Danica Patrick: Sexy GoDaddy Ads Continue to Tarnish Danica's Reputation
Danica Patrick Featured in Yet Another Classless GoDaddy Ad
There's no question that Danica Patrick's partnership with GoDaddy.com has increased her exposure throughout America and brought added revenue to IndyCar.
"Exposure" is the key word.
GoDaddy's classless ad campaign that features Patrick in a wide variety of sexy garments has long since been a staple on the circuit ever since Patrick's rookie season in 2005.
The problem is, there comes a point when it really starts tarnishing her reputation.
Patrick made headlines recently when it was reported that she was planning on moving to NASCAR full-time in 2012.
At the time, I applauded her for it. She was taking a risk in moving to NASCAR because she would likely see a worse average finish, but it also marked character, a driven individual looking for more than just being an influential female driver.
But with her latest GoDaddy ad, I don't know if I can take much more.
The latest, which includes a GoDaddy rep trying to convince Patrick to do a bull ride, be a sexy nurse and wear a bikini, is yet another example of the position Patrick puts herself in everytime a GoDaddy ad airs.
Everytime a new GoDaddy ad airs, she's reduced to "that sexy IndyCar driver" instead of what she's really driving for: respect in the male-dominated world of car racing.
I'll give her credit; she certainly knows how to market herself. But racing isn't just about marketing. If Patrick really wants to become more than just a marketed fad that will fade away in time, she needs to make a decision: GoDaddy or racing (and no, I don't see GoDaddy compromising and toning it down).
In short, every GoDaddy ad Patrick does impedes her progress in gaining respect and mars her reputation.
If she really wants to prove that she's more than just "that babe in racing," she's going to have to act as such.
Most recent updates:
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?