The Best of the Worst Super Bowl XLIV Commercials
For the first time in a long time, Super Bowl ads were actually creative and funny, thanks in part to companies like Doritos (it organized a contest for consumers to help produce its Super Bowl ads and the result as you saw were remarkable–Click here for more on the Doritos $5 million contest ) and Bud Light (its ads where simply hilarious). For the Best of the Best – Super Bowl XLIV Commercials (A-List Edition) contest – Click Here .
At A-List we decided we put together a contest for the best of the worst Super Bowl Sunday ads, we have listed below some of the ads we thought really didn’t measure up to the competition or in some cases the hype.
If you have an ad from Sunday night’s game you’d love to see here, please drop the name of the ad and or company in the comment area and we’ll be happy to add it to the list.
Here are your Best of the Worst – Super Bowl XLIV Commercials contenders:
Tim Tebow Abortion Ad (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 101)
Talking about an ad that did not live up to expectations, there was so much talk about this spot on sports talk radio and TV, political talk radio and TV, primetime news, late night shows, (Thanks to this ad, Jay Leno finally got a break from being ridiculed) pretty much everyone had an opinion with regards the ad.
I actually had to rewind this ad and play it again just to try and get the message they were trying to pass along, there was simply no message. Now we know why CBS accepted this ad and not the GoDaddy’s Danica Patrick and Lola Ad. (See Ad below)(Click here for more on the: The Stupid business of Banning Super Bowl Ads )
Tim Tebow tackling his mom was simply over the top.
GoDaddy Danica Patrick Interviewed on Banned Ad (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 102)
We're talking about GoDaddy and Danica Patrick again. However, it seems like all those brilliant sexy provocative ads are no more; they seem to have run out of ideas and creativity at GoDaddy.com, now we a forced to watch very hot women rip off their clothes over and over again just to show us a T-Shirt with GoDaddy logo.
It's like a wet dream with no ending. (that’s got to hurt:-))
The ad Code 102 is for the Danica Patrick interview ad with regards the GoDaddy Lola ad being too hot for TV, I also like you to see the banned ad, am just confused as to who were they thinking the ad was going to offend? (Click here for more on the: The Stupid business of Banning Super Bowl Ads ).
Below is a Fox news video report on both ads.
Danica Patrick GoDaddy Massage (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 103)
Another ad with no creativity, or humor, or a message, neither was there the one thing GoDaddy.com has been known for the past couple of years–Shock factor. The ad was just boring plain and simple.
Growing up Cars.com (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 104)
I will understand if this was an ad for NASA, we all know how they like adult diapers and second hand cars for those long trips! And I have to add here, why is a genius buying a second hand car?
All that IQ and no money?
I guess being a genius doesn’t make you smart? (Case in point–Windows Vista, OK maybe a stretch)
Dove for Men (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 105)
This ad was just exhausting to watch, not to mention creepy.
Teleflora Brings Sassy Talking Flowers (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 106)
Another ad that was just exhausting to watch, but even creepier.
Intel “Lunch Room” 2010 (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 107)
This is the freaking Super Bowl for crying out loud, this ad was out of place and boring. But, if you saw this ad on HD the colors were really amazing, I wonder if they have a 3D version!
Taco Bell It Rocks! (Super Bowl XLIV Commercial) (Ad Code 108)
We all know Chuck (Charles Barkley) loves food and we all love him for that (at least I do!) and love him even more in those T-Mobile commercials, but, Taco Bell and DJ Chuck?
Come on men.
Like Chuck always says: Terrible! Terrible!! Terrible!!! Terrible.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?