So why did this ad get killed? It seems harmless, could you really find a valid reason not to run it?
USA Today's Bruce Horowitz spoke with SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum who was not happy about the reasons given to him. According to him, the reason Fox is killing the ad is because of the last line, "Sorry Coke and Pepsi."
As Horowitz reports:
Daniel Birnbaum, CEO of SodaStream, bitterly complained to USA TODAY late Friday that Fox rejected the Super Bowl commercial "because they're afraid of Coke and Pepsi."
That's the line that Fox has demanded that SodaStream kill, says Birnbaum. "What are they afraid of?" asks Birnbaum. "Which advertiser in America doesn't mention a competitor? This is the kind of stuff that happens in China. I'm disappointed as an American."
As a publisher, I can understand some of the pressures involved in catering toward large advertisers. But is this line really that bad? After all, how many years went by where Budweiser and Miller went toe-to-toe? Coke and Pepsi themselves do it every year, does Fox really think they would take issue with another smaller competitor getting in the mix?
Or is this all a stunt? After all, GoDaddy has used this tactic for years. Put out an ad you know will get rejected and then hit the PR wire hard with your banned Super Bowl ad that was too hot for TV! But this doesn't really seem like an ad that would play to that tactic, there's not much going on here, and it really isn't an attack or anything beyond what we're used to seeing in these ads. In fact, Horowitz questioned the same thing:
Birnbaum insists that was not SodaStream's intent, this year or last year.
Birnbaum says that SodaStream will drop the line —- because it has little choice. "If I could get my money back, I'd be happy to be out of that deal."
What do you think? Did Fox have good reason to reject this ad?
BONUS: Warren Buffett Offers $1 Billion for Anyone Who Can Pick a Perfect March Madness Bracket