GoDaddy won’t run controversial “Journey Home” commercial.
GoDaddy’s 2015 Super Bowl commercial, which it just released this morning, won’t air on Sunday after all.
GoDaddy CEO Blake Irving tweeted this afternoon:
The ad was criticized by many animal lovers.
In many ways, the commercial was classic GoDaddy. It was sure to spark outrage, which got people talking about the company…much like its previous GoDaddy commercials.
I wondered this morning if the plan was to get this commercial out there and then pull it in favor of another. They’d get extra publicity by making the change.
But I’m not so sure about that. Puppygate is more like Elephantgate than GoDaddys typical Super Bowl ads of past. There was little upside to GoDaddy founder Bob Parsons shooting an elephant. There’s probably little upside to joking about selling puppies, too.
I also don’t think it’s Blake Irving’s style.
Joseph Peterson says
No, it didn’t miss the mark. A very vocal minority missed the point.
Disappointing. Still, companies, like politicians, must flatter their audience. Whenever there’s public hysteria, they tend to submissively roll over.
Poor, Coriolanus!
Aaron Strong says
CEO of Godaddy said, “we will not air it”………A clear attempt to put DeflateGate back into the conversation…..
John Berryhill says
I doubt that the ASPCA and the Humane Society – both of which attempt to educate prospective pet owners about the problems associated with “website puppies” constitute a “vocal minority”.
“Still, companies, like politicians, must flatter their audience.”
My goodness, you’d think that winning an election or succeeding in the market was a popularity contest! We can’t have that.
Joseph Peterson says
I’m not criticizing GoDaddy for withdrawing the ad, given its unpopularity. They’re in the people-pleasing business.
Politicians I would most definitely castigate for behaving similarly.
You misunderstand, John. I’m criticizing the hysteria that got the commercial banned in the first place.
John Berryhill says
I get that, but I believe you may not have been aware that internet purchases of puppies are something that reputable organizations have been trying to educate the public about for quite some time. Your various comments on the topic suggest you don’t seem to see a distinction between responsible dog breeding, and what goes on at both the selling and buying ends of puppies sold on websites.
Maybe you were aware of these problems, maybe not. But the distinction is analogous of legitimate physical therapists and massage technicians, who provide a valuable service; and human trafficking operations fronting as massage parlors, who are merchants of misery. They are two profoundly different markets, which have little resemblance to each other.
Joseph Peterson says
These 2 states are not incompatible:
(1) Taking serious measures to correct serious issues.
(2) Laughing at a joke.
My reaction is partly due to the overreaction of others.
If I had been part of the creative team working on the TV commercial, then I probably would have ended up playing the role of the prudish voice of caution, wanting to focus-group the ad and run it by the ASPCA et al. After all, prudence is a virtue; and bland PR is often the best course.
But …
When I hear people describe this ad, which I quite enjoyed, as “disgusting” and morally reprehensible, shouting down dissenting voices, and ultimately forcing the ad to be erased through sheer intolerance of levity – then that gets my hackles up.
Too often, expression is effectively censored by public hysteria. If TV commercials laughing at puppies can be shouted out of existence by the morally outraged, then we can be sure that public free speech about genuine controversial minority viewpoints doesn’t stand a chance.
That’s what infuriates me about all this. I’d welcome critiques of the ad and discussions about selling pets online – so long as the ad were aired in parallel. That would be constructive. But the full-blown, moral outrage expressed by people here shows a troubling disconnect from the ad’s reality; and the censorship imposed on it is a corrosive social phenomenon.
jennifer says
It totally missed the mark you idiot. You think an ad like that is cute and fun? How about they make a commercial about child trafficking. Not funny now? Or maybe you would “enjoy” that as well. You probably would, you sad thing you.
Joseph Peterson says
How about I introduce something completely unrelated and true such as 2 + 2 = 4? That would prove my point in the same way you’ve proved yours. Oh, and let’s not forget to call the person we disagree with names. Instead of the “idiot” you’ve so kindly bestowed on me, may I call you “the Queen of Sheba”?
Mark says
I agree with you all the way Joseph.
The fallacious argument of many who wanted the ad removed goes like this: “I find it horrible, so it is horrible, and if you enjoy it then you are a horrible person”. ‘Horrible’ can be replaced with ‘stupid’ or some other negative word.
The problem with these people is they are convinced of holding the absolute truth. Their opinion trumps all else, and they cannot even begin to question it or consider other viewpoints in a calm and rational way.
The ad was a joke. Finding it funny does not imply endorsing animal cruelty. As the saying goes, we can laugh about everything but not with everyone.
Acro says
I have to agree with Joseph, but whatever works best for GoDaddy. Maybe more boobage?
jennifer says
Lord. Another dumb redneck.
Philip says
In some societies, puppies are seen as a delicacy and not only as potential pets….!
J33 says
Maybe some of the people commenting aren’t aware: About 2.7 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs—about one every 11 seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year.
This is an issue that affects everyone, whether you care about animals or not. If you don’t care about animals then recognize that puppy mills contaminate your water, use your tax money, take funding from other USDA functions, create more stress for the local animal control offices, spread disease..
– Puppies are a high-profit, luxury good produced on land whose owners pay less in taxes than they would if they had another business.
– The USDA puts limited resources to inspecting breeding facilities when they could be using those resources to keep our food safe.
– Puppy mills are blight businesses that make other businesses less likely to locate nearby.
– Unwanted puppy mill dogs cost taxpayers billions in taxes used to support local Animal Control agencies.
Donna Funk says
Very well said, J33. Education is the best way to make people notice,
rebecca says
Pointing out animal rescues? anyone that has an education and a heartbeat can clearly see that this commercial is in poor taste.
Patty Shenker says
Unless you are in rescue work or animal advocacy, you don’t see the daily horrors endured by dogs by people who bought them through the internet. It is irresponsible & furthers the notion that breeding animals is fine, which it will not be until we stop euthanizing (killing) millions of innocents dogs for lack of homes that also costs us, the taxpayers, millions every year. GoDaddy was correct in pulling this ad, due to the complaints from people who know the deadly consequences to selling animals online. #adoptdon’tshop
Kate Johnson says
Danica Patrick and her boobs can consent to how they are represented. Puppies can’t.
outrage at BUDWEISER, not godaddy says
i agree that selling purebreds is contributing to the problem of the unwanted animals in shelters. HOWEVER, i think godaddy was actually trying to poke fun at budweiser’s superbowl commercial last year that glorified PUREBRED DOG BREEDERS. if people are outraged at the godaddy commercial, they should be infinitely more outraged at the budweiser commercial.
the problem with godaddy is that their making fun of budweiser was too SUBTLE for the average person.