I RATE ADS

Short:

Long:

sjbooher: I didn’t remember if the witnesses names were used (um, they were) during the shortened Super Bowl version, but in the long version, each lady is clearly modeled after one of the famed (infamed?) participants in the baseball steroids hearings. R. Lemons? Awesome. It’s easy to dismiss this as just a boob show (or easy to enjoy it AS just a boob show, ha), but actually it’s pretty well written. Nice attention to detail. (get it? who’s your daddy?). A.

jtherkal: I would have never seen the long version, if not posted here by my friend, so thanks. I’m trying to convince myself that I don’t like these commercials, since they’re just using tits to promote a website…but who am I kidding. Any time there might be a tit on TV, I’m in. And I believe the results have been tremendous (aside from a recent backlash from the Christian community, who apparently dislike giant melons). I guess I’ll give this an A. And in T&A. Whhhhooooooooooooaaaaa! This guy knows what I’m talking about.

sjbooher: FYI, I’ve been informed by one our 2 loyal readers (well, maybe 4 if you count us writin’ folk) that these ads are sexist. I say yes, they probably are, but ad folk don’t make the rules, they are just supposed to exploit them as much as possible. Where will you be GUARANTEED to find a sexist on Super Bowl Sunday? In front of his TV, which this ad, of course. Now he can go start up howtobeasexist.net on GoDaddy.com.

jtherkal: GoDaddy continues with their sex sells tactics, which I guess are working for them. But Danika Patrick again? Isn’t she yesterday’s news by now? How about someone newer and hotter? Megan Fox, perhaps? And after the hoax last year (or was it the year before), I’m not going to be tricked into going to their website to look for some titties. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, nope. F.

sjbooher: Why not Megan Fox? Because she is a complete idiot once she opens her mouth. I still like Danica, but this ad is only ok. I definitely like their second one better. C-.