Comments on: Look at This and Drink This

Look at This and Drink This

wendell — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:53:51 -0800

With a typically punny Hollywood Reporter headline, the news is out that Anheuser-Busch's new video site with Original Content (launched during the Super Bowl, naturally) is not nearly as popular as expected. The promoters blame the registration/age-verification requirement for discouraging users (noted here earlier today), but 21 State Attorneys General say it's not discouraging enough. But is the content any good? Here are a couple reviews.
No, I didn't link or even mention the site's obvious address. I don't want anybody to think I actually encourage stuff like this ;)

By: grobstein

grobstein — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:17:28 -0800

Dude, it was not at all obvious to me, probably because this is the first I've heard of the whole mess. For my fellow inter-troglodytes, here's the linky.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:26:44 -0800

I wonder if they split-tested the registration page to see what falloff was -- *Click on animated spalsh page, fill out webfo... I wonder what's happening on YouTube* Rule one (point oh!) of internet content: Content up front, bullshit on the cutting room floor.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:27:25 -0800

Odd that Bud's color is red, considering how Pepsi-Bluish this post is. wendell, you corporate lackey you.

By: wendell

wendell — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:29:13 -0800

Hey, grobstein linked to the site, not me.

By: mrbill

mrbill — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:30:12 -0800

What VulcanMike said - I can't see people going to BudTV when YouTube already exists without the entrance gateway BS.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:30:21 -0800

Also, if liquor advertising is so dangerous that it legally requires initial age verification, why the heck can they show liquor ads during events like the SuperBowl, when the content is forced down the throats of viewers of all ages?

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:34:00 -0800

"Hey, grobstein linked to the site, not me." Yes, let's consider that for a moment, shall we? grob is, of course, an anagram for Borg, the monolithic collection of drones working together toward a single stated purpose, assimilating all others. stein obviously is the vessel in which beer is normally found. Taken together we see that grobstein is yet another of Bud's corporate shills, a cog in the giant marketing machine whose sole purpose is to convince all Americans to drink their shitty beer.

By: amyms

amyms — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:36:15 -0800

When you say Bud you've said it all.

By: VulcanMike

VulcanMike — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:37:12 -0800

Also, the Czech Republic wants its name back. Since 1265, beer drinkers. Since 1265.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:52:59 -0800

why the heck can they show liquor ads... Actually, you haven't seen an ad for liquor on TV since the 1970's. Beer and wine, yes, but no ads for liquor.

By: jedicus

jedicus — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:55:48 -0800

Actually, you haven't seen an ad for liquor on TV since the 1970's. Beer and wine, yes, but no ads for liquor. That strikes me as a wee bit unlikely, since I've seen ads for Bailey's, Hennessey cognac, etc, etc. You might be thinking of cigarette advertising.

By: macadamiaranch

macadamiaranch — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:56:26 -0800

I see those annoying "DiSarronno" ads all the time, and I'm in the US. Isn't amaretto a liquor? And smirnoff too I think.

By: jedicus

jedicus — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:56:39 -0800

bah. "Hennessy"

By: amyms

amyms — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:58:44 -0800

Actually, you haven't seen an ad for liquor on TV since the 1970's. I thought that ban was lifted in the late 90s? I regularly see ads for things like Jack Daniels, DiSoronno, Baileys, etc. on television.

By: amyms

amyms — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:00:06 -0800

Oops, looks like jedicus, macadamiaranch and I were all posting the same thing.

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:12:00 -0800

I thought that ban was lifted in the late 90s? IIRC there was never a ban, just a voluntary agreement between spirit manufacturers/distillers that was voluntarily terminated.

By: R. Mutt

R. Mutt — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:34:54 -0800

Maybe AB should have just made a LARGE cash offer for Fark.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:45:19 -0800

I guess I missed the resumption because by then I had mostly stopped watching TV. Sorry about that.

By: wendell

wendell — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:49:57 -0800

That IS something you'd need a TV to know about.

By: First Post

First Post — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:39:55 -0800

Maybe AB should have just made a LARGE cash offer for Fark. Dr Pepper tried to do that a couple of years or so ago. The offer was declined.

By: dmd

dmd — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:22:40 -0800

forced down the throats of viewers of all ages Really? I didn't find out it was Superbowl Sunday until after-superbowl Monday.

By: rfbjames

rfbjames — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:40:22 -0800

Everyone should drink bud! I live in St. Louis, my city would collapse if all of you stopped...especially since I don't drink it myself...

By: team lowkey

team lowkey — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:42:35 -0800

From the first review link: ...one series features three women making over an unkempt guy. Sheisse films? Seems like it should have been a great success.