Fox, CBS Ban Pig 'Condom' Ad

NewsMax.com ^ | Monday, June 18, 2007 | NewsMax

[jacknhoo]

Fox, CBS Ban Pig 'Condom' Ad

The Fox and CBS networks have both declined to air an ad for Trojan condoms that features cellphone-carrying pigs on the prowl.

The ad depicts women in a bar surrounded by cellphone-toting pigs. One of the swine heads off to the men’s room where it obtains a condom from a vending machine — and "is transformed into a head-turner in his 20s,” The New York Times reports. "When he returns to the bar, a fetching blonde who had been indifferent now smiles at him invitingly.”

The commercial is part of a new ad campaign by Trojan called "evolve.” The message: "Evolve. Use a condom every time.”

In rejecting the ad, Fox sent a written response to Trojan that read: "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.”

CBS wrote that it did not find the ad "appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions.”

The commercial will air on ABC, NBC, and nine cable networks, as well as in magazines and on Web sites.

[School of Rational Thought]

So why did you think they called it “porking”?

[Clam Digger]

Somewhat on topic, but not really, I am reminded of a quote from my dad: “There’s a fine line betwen Saturday night and Sunday morning.”

[Tolkien]

Bob Barker recommended me for the "Price is Right."

Is the price right baby?

[OB1kNOb]

"Been porked lately?"

[Clam Digger]

So a change in venues changes a persons level of morality? Why i it so different to try to meet someone at a meeting place rather than a meetinghouse? What makes the church girl with intents of getting sex more moralistic than the girl at a bar simply looking to meet someone for future dating?

I see people reading a lot more into this ad than is presented, probably from sheer jealousy that they will never get (or have ever been)picked up, even if they DID buy this particular brand of condoms.

[TalonDJ]

The bible says sex is to be kept in the bounds of marriage. That moral norms of society have long supported that. That is less true now than it use to be but I hardly think pointing it out comes as a surprise turn-off to someone interested in religion.

Have you looked up the definition of slut? There are a few variations but I am pretty sure the definition that was being applied here is: A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.

Do you disagree that this applies in the situation of a woman that find a man more attractive after a condom is in his pocket? Because elementary marketing can tell you that is exactly what the ad was trying to get across.

[BurbankKarl]

I think the implied message of the ad is that the woman will find the man more attractive if he has a condom.

Like “Oh, he cares about me....such a thoughtful guy”

and it prevents the awkward situation later when she is forced to open the drawer full of condoms she has back at her apartment...

[TalonDJ]

probably from sheer jealousy that they will never get (or have ever been)picked up

Why do you insist on slandering the motives and attractiveness of others as some sort of arguing technique?

It is very basic marketing to try at establish a link between your product and what other things are being portrayed. It is a subtext message that you are getting across. When a beer ad shows a guy acquiring brand X beer and then lots of women showing up, they are very deliberately trying to get across the subtext that brand X beer makes you more attractive to women. This is not a base accusation, this is what the ad executives are deliberately doing. In this case the ad is clearly meant to show you have a better chance with women when you have their condom. Even you got that message as evidence by the last sentence of your post: "even if they DID buy this particular brand of condoms." Anyone with any knowlege of marketing can tell you the message you thing is 'reading too much into it' was deliberatly put there by ad execs. But don't take my word for it.

[TalonDJ]

Nope. The message is clearly targeted at men, not women. And it is clearly a ‘solution’ type message. The guy int he ad has a problem, ‘not getting laid’ and the solution is buying a condom.

[dangus]

>> That is an AMAZINGLY un-christian post for someone arguing, supposedly, on the side of Christianity. <<

I guess I should follow your example?

>> You make me sick... Uh, DUH! ... pathetically IGNORANT <<

Or, maybe not.

If it’s that you believe that a bar is a good place to meet a spouse, that actually is quite sad. If, for some strange reason, you wanted to make sure someone who was looking for love would never get married, the best place for you for that person to be would be in would be a bar. If that person walked literally anywhere else, he or she might meet someone. If she walked into a homeless shelter, you’d have more reason to fear that he or she would start off a relationship with one of the other volunteers. She could fall into a manhole, and meet a decent city employer.

[Clam Digger]

Do you disagree that this applies in the situation of a woman that find a man more attractive after a condom is in his pocket? Because elementary marketing can tell you that is exactly what the ad was trying to get across.

She never sees the condom, so that can't be the case. Maybe they are trying to imply that men who use protection aren't pigs, or acting like pigs, eh?

LOL, look up the definition? Why should I have to. FReepers like Chuckie clearly define it as any attractive female (out of his reach) that has any sexual desire. Wholesale condemnation like that is scummy, i'm sure you'll agree.

[TalonDJ]

Never mind. Re-read your post. I agree with you that that is the message. Some here think that is not the case.

[LexBaird]

So, when do they come out with the companion ad, “Bitches in Heat”?

[TalonDJ]

Chuckles would care to comment on if you agree or disagree with the definition I posted in post 86?

Clam, perhaps you would care to explain how saying ‘a women picking up a guy she just met in a bar is an indicator of promiscuity’ is a statement that slanders all attractive women with sexual desires?

[TalonDJ]

Wholesale condemnation like that is scummy, i'm sure you'll agree.

I don't agree that he actually said anything like that. Your gross rewording of what he did say is what is called a 'straw man'. Feel free to look that one up too.

[Clam Digger]

I guess I should follow your example?

I am not the one using the bible as a tool of nastiness.

What does it matter where you meet someone? I know many people with flawed character who go to church. I know of many people who use the bible to be mean to others under the guise of being Christian, and I am seein it right on this very thread. Hell, i have read about hundreds of priests who have raped thousands of altarboys. Does that make the church a great place to pick up chicks?

Yeah, there are probably better places to meeet people, but simply becuase a female is in a bar doesn't make her a slut. I say this in defense of your loved ones as well, because you just may be waiting for dinner some time, and get stuck waiting in the bar. I'd hate for you to have to call your wife (assuming here, obviously, because I do not know) the names I've read on this thread simply because of the place she happens to be standing at any particular time.

[Centurion2000]

Now that it has been rejected and the hype has been made? I expect some enterprising exec to post it on Youtube and LiveLeak.

And the muslims go wild !!!

[Clam Digger]

The girl in the bar only smiled at the guy, and Chuckles said "I was waiting for the girl to turn into a pig for being the obvious whore she is." THAT is the wholesale condemnation as a whore of every female in any bar at any time in history who as ever smiled at a man. I sure hope your wife (assuming, again) has never smiled at your in a bar, or according to Chuckles, well, you get the point.

Also, what makes this any different than a chick in church with a strong sexual desire of smiling at a guy? Nothing but venue, as there is no way she saw the condom and it's presence doesn't even come into play.

[dangus]

>> Some of the easiest girls I have ever met were from the catholic school, back when i was in high school. <<

Wow, your worldliness is so impressive. Did you learn that from the Aerosmith video, or the Britney Spears video?

Did I say anything to the extent that kids with Catholic parents were less sexually active? Hell, no! But by the time they’re marrying age, they’re less likely to be going to church...

>> The guys in my unit used to go pick up girls at church. It was a lot cheaper to throw a few bucks in the plate then buying drinks when women generally have their defenses up, and they were much more likely to score. Most of them would be back by the evening meal on Sundays, having completed ‘the mission’. <<

Why do you think they were a lot more likely to score? Because they were PRETENDING to be something they were not. That’s like saying little old ladies are more likely to ve violent because a robber has success dressing like a little old lady.

Did I ever say anything to the extent that there weren’t wolves in churches? No, even if there are some wolves dressed as sheep, you’re more likely to find a sheep in a flock of sheep than hanging out with a pack of wolves.

If you want to find apples, you go to the apple orchard. If you want to find marriage partners, you go to a church.

[TalonDJ]

is the wholesale condemnation as a whore of every female in any bar at any time in history who as ever smiled at a man.

The obvious message of the ad was intended to be that the condom made him more attractive. That was the message even though in the ad she did not actually SEE the condom. Before he had it he was a pig not getting smiles and after he had it he was a good looking guy getting smiles. The message is obvious that the condom made him more attractive. Chuckles point was that any women, for whom a stranger in a bar becomes instantly far more attractive after he acquires a condom, is very probably a slut. Yes you have a point that she did not actually SEE the condom. But the message I describe was clear enough in the ad that most of us here concluded the same way.