NBC Rejects PETA Super Bowl Ad, But Is It Just A Publicity Stunt?
PETA is claiming that NBC is "refusing to air its rather provocative Super Bowl ad" that features models "frolicking amid broccoli and pumpkins,” according to James Hibberd of the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. The ad, titled “Veggie Love,” contains the tagline, “Studies Show Vegetarians Have Better Sex." PETA claims NBC VP/Advertising Standards Victoria Morgan "rejected the ad because it 'depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards'" (THRFEED.com, 1/27). The organization received an e-mail from NBC detailing why the ad was rejected, which PETA spokesperson Michael McGraw said “was so sexually explicit that it actually had all of us at PETA blushing, outlining the several things that they’re insisting we remove” (“Access Hollywood,” 1/27). AWFUL ANNOUNCING's Brian Powell writes, "I would have to side with NBC on this one. Not that veggies, women and Warrant songs don't turn me on, but there ARE kids watching this game" (AWFULANNOUNCING.com, 1/28). YAHOO SPORTS' Matthew Darnell wrote, "I'm no fan of censorship, but I don't believe NBC is being unreasonable here. ... On the other hand, I'm quite sure that there will be no shortage of other ads on NBC that find other ways to objectify women that are just as damaging" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 1/27).
CHEAP GRAB FOR ATTENTION: The HOLLYWOOD REPORTER’s Hibberd writes for PETA, being banned "arguably brings publicity as effective as the attention the group would garner if NBC aired the ad -- and it's a lot cheaper, too." Sources said that NBC "suspects the spot deliberately was created to be rejected by the network." One source said, "They knew this would never fly" (HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, 1/28). In DC, Lisa de Moraes writes, "Given that this is one of many PETA ads rejected by a network ... we, and apparently others, can't help but suspect that PETA never really intended to buy ad time in the Super Bowl." Being banned by NBC is a "really effective way to drive viewers to your Web site to watch the naughty spot -- and saves" about $3M (WASHINGTON POST, 1/28). BESTWEEKEVER.tv’s Dan Hopper wrote, “It’s obviously a calculated attempt by PETA to say ‘check out this commercial we made that THE MAN refused to air,’ even though they clearly had no intention to actually pay for Super Bowl airtime” (BESTWEEKEVER.tv, 1/27). U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT's Maura Judkis wrote, "I wouldn't be surprised if the creators of the spot deliberately exceeded network decency rules, wisely knowing that the ban of the ad would create more news" (USNEWS.com, 1/27). MSNBC.com's Allison Linn wrote under the header, "PETA Pulls A Lame Stunt" (MSNBC.com, 1/27).
WITH COMPANY: Weatherproof Garment Company, which attempted to share a 30-second Super Bowl spot with other companies, yesterday held a screening of its rejected three-second ad (Weatherproof).
|
