Not surprisingly, SodaStream would like to advertise this fact.  In fact, it is so keen on advertising the relative benefits of its product over the more traditional route of buying pre-made soda from the store that the company ponied up for a Super Bowl commercial.  Unfortunately for SodaStream, the ad was rejected by CBS, not because it was too risque, but because it “disparages” other major advertisers (which is apparently more objectionable than borderline softcore porn a la GoDaddy and Mercedes).  As Ad Age reported:

The content of its planned commercial seemed to have concerned CBS because it was a direct hit at two other Super Bowl sponsors and heavy network TV advertisers: Coke and Pepsi.

We’ve discussed elsewhere CBS’s newfound affinity for the ban hammer, but this isn’t even the first time this has happened to SodaStream.  British regulatory authorities yanked Sodastream’s first major advertising campaign for “being too disparaging towards soda manufacturers like Coke and Pepsi.”

How disparaging was SodaStream that its ads were pulled from television?  Well, it simply pointed out that SodaStream was more environmentally friendly than drinking off-the-shelf sodas because, with SodaStream, “you could save more than 2,000 bottles a year.”  Wow, that is incendiary.  Not safe for public consumption!

It gets better.  Clearcast, the NGO — funded by the British broadcasters — that pre-approves most advertisements for British television, reportedly offered this rationale for pulling the ad:

The majority decided that the ad could be seen to tell people not to go to supermarkets and buy soft drinks, [and] instead help to save the environment by buying a SodaStream. [SodaStream] was also told that it constituted denigration of the bottled-drinks market.

Hypocritically, U.S. broadcasters have allowed Pepsi to air Super Bowl ads that bashed Coke directly, as Ad Age also pointed out:

Interestingly enough, Pepsi has scored big points with viewers over the years by showing Super Bowl ads with Coke deliverymen abandoning their employer wholesale for a sip of a Pepsi drink.

Moral of this story:  Pepsi and Coke can attack each other over trivial differences in their products, but don’t attack the business model of big incumbent advertisers.

Fortunately, there is an upside for SodaStream.  All the controversy that these ads have stirred has generated a buzz around them.  The SodaStream “banned Super Bowl ad” has already generated more than two million hits on YouTube in two days and generated a media buzz around the company itself.  And that’s without having to splash $3.8 million worth of cash for a Super Bowl commercial.  Another example of the Streisand Effect in action.

[SodaStream is running a commercial during the Super Bowl, but it was forced to replace Coke and Pepsi with fictional soda companies.  However, that ad only has a little more than 17,000 YouTube views in the last two days.]

Cross posted from Project-Disco.

• SB Nation's network of 300 blogs redesigned all their logos for a re-launch -- with just a single designer, Fraser Davidson, in 7 weeks. Designing 300 logos is hard enough, but add in the complication that none of these logos should in any way infringe upon their related sports teams' official trademarks.... [url]
• Imagine some popular corporate logos redesigned for a hipster blog or startup. You don't have to imagine it, there's a Tumblr blog for it. [url]
• The evolution of corporate logos is kinda fascinating. Apple's first logo in 1976 is really different from its current minimalistic logo. [url]
• Some logos have hidden messages in them. The Big Ten collegiate conference logo has a little nod to the fact that there are actually eleven teams in its organization. [url]

• Coca-Cola and Pepsi are going to modify their recipes a little bit to reduce the amount of caramel coloring and 4-methylimidazole in their colas. Otherwise, a California law would require a cancer warning label since the 4-methylimidazole in the coloring is a known carcinogen. [url]
• There was a fairly complex conspiracy theory behind the introduction of New Coke which suggested that Coca-Cola knew how badly the new formulation would taste to consumers, but that the company made it in order to replace sugar with HFCS. Bonus points for definitively debunking this conspiracy theory... [url]
• If you've ever seen a demonstration of a can of cola dissolving teeth, you might be a bit freaked out by the phosphoric acid listed in the ingredients of many sodas. But the dose makes the poison, and the concentration of phosphoric acid in soft drinks shouldn't worry anyone. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

• Japanese scientists have studied the properties of miraculin -- the glycoprotein from the West African plant Richardella dulcifica that makes sour things taste incredibly sweet (for up to an hour). It works best in an acidic environment to bind your taste receptors, and unfortunately, the FDA considers it a food additive and has not approved its use as an artificial sweetener. [url]
• Some folks are investigating "Pine mouth" syndrome -- the phenomenon where a metallic aftertaste lingers in your mouth for days after eating pine nuts. The effect was first documented in 2001, but more cases are being reported and various food agencies are trying to track down the cause. [url]
• There are over 600 flavor compounds that combine to create the taste of chocolate. However, humans can recognize the aroma of chocolate by only 25 of those volatile flavors. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]