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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos

‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses

Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments

Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO)

Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors

Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump

Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!'

45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile

Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported

BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev !

ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL...

An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure

New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration

Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades

Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN

Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play

"The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll

The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it.

The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means

New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have

More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico

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


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: 5093
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

#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   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   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Dakmar (#2)

Citizen Dakmar,

Your blatant exhibition of common sense and determination to retain a sense of humor have no place in The New American Century. You have steadfastly refused to comply with the directives of the Homeland.

Please report immediately to your designated Freedom & Liberty Center for orderly termination.

Director of Strategic Influence

Esso  posted on  2005-02-07   9:01:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Esso (#5)

Please report immediately to your designated Freedom & Liberty Center for orderly termination.

I don't think they're open for breakfast.

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   9:06:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Esso, Dakmar (#5)

LOL! Dak, you really are making too much sense. There was article that made reference to the "violence + half-time sex" angle. I remember now, it was in regards to the Lingerie Bowl.

Here's the thread:
Wardrobe Malfunctions at Halftime -- Guaranteed
"Francis is so convinced of viewers' need to break up their violence with sex that he's making today's show one hour — twice as long as the halftime break."

robin  posted on  2005-02-07   9:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Dakmar (#6)

I said sausage, not wieners!

Esso  posted on  2005-02-07   9:14:17 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: robin (#7)

I respect that guy.

He's honest. He's marketing his product on Pay-Per-View and he's not trying to slip anything past anyone.

You want tits? He's hired some for the occasion and he's not ashamed to admit it.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   11:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Esso (#5)

Your post is the most idiotic thing I think I've ever seen. It's completely off topic and frankly just illogical.

I love how Conservatives are all "Free Market" till it's THEIR vice being discussed. At that point, everyone is supposed to shut up and go away.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   11:34:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Jhoffa_ (#0)

Personally; I was greatful that Paul McCartney didn't drop his pants during last night's performance at the SB.

who knows what evil  posted on  2005-02-07   11:47:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: who knows what evil (#12)

Ewww!

Now what's it going to take to get rid of THAT image?

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   11:49:30 ET  Reply   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   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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#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   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Jhoffa_ (#17)

What do you expect, these are the same people that depict all white Christians as inbred racists; all blacks and latinos as poor, saintly victims of whites; and everyone who lives outside of NY or LA as ignorant peons. If I didn't know better I'd say they had an agenda. :)

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   13:02:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Jhoffa_ (#0)

Christians who obsess over this kind of nonsense do more to sabotage the popularity of their religion and (other, more relevant) social causes than they can possibly imagine. Congratualions John "cover the boob of Justice" Ashcroft and others like you for hastening the end of the Christian church!

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-07   14:18:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Dakmar (#14)

I find that a lot worse than a three second shot of a boob.

That 'three second shot' of that floppy old brown pancake didn't do much for me, either.

who knows what evil  posted on  2005-02-07   14:50:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Jhoffa_ (#13)

Now what's it going to take to get rid of THAT image?

Sorry. :-)

who knows what evil  posted on  2005-02-07   14:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Jhoffa_, Dakmar (#0)

One thing I don't understand...many of us spent the first 6 to 8 months of our lives getting up 'close and personal' with boobs, and then, in our teens, we're told that we can't even LOOK at them??? What the hell is up with that?

who knows what evil  posted on  2005-02-07   14:57:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: who knows what evil (#22)

kind of like not letting your car see the gas pump after it turns 6 months old... :)

Dakmar  posted on  2005-02-07   15:01:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Dakmar (#23)

ROTF...LOL!

who knows what evil  posted on  2005-02-07   15:43:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: PnbC (#19)

Bite my ass.

I didn't say much when it happened. Then secular twits like you and Mr. GoDaddy come running with stereotypes.

Further, I think you're wrong about Ashcroft. Do some research on the "boob of justice" If I remember correctly, that was a non-scandal.

BTW, you ever talk that way to my face, I'll beat your goddamn teeth down your throat.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   19:44:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Dakmar (#2)

Go see GoDaddy's Super Bowl ad!

Pick the long one!

Hmmmmm  posted on  2005-02-07   20:37:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Jhoffa_, PnbC (#25)

uh, i think you misunderstood PnbC. the "you" he was referring to was John Ashcroft, not you, J.

christine  posted on  2005-02-07   22:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Jhoffa_ (#11)

hoffa, what's up with you tonight? Esso (SO) is Stand Opposed and he was teasing Dak. sheesh. or are you kidding too?

christine  posted on  2005-02-07   23:03:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: christine (#27)

"And others like you" is pretty plain, I think.

And "Esso" running off about re-training camps is ridiculous to a degree usually reserved for school children.

I could make this a long winded diatribe.. but I'll save us both the trouble and just tell you to stick Esso and P-C in your ass.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-07   23:18:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Jhoffa_, christine (#25)

BTW, you ever talk that way to my face, I'll beat your goddamn teeth down your throat.

My comments were most certainly NOT directed towards you.

But I'll tell you this much. The wonderful thing about forums such as this is that I can speak my mind without fear that some reactionary person is going to threaten me with violence just for my mere words. And it's a pity that, face to face you would be unable to answer my words with nothing more nor less than words on your part.

I have not judged you as anything but a reasonable person up to this point. And certainly not as a stereotype. Do you think I ought to start judging you now?

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-08   2:19:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Jhoffa_, christine, All (#30)

Actually I really should have directed my ire towards Michael Powell, but I'm just tired of hypocritical, puritanical "christians" who do more to make their religion sound like a club for sexually repressed busybodies than folks who ought to be working on themselves first. They (Powell and Ashcroft) both represent the marriage of church and state. Enjoy and reap its harvest!

And if you still have problems with my remarks feel free to BOZO me! In fact I INSIST it!

PnbC  posted on  2005-02-08   2:50:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: christine, PnbC, Esso (#28)

Don't mean to bother you.. Just wanted to make an apology for the way I spoke to the three of you. It was completely unwarranted. There's no excuse for it and I can't even offer you a good or reasonable explanation.

I can honestly say that you did nothing at all to deserve this kind of thing. I completely misdirected some anger and frustration from other people and events in the last few weeks and I want you to know that no one here could possibly think it was more incorrect of me to do so than I do myself.

Again, I am deeply sorry for being such an unmitigated asshole to the three of you.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-02-08   21:02:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Jhoffa_ (#32)

thank you. forgiven and forgotten.

christine  posted on  2005-02-08   21:20:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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