.

IMO, Either advertise it up front (and risk people tuning out) or expect people to protest when things like this happen unexpectedly. Don't try to have it both ways.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   8:48:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Jhoffa_ (#3)

Would Jesus watch the Superbowl, or would he condemn it as senseless violence? I can understand someone being upset if there was nudity on "Touched by an Angel" (although "Seventh Heaven"...nah, won't go there).

Anyway, my point is that I don't think network bigwigs really think too much about religion when they're putting together something like the superbowl.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   8:58:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Dakmar (#4)

Children aren't supposed to watch football now? Why are they afraid of the free market?

If they want tits in their superbowl, fine let them say so... Nothing to be ashamed of, right?

Surely something like nudity won't affect anyones viewing or advertising decision anyway.. No harm done.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   11:25:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Jhoffa_ (#9)

Children aren't supposed to watch football now?

Should the broadcasters warn that there will be lots of men patting other men on the butt? I find that a lot worse than a three second shot of a boob.

Back to being serious though, I really doubt if CBS(?) had any idea of what Jackson was going to do, thus could not have possible given any sort of warning. If I was a parent I would change channels the instant any one of that sicko family showed up on the screen, as that's my current practice anyway.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   12:17:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Dakmar (#14)

I always wondered if all that butt patting and ball handling was really necessary.

Still the word "nudity" would have gone a long way.. had they used it.

Nah.. they were offering Jackson's "Shocking Moments" before the game even started.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   12:25:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Jhoffa_ (#15)

Well if they knew then they should have given warning as is already standard practice. Sorry to be difficult, but I don't believe anything that comes from Drudge, he's as bad as Newmax.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   12:33:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 16.

#17. To: Dakmar (#16)

I'm not even upset about that.. they thought it would be a ratings thing, some big deal. Personally, I wouldn't walk across the street to see Jackson's boob. But someone felt differently.

I just get irked at the disparity here. They set something up for shock value, and when people viewing with their families are shocked, They get derided as "religious fundamentalists" Like Religious "Fundamentlists" are the only ones who would every think twice about such a thing.

That's a horribly unfair characterization to make, in my opinion.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07 12:37:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]