@w9q: I take it that you didn't actually read any of what Alison wrote.

IM OUTRAGED! SOMEONE CALL RICHARD GERE IMMEDIATELY

I assumed it was directed at the recent Kenneth Cole nontroversy. But yeah, definitely a stretch to think a Superbowl audience will do more than jerk their knees.

This was probably the only ad during the Super Bowl that had any balls, wit or gusto.

Anyone else viewing Blogtown on Firefox and running adblock plus? For some reason lately, the videos haven't always matched up, and I generally see the video that goes with another post. Right now, the Carpenters video is on the Justin Bieber post, and the Super Bowl 23 video is on this one. Any ideas?

It should probably be pointed out that the philanthropic campaign is never actually mentioned, or even linked, in the ads.

I hope one can still find such ads tacky without being labeled "too PC" as if it were 1997.

These ads weren't necessarily offensive in that sense. The offensive part is envisioning marketing hacks fancying themselves hyper-clever and insidiously funny. Christopher Guest or not, these just weren't that funny, nor did they have any balls. These causes, albeit important, are conveniently distant. If they really had balls they'd have talked about how decimated inner cities have become, plagued by institutional racism, redlining etc., but damn, there's this awesome bbq place embedded there! Or poor 12 year old girls in Thailand are farmed out to be fucked by middle-aged businessmen and their genitals sewn tighter on request but damn, those people sure make a great pad thai!

I don't think Groupon's a good overall economic alternative, either, which fuels my dissatisfaction. They've contacted me and my biz a few times and their cut is way too large, yet they insisted it'd work well for me long-term. Better programs are popping up; I wouldn't be surprised if they get phased out over the next few years.

@TSW better programs... like MercPerks? **coff coff**

I didn't to imply that "political correctness" is the only justification for disliking the ad; rather to point out that it was interesting to see a spectrum of reactions that I normally associate with, like, Sarah Silverman saying "Joe Franklin raped me" (from "that's offensive" to "that's clearly a joke" to "that's clearly a joke, but it's still not funny") prompted by a Superbowl ad.

I found it wince-inducing and I'm about as un-PC as can be. The problem, I think, is that the commercial just didn't work that well. They didn't pull it off. It wasn't funny. It was just jarring. It would have been much more effective, I think, if they had not made it about anything specific, making the audience so strongly believe that it was for Tibet, but rather wondering what it was about, then the reveal would be lighter or funnier and not just in poor taste.

In defending it, has anyone ever heard someone claim it was funny?

Alison,

Yes! I'll likely try that particular alternative. I just have to first consider whether the primary MercPerk requirement of running nude through the KATU offices is worth it.