The Best Publicity Money Can't Buy

[BandB]

Wifey B: Marketing Geniuses are Julia Rose and Lauren Summer. Already popular on Instagram with 2.8 million and 1.5 million followers and run an online magazine. They buy seats behind home plate for the World Series and during the 7th inning as Gerrit Cole prepares to pitch and the cameras are directed toward home plate, they flash their breasts. This gets them an immediate 10.2 million viewers. Oh, but Major League Baseball doesn't make them stop with that. No, they ban them from all games, give their names, give them far more publicity than had they just let it die at that point. Oh, they play right into their plan and Julia Rose and Lauren Summers are having a very successful time right now.

Now, Julia Rose is one of the top searches and she's major in NY Post.

Oh, and the women claim it was a charitable endeavor as they were doing it to promote breast cancer awareness. So, now their five seconds of fame which likely many viewers missed has been greatly extended. And, now we're left to wonder where they'll hit next. Perhaps they'll be the 21st century version of Morgana. :lol:

 

[menzies]

Meh, can see that any day on Euro beaches!

Now if they had waited for the Fan Cam and started kissing....

 

[BandB]

Meh, can see that any day on Euro beaches!

Now if they had waited for the Fan Cam and started kissing....

Wifey B: Or on South Beach or on their magazine website but major league baseball comes through for them. Had they done nothing but remove them, the internet would have had people asking who they were. However, MLB has publicized their names and their instagram accounts and their magazine for them with the ban.

I wonder how many times Morgana was banned.

I read about Morgana also riding through town in a convertible topless, both car and her, right before major appearances in the city in strip clubs. Always great publicity and packed houses and typically arrest and release as guilty of no crime.

And when will we get beyond being outraged by human breasts? Why don't we get upset over men showing theirs?

Now, I wonder after seeing the publicity if this will encourage others. This happens at football games, both college and pro, all the time, but they are smart enough to not make a big issue out of it. Julia Rose didn't get near the publicity when she ripped her top off on a roller coaster in an amusement park. Only the benefit of her own selfie on Instagram.

 

[BandB]

Meh, can see that any day on Euro beaches!

Now if they had waited for the Fan Cam and started kissing....

Wifey B: Like Jennifer Aniston and Ellen kissing on Ellen's show.

 

[menzies]

And when will we get beyond being outraged by human breasts? Why don't we get upset over men showing theirs?

I agree. One of the most beautiful things in the world is to see a mother feeding her child. Not at all sexual, just wonderful. On a park bench, in a mall, on a plane.

My wife did it once in the buffet line at a casino in Lake Tahoe (weren't there to gamble, just there for the scenery and then for the cheap eats) - boy were they unhappy about that!

 

[BandB]

I agree. One of the most beautiful things in the world is to see a mother feeding her child. Not at all sexual, just wonderful. On a park bench, in a mall, on a plane.

My wife did it once in the buffet line at a casino in Lake Tahoe (weren't there to gamble, just there for the scenery and then for the cheap eats) - boy were they unhappy about that!

Wifey B: And see I would have carried on a conversation with her and said nice things about the baby. I do believe today it would have been better accepted than when she did it.

And gambling a bit is ok. We do play a bit of poker.

 

[Boat]

All in a day's work. Anything for a buck. Gotta get a return on their investments. Bills to pay - surgeons and such.


And then there's #meetoo.


North American sexual hypocrisy.

 

[BruceK]

Silicone used above the waterline?

 

[Group9]

Silicone used above the waterline?

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Agreed it was savvy marketing,probably way above what they expected. I say, good for them.

 

[O C Diver]

While I find the whole thing amusing, if the FCC decided to fine the broadcast company, do you think the girls would have the class to step up and pay the fine?

Ted

 

[menzies]

While I find the whole thing amusing, if the FCC decided to fine the broadcast company, do you think the girls would have the class to step up and pay the fine?

Ted

Are bare breasts against FCC broadcasting rules?

 

[O C Diver]

Are bare breasts against FCC broadcasting rules?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy

Ted

 

[BandB]

While I find the whole thing amusing, if the FCC decided to fine the broadcast company, do you think the girls would have the class to step up and pay the fine?

Ted

Wifey B: FCC can't fine the broadcasters as these were not employees or otherwise contracted by the network or by Major League Baseball. Much different than Nipplegate where she was being paid for a halftime performance. However, the fine got publicity. What didn't was that the courts ultimately voided it. Now, MTV was furious because the show was rehearsed and this wasn't part of it, not even revealing a bra, much less an adorned nipple. It wasn't a bare nipple even. As the article Diver references mentions, while most people didn't like her doing it, by a very slight margin. The vast majority of people thought way too much was being made out of it.

Had Shagmag been paid by the network then the network could face a fine but even then on appeal likely win.

This is more like when a reporter is interviewing someone and someone in the background spouts off some of the seven words or even the person being interviewed uses one.

Or a bit like streakers in their prime, running out on the field. Like this....

 

[O C Diver]

Wifey B: FCC can't fine the broadcasters as these were not employees or otherwise contracted by the network or by Major League Baseball. Much different than Nipplegate where she was being paid for a halftime performance. However, the fine got publicity. What didn't was that the courts ultimately voided it. Now, MTV was furious because the show was rehearsed and this wasn't part of it, not even revealing a bra, much less an adorned nipple. It wasn't a bare nipple even. As the article Diver references mentions, while most people didn't like her doing it, by a very slight margin. The vast majority of people thought way too much was being made out of it.

Had Shagmag been paid by the network then the network could face a fine but even then on appeal likely win.

This is more like when a reporter is interviewing someone and someone in the background spouts off some of the seven words or even the person being interviewed uses one.

Or a bit like streakers in their prime, running out on the field. /QUOTE]
You didn't answer the question.
The fine was irrelevant as it was overturned. The legal fees are another issue. Would these two businesses women cover legal fees if the FCC decided to give the network a hard time? As it was clearly done for financial gains, might the FCC look at their motivation differently?

Ted

 

[BandB]

I'm sure the girls were very well informed as to what was legal and not. This was legal. In Texas, here is the indecent exposure law:

(a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.​

Public Lewdness is:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly engages in any of the following acts in a public place or, if not in a public place, the person is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by the person's:

(1) act of sexual intercourse;

(2) act of deviate sexual intercourse; or

(3) act of sexual contact.​

This is consistent in most states where toplessness itself is not a violation of a law. By most rulings, breasts are not sexual organs. Enough mothers trying to breastfeed have been through being charged with violating non-existent laws.

Probably no great surprise, but knowing my wife and her friends, I made sure I was well versed in local laws as they would impact people by and in our pool and laws that would apply if we were on our boat. Our attorney found the questions most amusing. She has a great sense of humor.

Then there are cities that have passed ordinances, most of which never hold up in court. Living in the land of "anything goes" we find these humorous but bothersome. Myrtle Beach apparently wants to discourage many from coming there as they've pointed out the anatomical areas that are not to be exposed which eliminates a lot of bikini tops and all thong bottoms. Here is that regulation as they've specified what can't be shown and what can't be done.

Specified anatomical areas means and includes:

(1)Less than completely and opaquely covered: human genitals, pubic region; buttock, including the gluteal cleft; and female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and(2)Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.​

Specified sexual activity means any of the following:

(1)Erotic touching or fondling of human genitals, pubic regions, buttocks or female breasts; or(2)Intercourse, oral copulation, masturbation or sodomy; or(3)Excretory functions as a part of or in connection with any of the activities described above.


Note that the activity part applies even through clothes.

These regulations become important if you travel a lot as when we have a boatload in places like Myrtle Beach, all the girls can't wear the bikinis they normally do but buy what we call G Rated Bikinis.

So, the girls in Houston were not breaking any law. And the broadcaster did nothing wrong as they cut away from it as soon as they realized.

People from many other countries are amazed that the US seems to have such an issue with the female breast and with nudity. Violations are generally misdemeanors and small fines so no one fights these ordinances. However, when they are fought, they are almost always overturned.

 

[O C Diver]

Guess you're not going to answer the question.

There are laws on the books that people get arrested for that are always overturned by federal courts. The authorities keep arresting people for violation of these laws knowing that the person will spend considerable legal fees to get it overturned. It's the authority's way of discouraging the activity.

Ted

 

[menzies]

It seems from what Ted posted that the FCC has a set of what they perceive as standards that are not supported by the law. So when fines are challenged they get thrown out.

I guess this is the key piece:

On November 2, 2011, the Third Circuit Court ruled 2–1 that its earlier decision was correct, citing that the broadcast was legal under the FCC's then-current policy of allowing "fleeting" indecency on the airwaves, and that it was unfair of the FCC to change the policy retroactively.[5][123] On June 29, 2012, the Supreme Court declined an FCC appeal.[6][124]

I get the sense that, like the amount of TV shows featuring gays has resulted in the fact that it is now commonly accepted on TV, that if more shows just threw out naked breasts it would become a non-issue in short order.

One can always hope, right!

 

[BandB]

Guess you're not going to answer the question.

There are laws on the books that people get arrested for that are always overturned by federal courts. The authorities keep arresting people for violation of these laws knowing that the person will spend considerable legal fees to get it overturned. It's the authority's way of discouraging the activity.

Ted

Wifey B: I thought I answered the question clearly, which was "Are bare breasts against FCC broadcasting rules?" Not when shown in this situation. They would be if the broadcaster was responsible for the bare breasts as in showing a television show on network tv at 7:00 PM featuring bare breasts or if they solicited a bunch of girls to pose topless for the 6:00 PM News. But they had no responsibility in this case. Extemporaneous display and they cut away as soon as possible.

Nipplegate, the show was put on by MTV and they were held responsible for the show and the nipple.

The broadcaster had nothing to do with World Series Breastgate. Legal as done.

 

[BandB]

It seems from what Ted posted that the FCC has a set of what they perceive as standards that are not supported by the law. So when fines are challenged they get thrown out.

Wifey B: But even the FCC rules wouldn't apply in this case.

 

[BandB]

that if more shows just threw out naked breasts it would become a non-issue in short order.

One can always hope, right!

Wifey B: The major networks don't feel the need to press the limit that far as there are so many other avenues showing them. They have pressed things further with open talk of sex among unmarried people and display of sex but without seeing details and outfits. Perhaps the furthest I recall seeing things go on free tv was on TruTV there was a show Miami Beach Patrol. I lived in NC at the time and was amazed that nearly all the girls wore very skimpy bikini tops and thongs. Very high butt quotient.

Also, more money to be maid to put the breasts on pay tv.

 

[Erik C]

Not going to post the link because it will probably get me banned. Google Phil Bloom in tv program Hoepla. Dutch TV in 1967, get over it people.

 

[O C Diver]

Wifey B: I thought I answered the question clearly, which was "Are bare breasts against FCC broadcasting rules?"

No you didn't.

I asked if the broadcasting company incurred costs or fines as a result of what the two women chose to do in pursuit of furthering their enterprise, would they be responsible enough to cover some portion of those costs. I assume your less than artful dodges of the question, mean you doubt they are that "stand up" either.

I have no doubt that after the federal government (FCC) forms, required paperwork, meetings with government officials and legal consultations get done (for an incident that will get no action), this will cost the broadcasting company 6 figures in compliance oversight.

Ted

 

[BandB]

No you didn't.

I asked if the broadcasting company incurred costs or fines as a result of what the two women chose to do in pursuit of furthering their enterprise, would they be responsible enough to cover some portion of those costs. I assume your less than artful dodges of the question, mean you doubt they are that "stand up" either.

I have no doubt that after the federal government (FCC) forms, required paperwork, meetings with government officials and legal consultations get done (for an incident that will get no action), this will cost the broadcasting company 6 figures in compliance oversight.

Ted

Wifey B: Sorry I didn't answer your hypothetical since there is no known paperwork or fines or other compliance activity. Would they cover non-existent costs? I doubt it, but then I don't personally know them. The reality is there is no FCC action just as there is none every time an athlete uses the f word. If there was, the network could certainly seek reimbursement or even sue them and/or their company.

 

[O C Diver]

Wifey B: Sorry I didn't answer your hypothetical since there is no known paperwork or fines or other compliance activity. Would they cover non-existent costs? I doubt it, but then I don't personally know them. The reality is there is no FCC action just as there is none every time an athlete uses the f word. If there was, the network could certainly seek reimbursement or even sue them and/or their company.

We're talking about a government agency here. There most assuredly will be paperwork to be completed by the company. If nothing else, I'm sure the FCC will want to know what steps (such as a 10 second broadcasting delay) could be implemented to prevent future such incidents. We're talking about a government agency that needs to justify their existence and budget.

Ted

 

[Shrew]

While I find the whole thing amusing, if the FCC decided to fine the broadcast company, do you think the girls would have the class to step up and pay the fine?

The broadcasting company could have chosen to broadcast on a 15-30 second delay and switched cameras before the image from that particular camera was broadcast, or dump the broadcast prior to switching cameras. It's done all the time. Since it was the world series and not the Howard Stern show, they chose not to.

That was the broadcasting companies choice to broadcast the content. As a result, they are responsible for the fine.

 

[menzies]

That was the broadcasting companies choice to broadcast the content. As a result, they are responsible for the fine.

Except the fine is not supported by law.

 

[BandB]

The broadcasting company could have chosen to broadcast on a 15-30 second delay and switched cameras before the image from that particular camera was broadcast, or dump the broadcast prior to switching cameras. It's done all the time. Since it was the world series and not the Howard Stern show, they chose not to.

That was the broadcasting companies choice to broadcast the content. As a result, they are responsible for the fine.

Hubby B: Live events are not broadcast on delay. The news isn't and often when they're in the field things happen. One of the more famous lines was after Andrew when a photographer kept trying to hand a reporter a microphone because they were on the air. She later claimed she said something about apparatus instead of "stick it up your a.." What about presidential press conferences in which the current office holder regularly uses words not allowed on television? If a world series game was on a 10 second delay, the big home run would get scooped by someone on twitter. You say delay is done all the time, but it isn't done all the time on tv. It is a standard practice on talk radio.

Everyone acts like this is something new but there have been flashers at many football games and they've been on tv. They were just removed from the stadium but the network and NFL did not choose to follow it up by giving them more publicity and fame. Had MLB not banned and given these girls publicity they wouldn't have gotten nearly the time or promotion out of it.

The only regular television I know on tape delay is A&E with Live PD and Live Rescue. They anticipate a barrage of language from those arrested but that's not their primary reason. They have some intense and traumatic action including rollovers and deaths even and they do want to delay those. Don't want someone's relatives seeing a mutilated body before the police have even notified them.

It's simple, the broadcasting network broke no rules. MLB broke no rules. The two girls broke game attendance rules but broke no laws.

I do think it's likely now that they've been rewarded with so much publicity that they will strike again at future sporting events.

I would add this and that is that there's been no outrage over this. It's been nothing like Nipplegate. First, not the number of viewers. Second, a few years have passed. Third, it wasn't part of a halftime show people had allowed their kids to stay up late to see. On the whole, it's just not a big deal. Not like there are people who haven't seen breasts before. Just a little sidelight. And a great trivia question for years to come will be "Who was the pitcher when the girls flashed from behind home plate in the World Series?" Answer: Gerrit Cole.

 

[HopCar]

I never heard of the two ladies until I read Wifey B’s post. By the time I read the second post in this thread I’d forgotten their names. Fame is fleeting.

 

[ssobol]

Show a person being murdered fairly graphically on TV, no one bats an eye. Show a female nipple and there's hell to pay.

Go figure.