Pay attention. The add was not banned for the convoluted reasoning you believe. If you would BE REASONABLE and READ THE ARTICLE, the add was banned for a inter- conflict with interested parties. Those sponsors being "Pepsi" and "SodaStream." Since, simplicity is of necessity, I will try to take it slow.
The Super Bowl or Super Bowl Committee(SBC) has an absolute say in what commercials are aired during their viewing slot. The SBC is sponsored by Pepsi (hereafter, A). SodaStream (hereafter, B), wants to show their commercial during the SBC time slot. Both A and B are directly involved in SBCs' time slot. B's commercial includes a verbal posture against A. The SBC, being supported/sponsored by A, would have a conflict with A by allowing B to air a commercial, which, is verbally derogatory toward A.
It would be in poor taste for the SBC to allow the un-edited version of Bs' commercial. However, SBC could decide to not ban Bs' commercial at all, since it's their priority. But, I'm sure A, "Pepsi," might then be in a position to "incentivize" SBC not to allow Commercial B. But I'm probably getting ahead of you at this point.
The aforementioned is in the form of simple logic. If you still think the commercial was banned because of: "dress....more than...you know...other woman...sex......GoDaddy ....ridiculous," or any other belligerently disseminated reason, please do America a favor, and move to Canada.
Sherri - 10 years ago
I can't believe the committee banned this commercial, but allowed, in years past, the ads from GoDaddy and other companies. Miss Johansson is wearing ten times more clothing than other women have worn in other ads. Absolutely ridiculous!
Sherri,
Pay attention. The add was not banned for the convoluted reasoning you believe. If you would BE REASONABLE and READ THE ARTICLE, the add was banned for a inter- conflict with interested parties. Those sponsors being "Pepsi" and "SodaStream." Since, simplicity is of necessity, I will try to take it slow.
The Super Bowl or Super Bowl Committee(SBC) has an absolute say in what commercials are aired during their viewing slot. The SBC is sponsored by Pepsi (hereafter, A). SodaStream (hereafter, B), wants to show their commercial during the SBC time slot. Both A and B are directly involved in SBCs' time slot. B's commercial includes a verbal posture against A. The SBC, being supported/sponsored by A, would have a conflict with A by allowing B to air a commercial, which, is verbally derogatory toward A.
It would be in poor taste for the SBC to allow the un-edited version of Bs' commercial. However, SBC could decide to not ban Bs' commercial at all, since it's their priority. But, I'm sure A, "Pepsi," might then be in a position to "incentivize" SBC not to allow Commercial B. But I'm probably getting ahead of you at this point.
The aforementioned is in the form of simple logic. If you still think the commercial was banned because of: "dress....more than...you know...other woman...sex......GoDaddy ....ridiculous," or any other belligerently disseminated reason, please do America a favor, and move to Canada.
I can't believe the committee banned this commercial, but allowed, in years past, the ads from GoDaddy and other companies. Miss Johansson is wearing ten times more clothing than other women have worn in other ads. Absolutely ridiculous!