February 8, 2010
I thought the ad was almost incoherent. If it weren't for the controversy or knowing Tim Tebow's story, I don't know why I would ever feel compelled to go online to hear more about his and his mom's story.
I thought it was unreasonable to object to a pro-life ad in the first place, but after actually seeing the ad, any objections are manifestly ridiculous. Who can object to a message that celebrates life?<br><br>P.S. There is a fantastic article in the Washington Post sports section about the ad: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102067.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...</a>
I liked the commercial, it left you with enough information that you could explore it more on your own without cramming it down your throat. A well thought out piece.
I believe the ad was good. However, I don't know if any ads live up the hype of a heated controversy driven by people who don't know the story and have not viewed the ad. Without the controversy and/or criticism of the ad, I don't know if anyone would have said the ad was anti-abortion or political. Without knowing more to the story of Pam being advised to not continue with the pregnancy, I don't know if your mind would go to abortion. I think effectiveness may be judged on home many went to <a href="http://focusonthefamily.com" rel="nofollow">focusonthefamily.com</a> for more information.
If there had been no prior hype, this thing would have slipped through and away pretty quietly. <br><br>My impression: not much happening, except a lady talking and then...oh, did she just get tackled? Yes. Like Betty White a few minutes ago. Who writes these gags? Oh, that's Tim Tebow...AHA, this is the one they were talking about!<br><br>
I agree with robvgr. Plus when the commercial started everyone in the room was talking, so I missed some of what they said. Everyone was talking because I saw the game with my co-workers from the bible camp and they all anticipated the ad. <br><br>My quick thought At least he did not cry.
The ad was really good. I enjoyed it. I thought Tebow and his mom were positive and likable. And I am pro-choice. I think the controversy was not deserved. The ad only had any kind of message if you followed up by going to the website. I doubt many people will do that. It was a lot like the Mormon ads in tone (and in quality-good-by the way). I think the problem is what kind of precedent is CBS setting? And what about the UCC ads they refused to air in the past?
It is hard for me to see it as a Pro-Life ad. All she says is "He almost didn't make it into this world. I can remember so many times when I almost lost him". Where is the Pro-Life message? And what is all the controversy about when IT ISN'T A PRO-LIFE MESSAGE? Just proof people complaining about the ad didn't see it.
I am pretty certain the intention of the ad from the beginning was to give the Pro Choice camp a opportunity to show their true colors - And it did that well -- They say they want abortion to be rare, but if anyone encourages people to choose life -they get outraged. And it turns out, they are outraged over nothing.<br><br>I don't think CBS would have run an ad that had much more depth, and it would have been hard to get the message across in 30 seconds anyway.
I think the most outrageous thing for liberals and pro-choice people was to see a commercial so clearly sponsored by Focus on the Family. Yaaay. But I agree, you would have to know a little about the controversy to get the ad. Obama wants to make abortion â€œsafe, legal and RAREâ€. It's never safe for the baby and the only way to make it rare is restricting the legality of it.
I had NO idea what this commercial was about. I never heard about any controversy. I have never heard the story. The ad had some attempt at being funny... didn't tell me what what it was all about and told me to go somewhere else (some web site) to learn more. As a graphic designer who is all about communicating a message. esp to those who are unfamiliar with that message, I thought the ad missed its mark.
I disagree. I think the ad had no depth. I didn't know what they were talking about. Why can't we just come out and say "Pro Life - its not a bad thing." ?
I missed it. It must've been somewhere amongst all of the Godaddy commercials with stripper-quality acting/scripting and the wealth of commercials featuring people in underwear.
As an American citizen and a Christian who recognizes <i>Roe v. Wade</i> as a sound, conservative application of well-established law, I don't know what the big deal is. Focus on the Family has the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else. Roe said Mrs. Tebow may choose -- it did not say she must abort. She talked about her choice. What is objectionable about that?
Creative, funny, low-key...great! I agree with one news commentator who said there was a lot of "wasted anger" from protesters.<br><br>My biggest problem? I missed the first part of the ad because I was still laughing my head off at Abe Vigoda getting tackled in the Snickers ad which preceded this one...
i think the controversy itself made the ad effective. people who might not be as engaged in these issues had a chance to witness the unfounded protests of abortion rights affectionados. <br><br>the actually ad makes people think, 'what's up with all that backlash? paranoid much?'<br><br>shameless self-promotion: <a href="http://janaiha.blogspot.com/2010/02/can-of-worms.html" rel="nofollow">http://janaiha.blogspot.com/20...</a>
I thought it was anti-climactic, but PR brilliance on the part of FotF withholding the ad beforehand to stoke controversy, and then making the ad so vague nobody has anything to complain about.<br>Though making jokes about tackling a woman who nearly died giving birth to you make be a little uncomfortable.
Here's what FOTH said about the ad: The site experienced 40 times its normal volume of traffic, drawing 50,000 unique visitors and 500,000 hits, according to USA Today. Daly said the site would have crashed had Focus not beefed up its servers last week.<br>"I'm amazed at the ripple effect that this has caused," Daly said during today's Focus on the Family radio broadcast. "We had one goal in doing the ad and that was to open up the dialogue about the issue of life ... and I think we accomplished that with God's grace." <br>
The ad would have been a total non-event if the abortion-on-demand folk hadn't created such a fuss about the "hostile and divisive" agenda of those evil Focus on the Family wackos. Thanks to them, America was reminded that LIFE IS a CHOICE! The joke's on them!
An outstanding story, and quite the _unusual case---high-risk pregnancy, medical issues and complications, strong family support system, family of faith; I'd be more impressed with FOF had they chosen the story of a young single mother who made the choice to keep a child despite all the odds of a fractured family, a judgmental society, etc. I'm assuming there are many such cases, perhaps even playing in the big game.
Or even -- "Pro Life" -- it's a good choice.
In my humble opinion the ad was absolutely terrific and said what it had to say. May the glory be the Lord's!
I think she should have spoken her mind in full about her personal decision not to abort her child.
What does it say about Focus on the Family that they felt the need to hide their anti-woman agenda behind schmaltz and an All-American college quarterback? Wouldn't it have been more honest for them to come out and say that they believe that all women should be forced by law to carry pregnancies to term, and that those who choose not to should be criminally punished? Why do they talk about "choosing life" and at the same time promote policies that would take that choice away?
It makes as much sense to talk about your anti-baby agenda as it does to talk about FOFâ€™s anti-woman agenda. Thatâ€™s a very acrimonious characterization. Curious, when FOFs listenership and support base is primarily women. I would venture a guess that women buyers of Dr. Dobsonâ€™s books outnumber men 10 to 1. And why the comment â€œschmaltzâ€? There was nothing â€œschmaltzyâ€ about the commercial This is a real womanâ€™s account about choosing not to abort after a difficult medical prognosis, but to carry the baby to full term. This is a courageous story with a good end. You are not an absolutely a free moral agent able to do what you please in this society. If you have a 6 year old you cannot choose to starve her, ignore her or choose to kill her. You have a responsibility to care for her whether it compromises your cherished freedom and independence or not. The same with a baby in the womb, if not more so because the degree of dependence is even greater. Obama wants to make abortion â€œsafe, legal and RAREâ€. It's never safe for the baby and the only way to make it rare is restricting the legality of it. Over 30 million babies have been destroyed by abortion in the last 20 years. Were these all medically necessary or was it because they were inconvenient? Donâ€™t you think this says something about our self-centered culture?
Add your comment to join the discussion!