Woman sells out fetus for Super Bowl tix
—Posted by David Kiefaber |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c51c053ef00d83463472569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Woman sells out fetus for Super Bowl tix :
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
will the department of human or was that humane services be making public services announcements at the game on the large video display screens about advertising substance abuse for or against children?
Posted by: | Feb 2, 2007 12:15:52 PM
I guess I don't see the problem here.
By reading the headline, or the rest of the article for that matter, you'd think she was selling her baby or advertising on a baby.
It's putting a logo on her stomach. Big deal. I'd do that for super bowl tickets. People paint themselves up for games anyway.
How is this in any way a bad thing for this child? Anyone?
If a woman painted a bears logo on her stomach, no one would care. But because she got free tickets, we're all pissy.
Maybe we need to be a little less pissy.
Posted by: Who? | Feb 2, 2007 1:02:35 PM
I think the problem is that for some men and women pregnancy can be a sacred and intimate situation on the par with religion. Course, the teams mightl be saying some Our Fathers before the game in a huddle, and throwing some Hail Mary plays.
It's football. It's fun.
It's a child. It's your life and blood that if you have gotten this far and have chosen to carry it through, you could never put a price on it.
Posted by: | Feb 2, 2007 1:40:13 PM
Too bad men can get pregnant.
Posted by: Go Bears | Feb 2, 2007 1:45:39 PM
I meant CAN'T. Men are not imune to typos either.
Posted by: Go Bears | Feb 2, 2007 1:47:10 PM
I think some of the commenters are missing the subtle message here - by doing this, this woman is allowing a corporation to BUY HER. She, and her baby, are beholden to the company during their time at the Super Bowl. These corporations already spend every waking moment trying to put logos and ads in front us, and now we VOLUNTARILY allow them to put them right on our skin like a cattle brand?
There once was a time when people would have had too much respect for themselves to allow a company to use their body (or their unborn baby) as a sleasy billboard.
Posted by: ChrisM70 | Feb 2, 2007 2:31:41 PM
At least she's selling something. I've got a friend volunteering to move equipment just so he can watch the half time show in the stadium.
This woman at least gets to watch the entire game.
Posted by: Jerry | Feb 2, 2007 2:35:31 PM
I guess the bigger question is this:
Is there ANYTHING that is NOT for sale?
Our safety? Our self-respect? Our children?
Posted by: ChrisM70 | Feb 2, 2007 3:10:23 PM
I heard she's going to also allow uBid to film the birth as long as the doctors wear branded uniforms.
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Feb 2, 2007 4:35:57 PM
Does this photo make anyone else as horny as a dog in heat?
Posted by: PreggersLover | Feb 2, 2007 5:12:32 PM
ChrisM70-
She's allowing a company to "buy her"? A little overreaction, maybe?
What should we say about people (myself included, and probably you, too) who choose to PAY money to wear a logo on clothing? Do you have Nike shoes? A North Face coat, maybe? Ever had a Coke? That's advertising we're choosing to PAY for. At least this prego lady's smart enough to get something out of it.
Posted by: Bears rule | Feb 2, 2007 6:10:44 PM
I'd rather eat a Stratos candy bar and go out with the guy in that commercial.
Posted by: nancy | Feb 2, 2007 6:22:25 PM
br - isn't that an apples and oranges arguement though? I pay money to wear clothes first, logo or not. That's their main purpose. Even still, it's apparel made by the specific brand for that purpose, and unless I cut tags off, there's not much I can do about controling what logo shows or not.
I drink soda for the particular flavors I like, not for the logo either. Still, the logo relates to the product.
How does a pregnant belly relate to a dot.com site other than the space purchased to advertise it?
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Feb 2, 2007 7:56:10 PM
I know advertising is supposed to sell. Period. Full stop. In our times we are bombarded with so much crap stuff to buy and so much crap advertising, that we've become desensitized. We don't need this goods and advertising to be better persons, but we do need this stuff to keep our economy rolling.
I think if advertising serves an additional function of humanizing our purchases afterwards in making us feel good as a collective goal of our community or nation, etc., that that would be a good ideal to live up to, too. Yea, even when people try and pawn this shilling off as art, cause sometimes it truly is.
For me this belly doesn't live up to any grand function before or after.
Posted by: nancy | Feb 3, 2007 12:46:56 AM
Not the first "pregvertising" ad. Probably not the last. Also, eight months seems to be the sell-by date on this type of media-space - see here for phot of why: http://commercial-archive.com/135667.php
;)
Posted by: Dabitch | Feb 3, 2007 10:08:31 AM
makethelogobigger-
Your argument is based on the presumption that people don't want the logos on their clothes. You may not--but there are plenty of people who do. They're not exactly upset when people notice the fact that they've got a Rolex watch or a Luis Vuitton bag.
My point is this: who cares if she's got the logo on her belly, on her cheek, or on a ballcap?
Posted by: Bears rule | Feb 3, 2007 11:32:55 AM
From a consumer POV, nobody likely cares. But from a brand's POV since this is an advertising/marketing discussion, the brand had absolutely better care. What relevance does her available space have to their brand. (Oh wait, already asked that.) Zip. Zero. Zilch.
Obviously there are several types of consumers. My point was based on your assumption that it's an all or none issue regarding why people buy something. Buy or don't buy. Luxury item or not. Doesn't matter to me because people don't have a choice in how the brand markets to them. Especially in terms of their branding/logo usage, no matter how many Doritos CGC spots that are made or PR stunts pregnant women try.
Luxury clothing/accessories brands are exactly the brands and categories most likely to be sought out for their logo.
Dead horse beaten I think.
;-p
Posted by: makethelogobigger | Feb 3, 2007 1:51:16 PM
Quit the melodrama. She did not sell her child or herself. Sure, whe's putting a logo on her stomach for 4 hours in exchange for tickets. People put logos on their cars for money. People even buy clothes with logos on them. Who cares? Obviously, it doesn't bother her to have a lgo on her tummy for a day. Why should we care?
This has nothing to do with a pregnacy or the child. It could just as easily be someone who's not pregnant or a man. It has absolutely no effect on the child, physical or emotional.
If you think it's horrible for someone to put a company's logo on thier stomach for a day in exchange for super bowl tickets, fine. But at least make arguments that make sense.
Posted by: Who? | Feb 3, 2007 10:10:23 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't make an argument that makes sense here. You see a lot of mothers that use their children to look better themselves, and from my opinion that damages the baby. So I don't like it one bit. That's all I have to say about it.
Posted by: Danny | Feb 4, 2007 6:38:16 AM
We buy t-shirts all the time with logos. It is free advertising for them that we PAY for. Why not get paid for doing the advertising instead? Okay, maybe the baby thing is a little much and I can see how people would be upset, but it is just some paint on the belly.
Posted by: paint and t-shirts | Feb 4, 2007 3:41:01 PM
not to bring up mellencamps old stuff again especially on Footballs's holiest of nights, but after reading seth godin:
Ooh yeah
And there's winners and there's losers
But they ain't no big deal
'Cause the simple man baby pays for the thrills, the bills,
the pills that kill.
but aint that.....
Posted by: | Feb 4, 2007 4:30:46 PM
Lady is going way overboard, in my opinion. If you want tickets that bad...
Posted by: Lawton Chiles | Feb 4, 2007 5:25:18 PM
I did not know it was ok to sell children. How can anyone place a price on a human being, especially an unborn child?
Posted by: | Feb 5, 2007 9:30:55 AM
maybe it is a case for child labor laws
Posted by: | Feb 5, 2007 9:32:53 AM
In the midst of all these Super Bowl ads, we have too had a controversial ad.
We have a heated controversy that is stirring up quite a commotion regarding Clear Channel removing our billboard advertisement. They had a complaint from the Mayor’s Office and without a single word to us took our advertisement down.
We are interested in your take on this situation. If you can find the time please visit: www.msco.com/blog/ the-discussion-on-billboards-that-suck
Thanks,
Chris Kieff, Editor Unconventional Thinking
Posted by: Chris Kieff | Feb 5, 2007 10:50:23 AM
I bet she got pregnant giving 'something else' away when Chicago went to the Divisional playoffs last year.
Posted by: Johnny Di | Feb 5, 2007 12:08:46 PM
people need to get a friggin life
Posted by: Marie | Feb 5, 2007 1:25:55 PM
she is a nasty slut she should show that pot gut to only her man .i dam show didnt want to look at it
Posted by: Windy | Feb 5, 2007 6:19:53 PM
~!*I GUESS IT IS O.K., BUT WHO WOULD ADVERTISE A COMPANY ON THEIR 8MONTH(HOW COULD WE FORGET)"UNBORN" CHILD.I THINK SHE DID IT FOR THE PUBLICITY...BUT AGIAN I GUESS T IS O.K.,IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW OR AS IF SHE WAS ABUSING THE CHILD.IT IS JUST REALLY WEIRD AND ABNORMAL TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS!!!*!~
Posted by: ~*CHELSEA*~ | Feb 5, 2007 6:39:43 PM
For the last time, this lady DID NOT sell her child.
If you were to put a logo on your stomach for spam, did you sell your intenstines?
You're not making sense.
This has NOTHING to do with the child. It's just a woman getting free tickets to the superbowl for putting a logo on her stomach for a day. Who cares? Plenty of people painted logos on their stomachs and PAID to go to the super bowl. WHAT. IS. THE. PROBLEM?
And please, don't say anything about selling your child, because that's not applicable here.
Posted by: Who? | Feb 5, 2007 9:05:09 PM
HEY GUYS IT'S O.K. TO DO WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO GET TICKETS IF YOUR BY YOURSELF, BUT SHE WASN'T. SHE HAD AN UNBORN CHILD RIDING SHOTGUN. IN THE MIDDLE OF A COLD FRONT THAT BROUGHT COLD NIGHT TIME TEMPS ALONG WITH A RAIN STORM THE WHOLE GAME. SHE SAT THERE IN A JERSEY, EXPOSING HER .COM ADD, HER BELLY, AND OH YEAH, HER FREEZING UNBORN CHILD....I'M SUPRIZED WE DIDN'T SEE HER WITH AN ICE COLD BUD IN HER HAND!!!! CAN YOU SAY "CHILD ABUSE"
Posted by: BIG DADDY DARON | Feb 6, 2007 7:03:14 AM
She didn't sell her baby or her body. Really whats the problem?Just mad cause she thought of it before you. Think about it all she did was paint her belley. If it was a man that did it no one would have said anything about it!!!!!
Posted by: michelle | Feb 6, 2007 7:28:07 AM
BIG DADDY:
So, the problem that a pregnant woman went to a football game?
And by the way, they were in Miami. Not exactly freezing there (even in the rain).
Try again.
Posted by: Who? | Feb 6, 2007 2:05:05 PM
Before anybody here calls this woman stupid..proof your comments with spellcheck, you may appear smarter!
Posted by: Johnny Di | Feb 6, 2007 4:17:03 PM
"next to guys looking for Asian women who resemble Florence Henderson" ... Is someone a Golden Girls fan, perhaps? :)
Posted by: Katie | Feb 7, 2007 7:59:23 AM
Yes I am, Katie. And there's no shame in that.
Posted by: Dave Kiefaber | Feb 8, 2007 5:30:23 PM
Sorry for the inconvenience, but AdFreak will not tolerate words such as 'slut', 'pissy', or 'horny'. Please be mindful of younger children viewing this website. Sorry again for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Thanks,
Richard Davies, AdFreak Comment Advisor
Posted by: Rich Davies | Jan 20, 2008 6:56:36 PM
Yes, PreggersLover, I am feeling pretty goddamn horny. Fuck me hard? ;)
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=2610199
Posted by: horntoad1120 | Jan 20, 2008 7:03:17 PM
