I spent last week in New York City, talking with writers of various publications like The New York Times, Forbes, Business Week and The Wall Street Journal, just to name a few. I also visited CNN, Reuters TV and Business Week TV, where I was interviewed and filmed in connection with our decision to advertise on the 2005 Super Bowl®.

Controversy continues to surround Go Daddy's decision to advertise on the Super Bowl®.
To both my amazement and absolute delight, Go Daddy is the only company advertising on the Super Bowl® around which there is any controversy. The controversy, of course, surrounds the decision I made for Go Daddy to advertise on the Super Bowl®. Many people think it's somewhere between a very bad decision and an imminent sign of doom, for an unheard of .com (like Go Daddy) to advertise during the most expensive event of the year. Of course, that's precisely why I decided to advertise on the Super Bowl®.

We've received some good publicity so far.
And, a few articles have already appeared. One in The New York Times, and one in Forbes. Our current PR firm, Ruder Finn, persuaded me to show the ad that Fox approved to Stuart Elliott of The New York Times. We also provided him with a still shot taken from the ad. He printed the photo we provided and mentioned us briefly at the end of his article. Stuart did make one error. He said the ad is about a buxom young woman testifying before a Congressional committee. There is no Congressional committee. Stuart's article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/business/media/26adco.html. To see the article, you will have to sign up for The New York Times on-line. It's free, however.

We were also the lead-in for a Super Bowl® article written by Allison Fass in the recent edition of Forbes. As part of the article, they also published a photo (different from the one in The New York Times) that we provided. The article is on page 50 of the February 14 edition, and is called "Super Pricey." To see Allison's article on-line (without the photo), you will need to sign up for Forbes on-line — but again, it's free. The article is at http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/0214/050.html.
We fared a little better with Forbes where the first two paragraphs of the article were devoted to Go Daddy, than we did with The New York Times.

Here's what I can tell you about our "approved" ad.
Here's what I can tell you about the ad we will be running on the Super Bowl®: It is a parody of the censorship that is taking place today. It shows a woman in her mid twenties (our "Go Daddy Girl") in front of, and dealing with, a fictitious network — not Congressional — censorship committee located in Salem, Massachusetts. The reason our Go Daddy Girl is appearing before the censorship committee, is to show them a routine she wants to perform during a television commercial for Go Daddy. Mostly, the ad is funny.

Since it was approved by Fox, I showed our Super Bowl® commercial to a number of select people. Each and every one of them thought it was very funny, and in every case the viewer wanted to see it a second time. Without exception, each person remarked that they liked the commercial very much.

My decision to purchase a second Super Bowl® spot.
On Tuesday morning, after arriving in New York City the prior evening, I met with our advertising agency, The Ad Store (http://www.theadstore.com/). To my great interest, it was mentioned by our media buyer that we had been contacted by Fox, and informed that there was an additional spot still available. The remaining spot was the second commercial during the final two minute warning. After giving the matter some thought, and discussing the opportunity with my staff (the whole process took less than an hour), I decided to step up and purchase it. While this significantly adds to our advertising outlay for the Super Bowl®, I believe the benefit we will gain from repetition will be worth it.

When we purchased the first spot, many in the media commented that we might be spending "all of our cash" on a "big Super Bowl gamble." I made it a point to be loud and clear that, with respect to the first spot, nothing could be further from the truth. That also is not true with respect to the second ad spot we purchased. We used excess cash reserves to purchase the second spot. There is nothing we'll have to cut back on because we made this purchase. In fact, we've already wired the money to Fox for both spots, as well as paid for the ad production, and we're doing just fine as far as cash reserves are concerned. There was also one other benefit — it's tax deductible, so the Federal and State governments will pay a little more than 38% of the cost. That's a nice discount.

When I purchased the second spot, I did so with the intention of running the ad Fox had already approved, in both the original 1st Qtr spot and in the newly purchased spot. However, Paul Capelli, the owner of The AdStore, mentioned we had extra footage from when we shot the original ad, and therefore, just might be able to come up with a second, and entirely different, ad. This was a very appealing alternative, because it meant we might have a second ad for just the cost of editing and sound mixing. Basically, a small fraction of what it takes to produce an original ad.

I also thought it would be fun, and a challenge, to see if we could cut a new ad and get it approved by Fox.

Fox immediately rejected the second ad we created.
So we worked through the night on Wednesday, reviewing all the hours of footage we filmed in Los Angeles, where the ad was produced. Eventually, we came up with what we thought was a very funny ad. The next morning we sent the new ad to Fox for approval, and received an "absolutely no way, no how" rejection from Fox within a few hours. To be honest, and given what we had to deal with in getting our "approved" ad accepted by Fox (which you will learn about later), the rejection did not come as a complete surprise. That said, I was still disappointed that it was not approved. In my opinion it should have been accepted.

Since the "new" second ad was rejected, I decided to fall back on my original plan and show our "approved" ad in both spots. So if you watch the entire Super Bowl®, you will see Go Daddy's ad during the 4th commercial break in the first quarter. It's the third commercial. You will also see it during the final two minute warning. It will be the second commercial.

You can see it all on GoDaddy.com on Super Bowl® Sunday.
On Super Bowl® Sunday, we will post our Super Bowl® ad on our website, in case you want to check it out again. We will also make available the very first ad that was submitted to Fox, but rejected, as well as a longer and funnier "web only" version of what we imagine the entire censorship hearing might have been like.

You can see the second "rejected" ad now.
But you don't have to wait until next Sunday to see something. We will make the second "rejected" ad available sometime late on Monday, January 31, for your pre-Super Bowl® viewing enjoyment. It's funny and it makes me laugh. I hope it does the same for you.

You can find our second "rejected" Super Bowl® ad by going to videos.godaddy.com/bobsblog/avplayerpopup.aspx?mediaIds=sb05. Enjoy.

Special note to the reader.
I should have anticipated this, but I didn't. There's already been commentary that our second ad was submitted to Fox, for the sole purpose of getting it rejected, so that we would benefit from internet buzz. While I do hope that we benefit from some buzz from the rejected ad, nothing could be further from the truth. To confirm this, all you need to do is to take a look at the rejected ad, and while it's very funny (in my humble opinion), it really contains nothing that should have caused it to be rejected. Is it a bit edgy? Yes, just a little. But it is not overtly sexual in any way, and contains nothing that we don't already see from football and basketball cheerleaders or every day on television. So check it out, and you be the judge.

Footnotes
Super Bowl® is a registered trademark of The National Football League.
Copyright © 2005 Bob Parsons All rights reserved.