Indeed, “it’s the time of year for ridiculous Super Bowl stunts, in which companies claim they've been censored by the hosting broadcast network and then laugh as gullible media outlets run with the story, but never checking to see if the ads were censored – or even if the company had the money to run it in the first place,” agrees Ad Age.A Man spokesperson said the company had offered to pay for the .6 million ad slot up front.You see ads for erectile dysfunction morning, noon and night. It's not like it plays like Adam Lambert [kissing another man on the AMAs]."The Super Bowl, while perennially the most-watched television event of the year, has traditionally avoided the role of political platform, until this year.Former Heisman Trophy winner during the big game, too. But the network is also right, he says, when pointing out there’s a key difference between an advocacy ad from Focus on the Family and a commercial ad by Man Crunch.Sources tell the Hollywood Reporter that the network felt the site was trying to generate free publicity by the “tried-and-true" method of submitting an ad they know will be rejected.Network executives denied the site's submission noting that the "creative is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday," according to the .CBS' sales department also said they couldn't credit the site and guarantee payment of the estimated .5 million it would cost to air the ad.
' We still have a lot of ads we have yet to review.' Its important to note that the ad from Mancrunch is not an "advocacy" ad by any means, and accepting it would not indicate that they have made good on their word that ads from groups like the UCC would now be accepted.
Site spokesperson Elissa Buchter said that they spent more than 0,000 on the ad and has raised million from investors.
PETA previously garnered considerable attention with an ad that was rejected for the Superbowl, here.
The network said that the commercial violated its standards and sources suggested it was just a ploy to get publicity.
Man Crunch has called the move discriminatory and pointed to controversial commercials that have run in the past.