Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: NarcissisticDeity on January 29, 2010, 05:21:22 PM
-
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/?hpt=P1
CBS is homophobic apparently , you can show Janet Jacksons saggy tit but no ads from Gays
-
CRICKETS
-
I'm not against gays but that is not the time and the place for that. You can't just force an majority unpopular idea on a bunch of people and expect them to accept it. It will take time and the gays have made up alot of ground in the past decade.
-
I'm not against gays but that is not the time and the place for that. You can't just force an majority unpopular idea on a bunch of people and expect them to accept it. It will take time and the gays have made up alot of ground in the past decade.
I don't think there is a time and a place for discrimination
-
Hulkster will not agree
-
Hulkster will not agree
LMFAO he stared in the commercial
-
They will probably run it during the World Cup.
-
They will probably run it during the World Cup.
*ZING* ;D
-
LMFAO he stared in the commercial
;D
-
They will probably run it during the World Cup.
lmao
-
I’m not in favor of discrimination; the FCC should hold all networks to certain (and the same) standards for accepting or rejecting commercial sponsors. That said, I can’t help but wonder if ManCrunch.com (a company no one has ever heard of) is simply trying to stir up trouble. Are they really trying to reach a gay audience? Is an on the Superbowl the best way to do that? Can they really afford to advertise on the Superbowl? What is their credit status? CBS charges up to $3 million for 30-second spots.
I'm sure the ad would get a better, more effective, reception if it aired during a bodybuilding competition. :D
-
I’m not in favor of discrimination; the FCC should hold all networks to certain (and the same) standards for accepting or rejecting commercial sponsors. That said, I can’t help but wonder if ManCrunch.com (a company no one has ever heard of) is simply trying to stir up trouble. Are they really trying to reach a gay audience? Is an on the Superbowl the best way to do that? Can they really afford to advertise on the Superbowl? What is their credit status? CBS charges up to $3 million for 30-second spots.
I'm sure the ad would get a better, more effective, reception if it aired during a bodybuilding competition. :D
Hahahahaha They're sponsoring the next Olympia :-X
-
Hahahahaha They're sponsoring the next Olympia :-X
Now you're talking! ;D
-
I’m not in favor of discrimination; the FCC should hold all networks to certain (and the same) standards for accepting or rejecting commercial sponsors. That said, I can’t help but wonder if ManCrunch.com (a company no one has ever heard of) is simply trying to stir up trouble. Are they really trying to reach a gay audience? Is an on the Superbowl the best way to do that? Can they really afford to advertise on the Superbowl? What is their credit status? CBS charges up to $3 million for 30-second spots.
I'm sure the ad would get a better, more effective, reception if it aired during a bodybuilding competition. :D
I agree... I suspect they are simply trying to stir the pot. There is no way that the Superbowl is an ideal demographic, especially considering the exorbitant amount of $$ that an Ad costs.
Come to think of it... didn't the WWF get into quite a bit of heat a few years back, when they were running Ads that were considered too "racy?"
-
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/?hpt=P1
CBS is homophobic apparently , you can show Janet Jacksons saggy tit but no ads from Gays
And ? homosexualality is not normal let us not forget.
Sure treat each person as an individual and with respect but at the end of the day they need to keep that shit to themselves , they have places where they can go to roll round in there faggotory , they are still a minority when compared to hetros so why should we have to watch there shite? let them seek it out themselves if they want it.
Next it will be sex with animals etc etc its all the same an illness.
-
Now you're talking! ;D
It would be smart marketing
-
CRICKETS
this is a terrible injustice, the supreme court must weigh in on this obvious sign of blatant racism against the gay community!
-
It would be smart marketing
I remember an interview with Wayne Demilla a while back, and he said that one of the main reasons behind Bodybuildings current downfall, is that it is no longer supported by the Gay community.
Wayne said that the gays were the major source of support throughout the 70s, and 80s, and once the guts started getting out of control, it lost a lot of support from them.
I suspect that he is probably correct.
-
I'm not against gays but that is not the time and the place for that. You can't just force an majority unpopular idea on a bunch of people and expect them to accept it. It will take time and the gays have made up alot of ground in the past decade.
so what do you think about the anti-abortion ad with Tim Tebow that it seems CBS will run during the super bowl?
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-cbs-air-controversial/story?id=9667638
-
this is a terrible injustice, the supreme court must weigh in on this obvious sign of blatant racism against the gay community!
Gays are a race, FFS!
-
I remember an interview with Wayne Demilla a while back, and he said that one of the main reasons behind Bodybuildings current downfall, is that it is no longer supported by the Gay community.
Wayne said that the gays were the major source of support throughout the 70s, and 80s, and once the guts started getting out of control, it lost a lot of support from them.
I suspect that he is probably correct.
No shit ! I recall Haney talking about posing in front of 5-6000 people and I recall Ronnie and Jay saying the same and I'm like wow audience hasn't grown in 25 years at the biggest show in the sport
I recall watching the Nationals every year on ESPN same with the Arnold and the Olympia now they're nowhere to be found on mainstream media :-\
-
so what do you think about the anti-abortion ad with Tim Tebow that it seems CBS will run during the super bowl?
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tim-tebow-super-bowl-ad-cbs-air-controversial/story?id=9667638
fucking hypocrites >:(
-
No shit ! I recall Haney talking about posing in front of 5-6000 people and I recall Ronnie and Jay saying the same and I'm like wow audience hasn't grown in 25 years at the biggest show in the sport
I recall watching the Nationals every year on ESPN same with the Arnold and the Olympia now they're nowhere to be found on mainstream media :-\
It makes sense to me. To really appreciate Bodybuilding, I think one needs to appreciate aesthetics in a way that most women are incapable of. I think this applies to both straight and gay men. It also of course helps to understand how hard it is to reach that level of competition.
-
fucking hypocrites >:(
to quote another: Just so I'm clear on this, Mrs. Tebow: because you had a difficult pregnancy in 1987 and CHOSE to carry your baby to term, you are lending your support to an organization that believes other women should not have the same CHOICE that you had ... because your son is a good football player?
-
to quote another: Just so I'm clear on this, Mrs. Tebow: because you had a difficult pregnancy in 1987 and CHOSE to carry your baby to term, you are lending your support to an organization that believes other women should not have the same CHOICE that you had ... because your son is a good football player?
I think that the line of reasoning is that since she was able to follow thru with a difficult decision, then others are able to do so as well.
For what it's worth.
-
Like bay says how could that unknown company ever afford to advertise on the most expensive advertising time and channel of the year... just sounds plain stupid to me.
-
to quote another: Just so I'm clear on this, Mrs. Tebow: because you had a difficult pregnancy in 1987 and CHOSE to carry your baby to term, you are lending your support to an organization that believes other women should not have the same CHOICE that you had ... because your son is a good football player?
even if you're son wont be the next tim tebow it shouldnt be the parents right to decide
the kid has a right to try to succeed in this world, as evil as this world may be
even if the mom is a failure or think she cant provide for the kid the kid still deserves a chance
that kid could be the next tim tebow, the next isaac newton, the next _______, you name it
life isnt fare i dont care if the woman thinks a baby will interfer with her worthless college education
may i remind all of you that a baby has unique DNA
it isnt anyones property, just like black people werent white mans property
-
to quote another: Just so I'm clear on this, Mrs. Tebow: because you had a difficult pregnancy in 1987 and CHOSE to carry your baby to term, you are lending your support to an organization that believes other women should not have the same CHOICE that you had ... because your son is a good football player?
That's the problem I have with Christians ( conservative ones at least ) they can't be happy with their own choices they have to force them on everyone else.
Okay she did the right thing and kept her child and more power to her please don't tell people they should be like you.
-
That's the problem I have with Christians ( conservative ones at least ) they can't be happy with their own choices they have to force them on everyone else.
Okay she did the right thing and kept her child and more power to her please don't tell people they should be like you.
x2
-
That's the problem I have with Christians ( conservative ones at least ) they can't be happy with their own choices they have to force them on everyone else.
Okay she did the right thing and kept her child and more power to her please don't tell people they should be like you.
While I would agree with this...the argument gets far more complicated when you try and decide when does life start, and how valuable is life?
Clearly there is a lot more to this subject, and there are no easy answers, it is naive, or disingenuous to just sum it up as a personal decision, and nothing more.
-
even if you're son wont be the next tim tebow it shouldnt be the parents right to decide
Scenario 1: "As you physician, I believe it is very likely that due to these medicines that you need to take to save your life, there is a very good chance that your child will be born with birth defects. I recommend that you have an abortion." "Thank you for your advice, but I think I will carry the child to term anyway."
Scenario 2: "As you physician, I believe it is very likely that due to these medicines that you need to take to save your life, there is a very good chance that your child will be born with birth defect. But the federal government requires that you to care the child to term."
-
I’m not in favor of discrimination; the FCC should hold all networks to certain (and the same) standards for accepting or rejecting commercial sponsors. That said, I can’t help but wonder if ManCrunch.com (a company no one has ever heard of) is simply trying to stir up trouble. Are they really trying to reach a gay audience? Is an on the Superbowl the best way to do that? Can they really afford to advertise on the Superbowl? What is their credit status? CBS charges up to $3 million for 30-second spots.
I'm sure the ad would get a better, more effective, reception if it aired during a bodybuilding competition. :D
LOL @ bolded part.
Fucking hypocrites. Alcohol, sex, drugs, gambling, thieves (corporations/banks), et cetera, (during a violent game) are fucking okay. But oh no, don't let the gays advertise..... ::)
Their money is green...what is the problem?
Does this mean bbing couldn't get a SB ad, if it could afford it?
-
I'm not against gays but that is not the time and the place for that. You can't just force an majority unpopular idea on a bunch of people and expect them to accept it. It will take time and the gays have made up alot of ground in the past decade.
If it was a Shemale dating site, would you feel different?
-
Scenario 1: "As you physician, I believe it is very likely that due to these medicines that you need to take to save your life, there is a very good chance that your child will be born with birth defects. I recommend that you have an abortion." "Thank you for your advice, but I think I will carry the child to term anyway."
Scenario 2: "As you physician, I believe it is very likely that due to these medicines that you need to take to save your life, there is a very good chance that your child will be born with birth defect. But the federal government requires that you to care the child to term."
Tim...you are unfairly framing your point. I don't think most sensible people, even in the Christian right, would object to abortion in cases of rape, or putting the mother's life in jeopardy. Sure there are some, but they are in the minority.
-
Tim...you are unfairly framing your point. I don't think most sensible people, even in the Christian right, would object to abortion in cases of rape, or putting the mother's life in jeopardy. Sure there are some, but they are in the minority.
but that is what the Tebow ad is about.
-
Scenario 1: "As you physician, I believe it is very likely that due to these medicines that you need to take to save your life, there is a very good chance that your child will be born with birth defects. I recommend that you have an abortion." "Thank you for your advice, but I think I will carry the child to term anyway."
Scenario 2: "As you physician, I believe it is very likely that due to these medicines that you need to take to save your life, there is a very good chance that your child will be born with birth defect. But the federal government requires that you to care the child to term."
thats a little bit different, especially if the health/life of the mother is at risk.
but i absolutely oppose abortion for "convenience" or so the mother can get her useless english literture degree.
as far as a child with birth defects goes, thats a hard one too, but some still seem to enjoy life and develop loving relationships with their family. its hard to say because i'm sure their attitude varies on a case by case basis
-
thats a little bit different, especially if the health/life of the mother is at risk.
the Tebow ad is exactly about that. Her doctor recommended that she got an abortion, but she CHOSE not to. And look he became a world class athlete! Therefore we should outlaw abortion.
-
LOL @ bolded part.
Fucking hypocrites. Alcohol, sex, drugs, gambling, thieves (corporations/banks), et cetera, (during a violent game) are fucking okay. But oh no, don't let the gays advertise..... ::)
Their money is green...what is the problem?
Does this mean bbing couldn't get a SB ad, if it could afford it?
Again... I doubt that they even had the capital to advertise via the Superbowl. Is it really a commendable cause, when it was just done to draw ire, and attention?
-
the Tebow ad is exactly about that. Her doctor recommended that she got an abortion, but she CHOSE not to. And look he became a world class athlete! Therefore we should outlaw abortion.
If that is the case, (I haven't seen the Ad), then I stand corrected, it sounded like you were painting everyone in the pro-life category , with quite a broad stroke.
-
the Tebow ad is exactly about that. Her doctor recommended that she got an abortion, but she CHOSE not to. And look he became a world class athlete! Therefore we should outlaw abortion.
i think its intended as more of a general pro-life message
i dont think its specifically aimed to mothers with life-threatening complications
-
Again... I doubt that they even had the capital to advertise via the Superbowl. Is it really a commendable cause, when it was just done to draw ire, and attention?
We do not know that. I've heard of companies who put everything (money wise) into SB ads, betting that it will pay off. Just a few years ago, I think there was a burger joint that did just that.
In the end, they are still refusing to advertise to an audience. I'm sure lots of gays watch Football. In the end, it would (likely) be a :30 spot, that anyone could skip, if they don't like it. Personally, I find the hype of the SB commercials to be a joke. Why anyone would tune in to watch commercials, is beyond me.
-
I'm sorry, but anyway you slice it, this is discrimination.
What if the majority of the world was gay, and a straight site was denied? How would you feel then?
For whatever it's worth, I don't have a horse in this race. But right is right, and wrong is wrong. And telling gays they can't advertise during the SB is wrong.
-
We do not know that. I've heard of companies who put everything (money wise) into SB ads, betting that it will pay off. Just a few years ago, I think there was a burger joint that did just that.
In the end, they are still refusing to advertise to an audience. I'm sure lots of gays watch Football. In the end, it would (likely) be a :30 spot, that anyone could skip, if they don't like it. Personally, I find the hype of the SB commercials to be a joke. Why anyone would tune in to watch commercials, is beyond me.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I of course have no way of knowing...and if it was a legitimate stab at exposure, then I suppose it is hypocritical of them to ban the advertisement, but that doesn't make it ia bad decison, from a business standpoint.
I dont know the exact demographics of pro football, but it is safe to assume that far more conservative people watch it, then gays. Upsetting the apple cart may be more of a perceived risk to the NFL, and networks, then the revenue of their ad.
-
the Mancrunch ad certainly sounds like a publicity stunt. if you're going to spend $3m for an ad, you'd probably spend a few hundred thousand on production. This has all the production values of a webblog.
-
the Mancrunch ad certainly sounds like a publicity stunt. if you're going to spend $3m for an ad, you'd probably spend a few hundred thousand on production. the ad is in the link below. has all the production values of a webcam.
http://www.afterelton.com/blog/michaeljensen/mancrunch-cbs-blatant-discrimination
Doesn't surprise me in the least. It was a good idea though...sure to get a lot of free publicity.
-
Good, enough homo's in this world already
-
A network has the discretion to determine what ads they will or won't air. I personally don't see a controversy.
-
A network has the discretion to determine what ads they will or won't air. I personally don't see a controversy.
I agree. While it is hypocritical .....so what? It is their prerogative.
-
I don't think there is a time and a place for discrimination
You're right, discrimination should be constant and upheld with the most vigilance.
-
It is safe to assume that a number of proposed ads get rejected for various reasons, however, the nature of this one gets attention. I am aware of another such example where a network rejected an ad for a dating site to be aired during a sporting event. It was not a gay dating site as in this case, but was rejected just the same. If an ad for a heterosexual dating site can be rejected by a network, why can't one that markets toward homosexuals? From what I gather, there is little difficulty in selling ad time for the Superbowl, and as such, I'm sure the network can be selective in the ads they choose to air. Rather than a decision derived from perceived prejudice, it could be a simple business decision. Either way, a network has that entitlement, even though it may not be in agreement with everyone.
It seems fashionable nowadays to affix labels to anyone who may not be in agreement with "modern" lifestyles or behaviors. If one does not agree with homosexuality, they are immediately labeled as being homophobic, even if they do nothing discriminatory against that group of people. I find that offensive. The current sentiment seems to be that you must be willing to not only be tolerant of, but also promote such a lifestyle or be branded a bigot. Nowhere is it written that gays have to be afforded the right to advertise dating sites for casual sex on television networks. The same is true of a dating site of any persuasion. We all have different views on what we find acceptable and will at times express vastly different values. Networks are run by people, just like us, who have their own views and ideologies. It would be near impossible to make decisions that would appease everyone in society. In the end, television is an industry based heavily on image and marketing. If such an ad does not correspond with the image the network wants to project, so be it.
-
WHAT?!? DAT'S...
(http://passionweiss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ludacris9.jpg)
-
Interesting morals at work here.
On the one hand they ban an advert that is aimed at consenting adults and then on the other they will be allowing a man who was convicted of downloading child porn play the halftime show.
I wonder what upsets the baby jeebus more?
-
I remember an interview with Wayne Demilla a while back, and he said that one of the main reasons behind Bodybuildings current downfall, is that it is no longer supported by the Gay community.
Wayne said that the gays were the major source of support throughout the 70s, and 80s, and once the guts started getting out of control, it lost a lot of support from them.
I suspect that he is probably correct.
I remember an interview where he said the problem was women didn't turn up anymore, and that he used to sell lots of tickets to the NOC to groups of women, but now the sex appeal wasn't there in the men because they started looking like shit. So where was the mention of the gays?