For everyone (including myself) who wanted to say CBS’s potential rejection of the Mancrunch ad featuring two men kissing implied some homophobia, I present you evidence to another possibility: This is a terrible ad. It’s clear the site owners had absolutely no intention of this ever making it to the air; It wouldn’t pass the test to make it to air except after 3 a.m. and before 4 a.m.
As for the gay content of the ad, it’s marginal. It’s clear the guys in the ad aren’t even kissing. At this point, I’m assuming the whole ad and Mancrunch itself are a hoax. See the ad and weigh in, after the jump.
This doesn’t mean that homophobia wasn’t at work. But I personally would have rejected the ad just based on the creative.
Have you noticed that the word “gay” doesn’t appear on the site? The site says it’s for “like minded users to explore whether they wish to meet each other, chat with each other and/or explore extra-marital relationships.”
Plus, like I said, I don’t believe at this point that the Website is real, and at some point we’re going to hear a big “gotcha.” Anyhow, here’s the ad…
Here is Jim Buzinski’s take on the ad:
Mancrunch, a site I had not heard of until yesterday, is in the news over CBS’ decision to reject the company’s 30-second ad. I’m suspicious of the whole thing and it smells fake, like a company trying to get free publicity rather than shell out $2.5 million for a 30-second ad.
The ad is innocuous (and horribly produced) and is a total ripoff of a much better skit from a few years ago on Mad TV:
Here is what does not add up here: Mancrunch is free to join and has no ads. So where do its owners get $2.5 million to spend on a Super Bowl ad? Neither Cyd nor myself had ever heard of the site and I created a profile to see what was on there (there is no free preview, rare for any online dating site). It’s a rather spare site with not that many profiles (though a lot more since I signed up a day ago).
Mancrunch said it is “calling on every same sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this…behavior will not be tolerated.” I’m not buying since I smell a rat and am not rallying to the cause of some site that seemingly sprang up out of nowhere.
Have any of you heard of Mancrunch before? What do you think is going on here?
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 3:33 PM
It looks more like an ad for potato chips than for a dating service…which might go with the “crunch” part of the name. Why would a dating site be called “mancrunch” anyway.
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Never heard of the site, but do know so I guess the “trick” worked. The only thing is I have, not am I planning on, going to the site.
The strange thing is that the site has $2.5 to pay for an ad placement in the Super Bowl, but doesn’t have the money to make a better ad?
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 3:47 PM
I went to the site and it looks like it’s for guys on the “down low”…which could explain why they didn’t use the word “gay” in the ad (i.e., they don’t self-identify as gay).
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 4:04 PM
That should have read: The only thing is I have not, nor am I planning on, going to the site.
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 5:18 PM
Even Advertising Age has covered the Mancrunch mystery: Mancrunch Swears This Isn’t a Super Bowl Stunt (UPDATED):
==========
“We just launched this month, and 90 million men watch the Super Bowl,” said a spokesman for the site, which describes itself as a place where “many, many, many men come out to play.”
“That’s why you want the Super Bowl.”
While a person familiar with the situation said the network believes Mancrunch’s financial ability to pay for the advertising is suspect, the Mancrunch spokesman said that in submitting the ad, Mancrunch underwent a credit check to show that it was good for the reported $3 million asking price for a 30-second spot.
http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=141816
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 6:13 PM
I bet it’s a hoax.
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 7:31 PM
I agree, Jim…. it’s amateurish at best, looks more like a high school production rather than a company with 3 Mil to blow. Regardless of the content or homophobia, it should be rejected on the poor merit of its production!
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 9:22 PM
I’ve been saying this thing is a stunt since the news broke yesterday.
Here’s a link to my in-depth evaluation plus a verbatim exchange I’ve had with one of the “spokesmen” for the site. The site is fronted by the same people that have been fronting AshleyMadison.com, a site that helps married people have affairs:
http://www.brandcentralstation.com/archives/2274
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Whether Mancrunch is a fraud or not, the advertisement certainly is designed to guarantee rejection, to create a firestorm, and to win all kinds of attention for this shady business. The ad would have played easily during Super Bowl if the two men reached for the chips and gazed lovingly at each other. That was too easy. Mancrunch went for the kill, and CBS obliged.
on Jan 29th, 2010 at 11:54 PM
I love how people are buying into the notion that Super Bowl ads are these high quality entertainment items. All the ads during the Super Bowl, and all other TV ads are absolute crap.
on Jan 30th, 2010 at 9:59 AM
Mike Bawden, so is Mancrunch owned by Avid Life–the company that owns Ashley Madison? That company is trying to go public on the Toronto Stock Exchange and had a $200,000 ad campaign (“Life is short. Have an affair.”) rejected by the Toronto public transit authority. So it could be a semi-hoax designed to raise awareness for a company that’s trying to raise $60 million in an IPO.
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/GAM.20100125.RASHLEY25ART1940/GIStory/
on Jan 30th, 2010 at 2:40 PM
I don’t know who owns Mancrunch. What I do know is that the spokespeople for the site were also spokespeople for AshleyMadison.com as of January 11th and that one of them told CNNMoney.com that they had just raised $40M in equity.
So far, whoever owns them must be pleased with the attention generated by this campaign because they’ve received over 18,000 links from news stories, blog posts, etc. which should give the site a big boost on search engines.
on Jan 30th, 2010 at 11:33 PM
It was a bad ad. I know they weren’t really kissing but the implication they were making out like that, well was a bit uncomfortable. I don’t think homophobia was going on because it was just a bad ad and Mancrunch is getting their 15mins of fame to promote their website.
peace
on Jan 31st, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Jim nailed it. Definitely a free publicity stunt. I checked out the site early last week and only profiles posted were from dudes in San Fran. Now there are 41 pages of guys from the PNW alone and even from little towns out in BFE. Their strategy worked beautifully. Now come the membership fees and ads.
Oh, BTW. Same old faces on ManCrush as an of the other social networking sites, i.e. hook up sites. Seattle and Portland are pretty small towns as it turns out.
One would think the market is saturated w/these sites too. Go figure.
on Jan 31st, 2010 at 11:14 PM
My commentary for January 31, 2010 regarding CBS and Man Crunch.com on Focus On The Rainbow- Hearst Newspapers.
http://blog.ctnews.com/evans/2010/01/31/the-man-crunch-cbs-hoax-or-how-a-former-stripper-bamboozled-the-worlds-media-to-promote-a-website/