Advertising | Football (American) | News | Sports

Mancrunch Gay Super Bowl Ad Rejected by CBS


Mancrunch has received a formal rejection of the ad it submitted for the Super Bowl which features a gay couple kissing, CNBC reports:

"CBS said in its rejection that the creative 'is not within the network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday.' The rejection also said the sales department 'has had difficulty verifying your organization's credit status.' said they offered to pay a cash advance."'

Said spokesperson Dominic Friesen: "We are very disappointed that in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl. We're calling on every same sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated."

Whether or not you think the ad is high-budget enough, or believe that the motive of Mancrunch was to receive free publicity, the fact that this homophobic Snickers kiss ad met CBS standards and the Mancrunch ad didn't exposes an ugly double standard.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I think it's complete BS that they would reject. They seem to be tripping all over themselves after first having said the Super Bowl was 'Sold Out' - not mentioning that it 'went against what they had in mind for Super Bowl Sunday'.

    Posted by: Don | Jan 29, 2010 4:10:39 PM

  2. oh they know we are at the movies on Super Bowl and that they don't care if they lose our viewing eyes or our dollar for their advertisers! We lost this one!

    Posted by: David B. 2 | Jan 29, 2010 4:12:29 PM

  3. Headline: Attention Whore Company Protests Rejection of Ad They Never Planned to Run Anyway

    Posted by: scientitian | Jan 29, 2010 4:14:11 PM

  4. i'm gay and i reject it...i don't think the subject matter had as much to do with it as presentation...who is mancrunch?...and why did they think to spend only $12.95 on a commercial?

    Posted by: epic | Jan 29, 2010 4:16:13 PM

  5. Yeah, its sucks when a commercial with terrible acting and no production value to speak of gets rejected, and it really sucks when it's done by a company with a really, really stupid name that poorly represents the LGBT community. I'm in tears over here.

    Re-submit the UCC commercial. It was excellent. If it were to be rejected again, then I'm all for making a stink over it. Until then, the mancrunch commercial (and company, please) can disappear.

    Posted by: Evan | Jan 29, 2010 4:16:21 PM

  6. I still think this whole thing is a hoax.

    Posted by: DR | Jan 29, 2010 4:18:24 PM

  7. Is it just me or is that a joke ad? Seems like something straight guys would come up with?

    Posted by: Manis | Jan 29, 2010 4:18:55 PM

  8. I side with CBS on this one.

    Posted by: Todd in NYC | Jan 29, 2010 4:25:36 PM

  9. Evan, I agree with you, but unfortunately UCC has already stated that it had not planned television commercials into its current budget. (Perhaps they would have had this 'policy change' been announced prior to suddenly allowing the anti-abortion ad).

    Its hard to come up with that kind of cash on the fly. Plus, they made a good point when they said if they do plan commercials in the future, will CBS suddenly have another 'policy change'? I mean, once Focus on the Family successfully airs their ad, whose to say what CBS decides their policy is next week, month, or year...

    Posted by: Wes | Jan 29, 2010 4:34:49 PM

  10. ManCrunch is a very strange site. If you check their source code, they have an old header tag: "Where Straight Men Come OUt to Play"

    And the small text on their site says: "Man Crunch is the premier service connecting men with other men and allowing them to open up about the down low."

    It's a hookup site for closeted straight men. Are Republican toe-tappers really that big of a market?

    Posted by: crispy | Jan 29, 2010 4:37:17 PM

  11. It really is a horrible ad, but seriously - we see half naked women jumping up and down in Go Daddy but not this? CBS is a joke. When was the last time they had a hit show? Seriously!

    Posted by: KFLO | Jan 29, 2010 4:42:48 PM

  12. What we need is an ad that shows the mother of a famous serial killer who decided not to Jeffrey Dahmer or something....Basically the exact same ad as Tebow but featuring a serial killer.....See if that gets rejected...

    Posted by: David | Jan 29, 2010 4:48:19 PM

  13. I watched the ad. Not only was it stupid but as a single gay dad, I would prefer my children and the rest of the nation not see it anyway. The reason? Their logo which states "Where many, many, many men come out to play". This sounds like a sex hook up site and visiting the site confirmed that. Just what the gay community needs is something else to reinforce the BS that all we are about is promiscuous sex. CBS did the gay community a favor by rejecting it. Bring back the UCC ad and see if they reject that again. Then I'll have a problem with CBS.

    Posted by: Steve | Jan 29, 2010 5:09:31 PM

  14. The ad was rejected?!? NO! Really??! NO!! I can't believe it.

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Jan 29, 2010 5:13:06 PM

  15. I will not look to the Mormon Church for the definition of marriage - nor will I look to the Super Bowl to demonstrate anything more than the homophobia, misogyny, ignorance, violence, and epic corporate greed that it is known for - nor will I look to an Internet dating site of questionable taste, finances, and mission to provide the counter-point to a simplistic, dishonest, deceitful ad featuring a football player who has such a stunning lack or regard and respect for his religion - not to mention simple dignity and decency -- that he drags it with him everywhere like some sad, tattered, filthy, security-blanket - holding it up with one hand - the other providing the thumb he is sucking on - and demanding the world look - such is his lack of faith -- no, while I am an American and I should celebrate this amazing collection of lazy lies and liars -- I think, maybe here, truth is called for.

    Posted by: ricky | Jan 29, 2010 5:14:49 PM

  16. This is a pretty cruddy commercial anyway, so frankly I really don't care.

    Posted by: X | Jan 29, 2010 5:31:22 PM

  17. It should have been rejected.

    I buy the credit status reason. I don't believe for a second that these jokers would actually cough up the dough.

    Also, it's not just a "gay kiss". It's two guys making out, about to go at it right on the sofa. They're two seconds away from the clothes coming off.

    Plus it's clearly a sex hookup site. In that context, the make-out session is completely inappropriate for prime-time TV. And a sex hookup site ad has no place on prime time TV anyway.

    Posted by: Rich | Jan 29, 2010 5:35:02 PM

  18. Its for a hook up service, there isnt an AD that should be acceptable. I dont want any ad, no matter how elegant and tasteful for Manhunt, dudesnude or men4rentnow, I don't want one for mancrush.


    FUCKING SHAME on mancrush for trying to bring down some headlines under the guise of discrimination, you assholes there are real gay people and causes that are getting shit right now and you don't get to leech. We should boycott mancrush by continuing to not use its shitty service.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Jan 29, 2010 5:35:47 PM

  19. Who had ever heard of this site before this "rejection" - I can't believe that they actually had any money to pay for this, they themselves they submitted it after all the ads during the super bowl were sold out, and it sucks. This is clearly a (deviously) brilliant marketing plan for them. Produce a commercial which will never run, blame CBS and get tons of free marketing right here on Towleroad and other sites that pick up the story.

    Posted by: SCott Gatz | Jan 29, 2010 5:59:44 PM

  20. The snickers ad was not much better. The only difference to me was that in the snickers ad the two men kissing was a joke. Though the way they ate the bar from each side was pretty suggestive of oral sex. Here the two "straight" guys like it. So it's bad. No once can tell from the ad what it is about. Is this worth than Dole's ads for ED, June Allyson's ads for Depends or all those tampon ads.

    Posted by: Rafael | Jan 29, 2010 6:05:19 PM

  21. Has anyone picked up a copy of their official "braodcast standards" yet?

    Posted by: MikeInSanJose | Jan 29, 2010 6:12:12 PM

  22. Actually, in CBS's 'defense', this may not totally be their decision. Remember when ESPN aired 'Playmakers' back in 2003?

    From the Playmakers wiki entry - :

    "The show dealt with topics including drug abuse, steroids, domestic abuse, and homosexuality. The NFL was unhappy with the way the show portrayed professional football players (despite several players, most notably Deion Sanders, speaking out about the accuracy of the lifestyles portrayed), which prompted ESPN to cancel the show."

    Posted by: MikeInSanJose | Jan 29, 2010 6:18:01 PM

  23. At least they could have had on Manning and Brees jerseys!!

    Posted by: MikeInSanJose | Jan 29, 2010 6:21:37 PM

  24. Write to CBS to complain. Also write their sponsors: AT&T Wireless, Verizon FIOS, Nabisco, Pepsi, and GM. (I have, and have received several responses.) CBS has made their anti-gay stand clear, but maybe we can get their sponsors to pull out. Justice may not motivate them, but their greed will -- hit them in the wallets!

    Posted by: Travis | Jan 29, 2010 7:03:40 PM

  25. I'm not writing anyone. That ad is unrealistic, poorly made, and they're not even kissing. It doesn't portray gay men well, and family viewing hours shouldn't feature hook-up sites, gay or straight. Have you ever seen a guy and a girl making out in a commercial for a dating site during normal hours? No.

    Posted by: Dusty | Jan 29, 2010 7:58:01 PM

Post a comment


« «AT&T to Resolve Sick Leave Situation with Regard to Gay Couple« «