Go Daddy and Danica Patrick are the opposite of awesome

Go DaddyHi, I’m Danica Patrick. Check this shit out (Fig. 1): I will now sell you a domain name by staring intensely at you through your computer screen and hypnotizing you with my extremely undeniable Danica Patrick-ness. Because nothing says “domain names” quite like generic girls in tank tops, me, my awesomeness, and auto racing. Boo-yah.

I’ve about reached the end of my patience with Danica Patrick. Specifically, Danica Patrick teamed with Go Daddy to be an annual Super Bowl institution exercising tired and unfunny assumptions about the Lowest Common Denominator. Has anything ever played on such a dumb and repetitive brain-dead premise (“Hey, guys who watch football also like hot chicks in tank tops! You know, like at Hooters!) and so quickly become so utterly forced, predictable, and eye-roll worthy?

(The answer to that question, by the way, is: Why, yes, of course about a million things have achieved a similar feat of comparable eye-rolling lameness. This is just one such excellent example.)

I don’t remember when Go Daddy first rolled out its chicks-sell-domain-names ad campaign for the Super Bowl, but it’s probably been at least five years now. Or 10. Or 50. (How old is the Internet again?)

The campaign the last two or three years has been a lame cutaway from an “escalating” situation of Extreme Supposed Hotness, as a girl rips off her shirt to reveal a Go Daddy tank top underneath, accompanied by a sudden cut to a black screen with the Go Daddy logo, and a promise of “seeing more” at GoDaddy.com. Always, the references to the online continuation implores us to exercise extreme caution: “WARNING: WEB CONTENT UNRATED!” Because it’s just too hot for TV, we tell ya! These ads are not edgy. They are the opposite of edgy.

Now, I have not actually viewed one of the “unrated” web-only ads, because I’m not dumb enough to waste my time being a lemming and following a stupid ad campaign to the Internet where it certainly will get even stupider (*). But the way I figure it, “unrated” is a way for the TV commercial to say: Hey, we promise you’re going to get to see softcore porn, but we’re lying, because what you will actually get is an extended version of what you have already seen, and it will be no more crazy or unairable than what was on TV! Because we’re a big, safe corporation that spends $3 million for 30 seconds of air time, not a company that’s going to air risque content, even though we could!

Unrated means, just and only that: NOT RATED. This just in: This blog posting is “unrated.” As is everything I or anyone else has ever written on the Internet or posted on YouTube. Unrated = BFD.

* Although, I am dumb enough to waste my time complaining about the dumbness of these commercials in my blog. (Come to think of it, given that, I’ll go look at the online commercial right now to see if I was right or wrong. … Okay, back now. Turns out that I was even more right than I could possibly have predicted. The extended ad is strictly PG material. It’s merely a lot longer and embarrassing and makes it that much more noticeable how godawful the acting and directing is.)

I say all this, ironically enough, as a satisfied, current, paying customer of Go Daddy (for domain name registrations only, not for hosting solutions), where I have nearly a dozen domain names registered, including both JammersReviews.com and JammersBlog.com, as well as legacy domains like st-hypertext.com and idwid.com. (I find Go Daddy’s domain management tools are simple, inexpensive, and effective.)

But I don’t like these commercials because they are tired, worn-out, so obvious as to be contemptible, and so lame as to deserve being mocked. If you’re Go Daddy and spending $3 million per 30-second spot during the Super F***ing Bowl, at least write these commercials in such a way that it doesn’t seem like a computer program slapped together something random out of the following phrases: Go Daddy, Danica Patrick, girl, tank top, torn off.

◄ Blog Home Page

10 comments on this post

Chris L
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 9:38 am (UTC -6)

Jammer,
I agree, those commercials are really stupid. I’m not sure who they are meant for exactly. I mean is there a sane business person around who will choose a domain name service based on the hot women in their commercials? I don’t think so, but apparently the folks at GoDaddy.com do.

On a personal note, I’d like to thank you for taking the hit for the rest of us by actually going to their site and checking out the “unrated” stuff. While I suspected the truth about them, I admit to having been curious about it. Thank you for saving me the indignity of discovering just how pathetic I can be.

Rachael
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 10:49 pm (UTC -6)

I’m glad you wrote this, because after I saw this ad during the Super Bowl, I turned to my friend and said “I think I just lost all my respect for Danica Patrick.” I admire her helping to break the glass ceiling for women and all, but whatever admiration I might have for her being a woman in a “man’s” field was lost when she promptly decided to capitalize on her femaleness in the most base, objectifying, and cliched way possible.

Sam
Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 11:52 pm (UTC -6)

I don’t know if you carried this over to Jammer’s Reviews/Blog, but didn’t Star Trek Hypertext have a (probably self imposed) “rating” from one of those online content things?

Jammer
Thursday, February 11, 2010, 11:49 am (UTC -6)

Sam: Yes, I did once use a voluntary ICRA rating long ago. I dropped it because it was simply unnecessary. And it strikes me that an organization like the former ICRA (now the Family Online Safety Institute) is probably more likely to be some sort of political lobbying group. (NOTE: I have not investigated the validity of that feeling, which could very well be false. It just SEEMED more likely, and I didn’t feel like investigating it further, so I instead dropped it.)

Rating content online through a third party is fairly pointless. Since there’s no consistent arm to apply it to everyone (which I would not for one second endorse) there’s really no advantage in being a part of it. Essentially, you are self-rating your content and then having that self-rating endorsed by a third party (with its own possible agenda). If you’re doing that, you might as well leave the third party out of it.

Dan L.
Thursday, February 11, 2010, 1:36 pm (UTC -6)

Jammer, I completely agree with you about the inanity of these godaddy.com ads.
If I wanted see an example of how an inferior product is successfully marketed using big boobs, I’d switch the TV channel to Fox News.

poltargyst
Thursday, February 11, 2010, 3:21 pm (UTC -6)

I’ve always been a bit puzzled why the other hot girls in the commercials are stripping for Danica Patrick. Do they think she’s a lesbian? She doesn’t seem all that impressed either. Just kind of a mild “sure, you could be a godaddy girl”.

JP Paulus
Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 10:18 pm (UTC -6)

I wish i had $3 million bucks to spend for an ad that says “if you’re running a porn website,go to GoDaddy. If you’re a normal person, go here.

OK..this’ll sound like an ad, but can i convince you Jammer, to switch? Dreamhost.com has good pricing, and they have a laid back appraoch that i think you’d appreciate (check out their e=newsletters, always publiushed a month late).

There’s no reason for you to encourage those guys and/or give them money.

JackBauer
Thursday, February 25, 2010, 6:33 pm (UTC -6)

Just imagine being a Nascar fan when she races. Its like shes the second coming to the greatest women drivers of all time. During a race in which she finished 6th the lead color guy was practically masturbating all over the microphone.

If Danica is so great, how come the racing series she races for (IZOD Indycar Series) is such a piece of shit.

O-Perez
Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 6:58 pm (UTC -6)

First Danica Patrick and now Joan Rivers? Wow. Why the exploitation?

What’s in GoDaddy’s ads, I call showing/doing stuff other than what you’re made to do in the first place. Oh, and by the way, it’s .com, NOT .co!

resendes
Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 3:47 am (UTC -6)

I agree

Submit a comment



Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post

◄ Blog Home Page