Thought this was funny AND hot!
Here's the story
Here's the rejected commercial
They rejected that... Hello communism...
I guess even the hint of another boob being seen during the superbowl makes fox a little nervous.
Anyone see the proposed beer commercial where a guy pulls out a beer in a dressing room, opens it, and rips a replica of the costume Janet wore last year in the last superbowl?
They rejected that too, and there wasn't even a single female in it.
Maybe I will watch the superbowl. ;)
Wow. risky move. Plunking down something like $5 million for two spots, to a largely untargeted audience.... I wonder of GoDaddy is largely owned by investors, or whether Bob Parsons owns most of it himself.
According to another blog post, GoDaddy did $100 million in revenue in 2004 and $170 mill is the projection for 2005. Wow.
to much money -geez :sick:
Godaddy said it themselves, that don't expect a return on their investment from the advertising, rather they just want to increase name recognition when they roll out new services some time in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Mickiewicz
According to the blog, this is just to ramp up their campaign -- they said they are doing lots more TV, Radio and Print advertising this year....
I can't believe they rejected that. Some people really have to lighten up.
They may have rejected it because it was bad! That was a terrible commercial on the whole.
Ok i agree is wasn't the best commercial, however, it was funny and sexy. What more do you need. Especially when targetting a very large audience composed mainly of men?
Nothing that bad IMHO- Fox is so damn liberal ;)
Agreed. I hope the other one isn't that bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Guy
I don't think I can remember any of the names of the dot-com companies that advertised in the 2000 Superbowl (AKA the "dot-com" bowl). Great way to waste money, considering the audience and the sky-high rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Guy
$200,000/second was it? Or was it a 30 second slot for 2 million... one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMichaels
But she's HOT!Quote:
That was a terrible commercial on the whole.
This year is $2.1 million for 30 secondsQuote:
30 second slot for 2 million
I read that Bob Parsons owns the lot..Only pays for office leasing..
$ CHA CHING Bling Bling..
$2.4 million per commercial x 2 commercials = $4.8 million + $1 million for production costs. If I were Bob, I'd pay myself a divident instead :P
I saw the one that they are going to air and it is better mostly because it sets up the whole scenario. The second one was put together with bits and pieces that were not used from the first one.
Too bad because this one even if it is bad would have had people talking, and then I could say "yeph, that is where I keep my domains, and I did not do it because she is hot"
Don't expect much of anything form the ads this year - I have seen or heard details on most all of them, and none of them will be worth talking about on Monday morning.
So, commercial breaks can go back to their old role, as washroom breaks! :D
At least the Patriots will win...
I wonder if there will be lots of Viagra, Cialis, et al. ads again this year. Seems quite hypocritical to me.
Fox also rejected superbowl commercials from some beermaker, because they compete with a major advertiser of theirs.
Did I mention that everything you hear on Fox is bull? In fact, everything you see on any channel is.
And posts in forums aren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by demosfen
She wasn't naked enough for Fox.