<p>^ No. You’re not. I too am annoyed by those commercials (as I stated in another thread). I am a vegetarian, but I eat eggs. But it was like REALLY? Do you REALLY need to tell us that the poor chickens are going to need to run for their lives because you want eggs from them? I am avoiding Denny’s from now on because those commercials were CREEPY.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. You can’t give airtime to one side of the aisle and not the other (if you’re going to give either airtime at all). There is a time and place for it, and Superbowl Sunday is not one of them. Just let us have our one day of the year where we don’t have to think about politics!</p>
<p>" I am avoiding Denny’s from now on because those commercials were CREEPY.</p>
<p>^I thought they were pretty creepy too."</p>
<p>Nice. Ill be doing the same. I hope other people think like us and avoid dennys as well. Absolutely terrible …</p>
<p>“Just let us have our one day of the year where we don’t have to think about politics!”</p>
<p>AMEN!!!</p>
<p>Yeah, I understand that it’s ‘our’ one day but i just don’t think it should the ads should be disregarded just for such reasons. Just saying again. lol!</p>
<p>And what was the Denny’s ad about exactly. I must’ve missed it.</p>
<p>There were about 4 commercials advertising free grand slam breakfasts from 6-2. And the chickens were involved in that dennys was implying that they basically had to work overtime to lay more eggs. Supply and demand pretty much. It was like chickens in a freakin sweatshop.</p>
<p>^It was nasty and who in their right mind would want to think of that before they take off to frequent Denny’s???</p>
<p>Oh, well, it’s the tough truth. Don’t mean to get all political but America consumes way more than it needs. People are working in sweatshops rite now! Don’t you think it was more of awareness? </p>
<p>and wait, isn’t Denny’s kinda like…giving out mixed signals by doing that?</p>
<p>In my mind i’m like…Do you want me to come eat at Dennys or not?</p>
<p>Yea but I don’t really want to think of how I’m basically torturing chickens while eating a delicious breakfast. </p>
<p>I mean that commercial was such a deterrent. It reminds me of how peta puts vids of how animals are slaughtered to raise awarness and hopefully get people to consume less meat. Bad marketing move IMO.</p>
<p>The network can do whatever it wants, asinine as it may be</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a hard time distinguishing between offending people and losing viewers, to be honest.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just because I’m an argumentative cynic, but I don’t find politics all that objectionable. I also long ago accepted that the liberal media was just a bunch of conservative corporations.</p>
<p>^I’m sure people were offended by it, but only unreasonable people.</p>
<p>what did u guys think about the pro-life ad? i probably wouldn’t have even made the connection if i hadn’t read about it beforehand, lol. the woman was like ‘i almost lost him as a baby a bunch of times…blah blah…& now i still try to make sure he’s healthy blah.’ it could have been about health care for all i knew. plus, i’m not offended & i’m pro-choice.</p>
<p>^ exactly, that is what I thought about the Tebow ad as well. It was a waste of their money. I thought by the end of the 30 second spot she was going to say something like “GOT MILK?”</p>
<p>^hahaha, very true : D</p>
<p>Yeah, if you offend people, you ‘might’ lose viewers. For example, if i’m watching CNN and there is a racial slur that is accidentally said, it doesn’t mean, i won’t watch it again although i might be offended by what was said.</p>
<p>Even though most times, viewers are lost.</p>
<p>Plus, i think that too much emphasis is being exerted on the media and their influence. Maybe it’s just me but i think that media probably changes .09% of my perspectives towards things. </p>
<p>I think the problem is people not listening past the 30-seconds of what the broadcaster is saying.</p>
<p>For example, i’m pretty big on technology (as well as almost everything in life) and i knew the iPad was coming out a couple months before it was actually ‘announced’. I was another forum when people brought up the subject of the iPad. Half of the people there were like “Oh, im so getting that s<strong><em>” or “Damn…that s</em></strong> is hot!” i’m definitely getting that". There was this tiny little four line paragraph briefing on it’s features and how much it costs and most of them won’t read past that, and still buy it. I mean, it’s not like it was even written buy this tech guru, rather, a ‘fashion editor’. All in all people gave in to the hype without knowing what it even does. Hey, i’m just tried to discourage ignorant buying but what can i say, it’s not my money.</p>
<p>I feel that it’s always up to the consumer do decide how much an ad influences him/her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OTOH, the ad got a month’s worth of media coverage and attention. They certainly got better value for money than any other advertiser yesterday.</p>
<p>^i hadn’t even heard about the controversy until yesterday on CC, lol. i don’t think i saw it mentioned once on yahoo news or the t.v… maybe that’s just me, though.</p>
<p>Commercials are advertisements. There aren’t guidelines for what is and isn’t a “real” Superbowl commercial, just what offers the NFL probably will or probably won’t accept. The Tebow commercial was very subtle in it’s pro-life message; it sounded more like his mom went on TV just to say “My Timmy is great! I love him!”. I wouldn’t have picked up on the message if I didn’t know that there would be a pro-life commercial with Tim Tebow and his mom.</p>