About the Juiced vid, that was indeed a viral video. It wasn't ever intended to be on TV or otherwise, they knew with how it was and the fact there was a naked woman involved it would get results, it was like feeding candy to a baby in getting attention. Pretty sure the game didn't actually do much at all sales wise but people never forget the game or the ad itself especially, just look at the attention it's still getting.
The old adage of "any attention is good attention" is not true. They have screwed themselves of ever getting a Juiced sale from me ever again. I will never touch that series, new, used, pirated or otherwise.
True enough not all attention is good.
Considering the game didn't do anything much sales wise out of the gate and pretty sure we never got a sequel I'm sure most people here can be happy with that if nothing else.
Just deserts or karma maybe?
Cade on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Hard to say that the game's lack of success can definitely be attributed to that one ad, though it probably didn't help. The problem is that often "any attention = good attention" does work b/c lowest common denominator bullshit advertising appeals to a wide audience.
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
Jucied did get a sequel though. (Jucied 2: Hot Import Nights) but I think the company was trying to drum up some interest in the game given that it went through publisher hell and was stuck in limbo for about a year.
Doesn't excuse their action though.
About the Juiced vid, that was indeed a viral video. It wasn't ever intended to be on TV or otherwise, they knew with how it was and the fact there was a naked woman involved it would get results, it was like feeding candy to a baby in getting attention. Pretty sure the game didn't actually do much at all sales wise but people never forget the game or the ad itself especially, just look at the attention it's still getting.
The old adage of "any attention is good attention" is not true. They have screwed themselves of ever getting a Juiced sale from me ever again. I will never touch that series, new, used, pirated or otherwise.
True enough not all attention is good.
Considering the game didn't do anything much sales wise out of the gate and pretty sure we never got a sequel I'm sure most people here can be happy with that if nothing else.
Hard to say that the game's lack of success can definitely be attributed to that one ad, though it probably didn't help. The problem is that often "any attention = good attention" does work b/c lowest common denominator bullshit advertising appeals to a wide audience.
No - there definitely is a limitation to the any attention = good attention mantra. "Lowest common denominator bullshit" usually works for entertainment television. LCD commercials on the other hand are memorable only for their absurdity, and rarely their ability to sell or effectiveness.
Speaking as someone who has worked in the advertising industry.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Man, I thought the joke about people freaking out over "videogame ethnic character looking menacing on a bus advertisement" was a jab at the whole GTA 4 vs CTA debacle.
Now I've learned that this has happened twice and my faith in humanity has died a bit more.
1. The game plays like that. 50 is basically a super hero in the game, behing able to take a bunch of bullets, and you are able to perform silly fatality (like mortal kombat almost) type kills.
2. I bet there are a lot of offices out there that you could walk in to and see a dozen or so white white collar business men. There are a lot of game out there where it's white guys shooting a bunch of white guys, they've just replaced the protagonist.
Let me ask you a question. if the above video was instead about a well to do middle aged white guy in a suit running through a slum killing african americans with progressivley more ridiculous methodology, prefacing it with "what is mine is mine. What is yours is mine. This whole city is mine" do you think it would have been anything less then incendiary?
Oh My God you're all missing the point on this one I think.
It's not an office building; it's a pent house. The guys he's killing? Some drug dealer's henchmen who hired him and then tried to screw him over. Nothing to do with white or black. It's actually a pretty cliche action movie scene but you idiots are all using it to argue about racism.
Dumb. It's pure John Woo Homage.
EDIT: If you MUST look for a moral to this video it is thus; Homeboys gets paid.
I'm quite a bit more concerned about the UK banning a piece of media because 8 people complained than I am about the mildly violent content.
US can top that.
Rakolta boycott
In 1989, Terry Rakolta, a conservative homemaker from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, led a boycott[5] against Married... with Children after viewing the episode Her Cups Runneth Over – 0306.[6] Offended by the images of an old man wearing a woman's garter and stockings, the scene where Steve touches the panties of a mannequin dressed in S&M gear, a homosexual man wearing a tiara on his head (and Al's line "...and they wonder why we call them 'queens'"), and a half-nude woman who takes off her bra in front of Al (and is shown with her arms covering her bare chest in the next shot), Rakolta began a letter-writing campaign to advertisers, demanding they boycott the show.
After advertisers began dropping their support for the show and while Rakolta made several appearances on television talk shows demanding the show's cancellation, Fox executives refused to air the episode titled I'll See You In Court – 0310.[7] This episode would become known as the "Lost Episode" and was aired on Fox on June 18, 2002, with some parts cut. The episode was packaged with the rest of the third season in the January 2005 DVD release (and in the first volume of the Married...With Children Most Outrageous episode DVD set) with the parts cut from syndication restored.
Despite the boycott, the ratings for Married... with Children actually increased due to rising interest in the show caused by Rakolta's crusade to have the show cancelled (a non-Internet example of the Streisand effect). The increased number of viewers brought most of the advertisers back, and it kept the show on the air until 1997.
Rakolta has been referenced twice on the show: Rock and Roll Girl – 0414,[8] when a newscaster mentioned the city Bloomfield Hills, and No Pot To Pease In – 0909,[9] when a television show was made about the Bundy family and then was canceled because (according to Marcy) "some woman in Michigan didn't like it".
I found the Call of Duty one with all the corporate drone types fighting it out in a far too realistic battlefield to be mildly disturbing
The fact that they never showed anyone being shot--just people shooting in various directions, and a helicopter exploding--kind of highlights how disturbing the commercial is if you think about it.
Yeah, I was a bit put off by that one to be honest. Just seemed like poor taste.
I don't get the last shot, where the guy is firing two guns in opposite directions.
I found the Call of Duty one with all the corporate drone types fighting it out in a far too realistic battlefield to be mildly disturbing
The fact that they never showed anyone being shot--just people shooting in various directions, and a helicopter exploding--kind of highlights how disturbing the commercial is if you think about it.
Yeah, I was a bit put off by that one to be honest. Just seemed like poor taste.
I don't get the last shot, where the guy is firing two guns in opposite directions.
Can you... do that in that game?
That's the classic Gunslinger-Taking-On-Two-Oppositely-Approaching-Baddies pose.
Oh, I meant to say "didn't." It didn't bother me at all.
That's fucked up.
I mean, you gotta be a special kind of oblivious to miss the creepyness of that ad.
I think to say that it's creepy, or even, as suggested before, insinuating rape is a rather large stretch. Is it objectifying? Yes, it is. But it's nothing beyond that, and marketing it all about stereotyping and objectifying. I'm more annoyed that it's dumb as hell. I mean, they're button mashing to change the color of their car. Who does that? And why does it take two of them to do it?
Quick side-note: Fuck almost every movie and tv show that has a scene with people "playing" video games.
Except Mall Rats and Chasing Amy because Jason Lee (both movies) and Ben Affleck (Amy) were both actually playing Genesis as they did their lines.
Matthew Broderick seemed to genuinely be playing Tic-Tac-Toe in War Games.
Also, Jimmy Wood button mashes at the intro screen of Double Dragons pretty much the same way that most kids do in that situation.
Schrodinger on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited December 2010
I think that I even bought Juiced 2, in the THQ pack on the steam sale.
I'm quite a bit more concerned about the UK banning a piece of media because 8 people complained than I am about the mildly violent content.
US can top that.
Rakolta boycott
In 1989, Terry Rakolta, a conservative homemaker from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, led a boycott[5] against Married... with Children after viewing the episode Her Cups Runneth Over – 0306.[6] Offended by the images of an old man wearing a woman's garter and stockings, the scene where Steve touches the panties of a mannequin dressed in S&M gear, a homosexual man wearing a tiara on his head (and Al's line "...and they wonder why we call them 'queens'"), and a half-nude woman who takes off her bra in front of Al (and is shown with her arms covering her bare chest in the next shot), Rakolta began a letter-writing campaign to advertisers, demanding they boycott the show.
After advertisers began dropping their support for the show and while Rakolta made several appearances on television talk shows demanding the show's cancellation, Fox executives refused to air the episode titled I'll See You In Court – 0310.[7] This episode would become known as the "Lost Episode" and was aired on Fox on June 18, 2002, with some parts cut. The episode was packaged with the rest of the third season in the January 2005 DVD release (and in the first volume of the Married...With Children Most Outrageous episode DVD set) with the parts cut from syndication restored.
Despite the boycott, the ratings for Married... with Children actually increased due to rising interest in the show caused by Rakolta's crusade to have the show cancelled (a non-Internet example of the Streisand effect). The increased number of viewers brought most of the advertisers back, and it kept the show on the air until 1997.
Rakolta has been referenced twice on the show: Rock and Roll Girl – 0414,[8] when a newscaster mentioned the city Bloomfield Hills, and No Pot To Pease In – 0909,[9] when a television show was made about the Bundy family and then was canceled because (according to Marcy) "some woman in Michigan didn't like it".
In a bit of an offshoot of this, don't people realize that getting angry about things and protesting them only makes them more popular? If you protest the crap out of something that you hate and it gets any kind of news coverage, that only means that more people are going to find out about it and have a chance to see it/purchase it.
It amazes me that people have completely missed this idea after years and years of protests about various things.
Examples include: Eminem's (almost) entire career, Harry Potter, violent and/or edgy videogames such as GTA and Mortal Kombat, etc.
It's pretty simple...if you want something to go away and you really dislike it, you should ignore it as much as you possibly can.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I'm quite a bit more concerned about the UK banning a piece of media because 8 people complained than I am about the mildly violent content.
US can top that.
Rakolta boycott
In 1989, Terry Rakolta, a conservative homemaker from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, led a boycott[5] against Married... with Children after viewing the episode Her Cups Runneth Over – 0306.[6] Offended by the images of an old man wearing a woman's garter and stockings, the scene where Steve touches the panties of a mannequin dressed in S&M gear, a homosexual man wearing a tiara on his head (and Al's line "...and they wonder why we call them 'queens'"), and a half-nude woman who takes off her bra in front of Al (and is shown with her arms covering her bare chest in the next shot), Rakolta began a letter-writing campaign to advertisers, demanding they boycott the show.
After advertisers began dropping their support for the show and while Rakolta made several appearances on television talk shows demanding the show's cancellation, Fox executives refused to air the episode titled I'll See You In Court – 0310.[7] This episode would become known as the "Lost Episode" and was aired on Fox on June 18, 2002, with some parts cut. The episode was packaged with the rest of the third season in the January 2005 DVD release (and in the first volume of the Married...With Children Most Outrageous episode DVD set) with the parts cut from syndication restored.
Despite the boycott, the ratings for Married... with Children actually increased due to rising interest in the show caused by Rakolta's crusade to have the show cancelled (a non-Internet example of the Streisand effect). The increased number of viewers brought most of the advertisers back, and it kept the show on the air until 1997.
Rakolta has been referenced twice on the show: Rock and Roll Girl – 0414,[8] when a newscaster mentioned the city Bloomfield Hills, and No Pot To Pease In – 0909,[9] when a television show was made about the Bundy family and then was canceled because (according to Marcy) "some woman in Michigan didn't like it".
In a bit of an offshoot of this, don't people realize that getting angry about things and protesting them only makes them more popular? If you protest the crap out of something that you hate and it gets any kind of news coverage, that only means that more people are going to find out about it and have a chance to see it/purchase it.
It amazes me that people have completely missed this idea after years and years of protests about various things.
Examples include: Eminem's (almost) entire career, Harry Potter, violent and/or edgy videogames such as GTA and Mortal Kombat, etc.
It's pretty simple...if you want something to go away and you really dislike it, you should ignore it as much as you possibly can.
Time to Godwin this thread.
Yeah, like all of Europe did to Germany and the rise of Hitler. Ignore the problem, it'll work itself out.
I'm quite a bit more concerned about the UK banning a piece of media because 8 people complained than I am about the mildly violent content.
US can top that.
Rakolta boycott
In 1989, Terry Rakolta, a conservative homemaker from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, led a boycott[5] against Married... with Children after viewing the episode Her Cups Runneth Over – 0306.[6] Offended by the images of an old man wearing a woman's garter and stockings, the scene where Steve touches the panties of a mannequin dressed in S&M gear, a homosexual man wearing a tiara on his head (and Al's line "...and they wonder why we call them 'queens'"), and a half-nude woman who takes off her bra in front of Al (and is shown with her arms covering her bare chest in the next shot), Rakolta began a letter-writing campaign to advertisers, demanding they boycott the show.
After advertisers began dropping their support for the show and while Rakolta made several appearances on television talk shows demanding the show's cancellation, Fox executives refused to air the episode titled I'll See You In Court – 0310.[7] This episode would become known as the "Lost Episode" and was aired on Fox on June 18, 2002, with some parts cut. The episode was packaged with the rest of the third season in the January 2005 DVD release (and in the first volume of the Married...With Children Most Outrageous episode DVD set) with the parts cut from syndication restored.
Despite the boycott, the ratings for Married... with Children actually increased due to rising interest in the show caused by Rakolta's crusade to have the show cancelled (a non-Internet example of the Streisand effect). The increased number of viewers brought most of the advertisers back, and it kept the show on the air until 1997.
Rakolta has been referenced twice on the show: Rock and Roll Girl – 0414,[8] when a newscaster mentioned the city Bloomfield Hills, and No Pot To Pease In – 0909,[9] when a television show was made about the Bundy family and then was canceled because (according to Marcy) "some woman in Michigan didn't like it".
In a bit of an offshoot of this, don't people realize that getting angry about things and protesting them only makes them more popular? If you protest the crap out of something that you hate and it gets any kind of news coverage, that only means that more people are going to find out about it and have a chance to see it/purchase it.
It amazes me that people have completely missed this idea after years and years of protests about various things.
Examples include: Eminem's (almost) entire career, Harry Potter, violent and/or edgy videogames such as GTA and Mortal Kombat, etc.
It's pretty simple...if you want something to go away and you really dislike it, you should ignore it as much as you possibly can.
Time to Godwin this thread.
Yeah, like all of Europe did to Germany and the rise of Hitler. Ignore the problem, it'll work itself out.
only half joking
Even though you're joking, you do realize there is a major divide between a group of people murdering another group of people and kiddies reading fictional books about witches, right?
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I don't think either extreme is a good idea. Voice your opinion, but voice it to those who can actually do something about it. Complain to the manufacturer, etc. Once you start complaining to the media and/or papers you might as well be attention whoring, because your best bet is to Obi-wan whatever it is you hate ("If you strike me down now I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine")
I don't think either extreme is a good idea. Voice your opinion, but voice it to those who can actually do something about it. Complain to the manufacturer, etc. Once you start complaining to the media and/or papers you might as well be attention whoring, because your best bet is to Obi-wan whatever it is you hate ("If you strike me down now I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine")
Thanks for the reasonable response. If only everyone could respond this way.
And just so I'm clear, I don't mean that people should do absolutely nothing in these situations. What I am saying is that, were I a parent that had an issue with a book, movie, game, etc., I would simply explain to my child why they couldn't see it/have it and then limit their exposure to it as much as possible. Protesting particular media items (video games, in this case) works sometimes, but it definitely raises the profile of the game every time, which is exactly the opposite of what protestors are trying to accomplish.
It just seems like they would figure this out and go about things a different way by now.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I don't think either extreme is a good idea. Voice your opinion, but voice it to those who can actually do something about it. Complain to the manufacturer, etc. Once you start complaining to the media and/or papers you might as well be attention whoring, because your best bet is to Obi-wan whatever it is you hate ("If you strike me down now I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine")
Thanks for the reasonable response. If only everyone could respond this way.
And just so I'm clear, I don't mean that people should do absolutely nothing in these situations. What I am saying is that, were I a parent that had an issue with a book, movie, game, etc., I would simply explain to my child why they couldn't see it/have it and then limit their exposure to it as much as possible. Protesting particular media items (video games, in this case) works sometimes, but it definitely raises the profile of the game every time, which is exactly the opposite of what protestors are trying to accomplish.
It just seems like they would figure this out and go about things a different way by now.
Of course, that only works if you're offended by the product itself and can avoid it. Having him frightened to death by an ad on the local bus you have to use to take him everywhere is neither the product itself nor avoidable.
agentk13 on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Keeping it away from your kid is tough though too, b/c you might get a similar effect in that the kid wants it because it's forbidden.
I don't think either extreme is a good idea. Voice your opinion, but voice it to those who can actually do something about it. Complain to the manufacturer, etc. Once you start complaining to the media and/or papers you might as well be attention whoring, because your best bet is to Obi-wan whatever it is you hate ("If you strike me down now I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine")
Thanks for the reasonable response. If only everyone could respond this way.
And just so I'm clear, I don't mean that people should do absolutely nothing in these situations. What I am saying is that, were I a parent that had an issue with a book, movie, game, etc., I would simply explain to my child why they couldn't see it/have it and then limit their exposure to it as much as possible. Protesting particular media items (video games, in this case) works sometimes, but it definitely raises the profile of the game every time, which is exactly the opposite of what protestors are trying to accomplish.
It just seems like they would figure this out and go about things a different way by now.
Of course, that only works if you're offended by the product itself and can avoid it. Having him frightened to death by an ad on the local bus you have to use to take him everywhere is neither the product itself nor avoidable.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about advertising for the product. Just the product itself. Admittedly, this is a thread about ads and I knew that I was venturing slightly off-topic when I brought this up. But I thought it would an interesting aside.
@KalTorak: True enough. Children want what they can't have. But they're likely to be more receptive to "No, you can't have that" if the reasoning is given by a calm parent than a mob of sensationalist people.
I'm under no illusions that children can be 100% protected from "bad" things. I just think there are much better ways for people to go about the situation that are less inflammatory and more effective.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
A man who rides Washington, D.C.'s Metro underground rail system has written to the Washington Post to complain about poster ads for Fallout 3 which appear in the Metro Center station.
Joseph Anzalone criticizes the ads as well as Metro management for accepting them:
In one ad, the Washington Monument and the American flags surrounding it stand ravaged, as if hit by missiles. In another, the Capitol dome is partially caved in, while the rest of the building and the city behind it lie in ruins.
The people of our city do not need a daily reminder that Washington is a prime target for an attack. We do not need a daily reminder of what our worst fears look like. Since any First Amendment objection would be irrelevant (the ads do not present a true viewpoint or political message and would therefore not be protected), there is no reason for these ads to be part of our daily panorama.
The ads should be removed, and the appropriate office at Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority should be directed to exercise better judgment regarding what can be displayed in our transportation system.
Posts
True enough not all attention is good.
Considering the game didn't do anything much sales wise out of the gate and pretty sure we never got a sequel I'm sure most people here can be happy with that if nothing else.
Just deserts or karma maybe?
Doesn't excuse their action though.
No - there definitely is a limitation to the any attention = good attention mantra. "Lowest common denominator bullshit" usually works for entertainment television. LCD commercials on the other hand are memorable only for their absurdity, and rarely their ability to sell or effectiveness.
Speaking as someone who has worked in the advertising industry.
Now I've learned that this has happened twice and my faith in humanity has died a bit more.
I mean, Come on...
Is there no difference between "this is blatantly racist" and "this is a play on a stereotype"?
I'm not saying that Capcom is or isn't racist. I'm just wondering if you think there is a difference between those two things.
Oh My God you're all missing the point on this one I think.
It's not an office building; it's a pent house. The guys he's killing? Some drug dealer's henchmen who hired him and then tried to screw him over. Nothing to do with white or black. It's actually a pretty cliche action movie scene but you idiots are all using it to argue about racism.
Dumb. It's pure John Woo Homage.
EDIT: If you MUST look for a moral to this video it is thus; Homeboys gets paid.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
well people confuse the term "racist" with "stereotyping"
neither is good but let's get it right, people
I don't even know where to start.
Holy crap.
He's not wrong.
Cyborg's aint ladies.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
why couldn't it be the other kind of mermaid
That's clearly the Joker.
But what the hell is Combatribes?
Also is it pronounced Combat ribs?
Justin Bieber has yet to comment on the allegations that he is a cleverly disguised 51 year old pedophile
Fact: In 100% of all imaginary gun related shootings, the victim is always the one with the imaginary gun.
US can top that.
Rakolta boycott
In 1989, Terry Rakolta, a conservative homemaker from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, led a boycott[5] against Married... with Children after viewing the episode Her Cups Runneth Over – 0306.[6] Offended by the images of an old man wearing a woman's garter and stockings, the scene where Steve touches the panties of a mannequin dressed in S&M gear, a homosexual man wearing a tiara on his head (and Al's line "...and they wonder why we call them 'queens'"), and a half-nude woman who takes off her bra in front of Al (and is shown with her arms covering her bare chest in the next shot), Rakolta began a letter-writing campaign to advertisers, demanding they boycott the show.
After advertisers began dropping their support for the show and while Rakolta made several appearances on television talk shows demanding the show's cancellation, Fox executives refused to air the episode titled I'll See You In Court – 0310.[7] This episode would become known as the "Lost Episode" and was aired on Fox on June 18, 2002, with some parts cut. The episode was packaged with the rest of the third season in the January 2005 DVD release (and in the first volume of the Married...With Children Most Outrageous episode DVD set) with the parts cut from syndication restored.
Despite the boycott, the ratings for Married... with Children actually increased due to rising interest in the show caused by Rakolta's crusade to have the show cancelled (a non-Internet example of the Streisand effect). The increased number of viewers brought most of the advertisers back, and it kept the show on the air until 1997.
Rakolta has been referenced twice on the show: Rock and Roll Girl – 0414,[8] when a newscaster mentioned the city Bloomfield Hills, and No Pot To Pease In – 0909,[9] when a television show was made about the Bundy family and then was canceled because (according to Marcy) "some woman in Michigan didn't like it".
I don't get the last shot, where the guy is firing two guns in opposite directions.
Can you... do that in that game?
That's the classic Gunslinger-Taking-On-Two-Oppositely-Approaching-Baddies pose.
Matthew Broderick seemed to genuinely be playing Tic-Tac-Toe in War Games.
Also, Jimmy Wood button mashes at the intro screen of Double Dragons pretty much the same way that most kids do in that situation.
Edit: Indeed!
Pulled for being too fucking good.
In a bit of an offshoot of this, don't people realize that getting angry about things and protesting them only makes them more popular? If you protest the crap out of something that you hate and it gets any kind of news coverage, that only means that more people are going to find out about it and have a chance to see it/purchase it.
It amazes me that people have completely missed this idea after years and years of protests about various things.
Examples include: Eminem's (almost) entire career, Harry Potter, violent and/or edgy videogames such as GTA and Mortal Kombat, etc.
It's pretty simple...if you want something to go away and you really dislike it, you should ignore it as much as you possibly can.
Time to Godwin this thread.
Yeah, like all of Europe did to Germany and the rise of Hitler. Ignore the problem, it'll work itself out.
Even though you're joking, you do realize there is a major divide between a group of people murdering another group of people and kiddies reading fictional books about witches, right?
Thanks for the reasonable response. If only everyone could respond this way.
And just so I'm clear, I don't mean that people should do absolutely nothing in these situations. What I am saying is that, were I a parent that had an issue with a book, movie, game, etc., I would simply explain to my child why they couldn't see it/have it and then limit their exposure to it as much as possible. Protesting particular media items (video games, in this case) works sometimes, but it definitely raises the profile of the game every time, which is exactly the opposite of what protestors are trying to accomplish.
It just seems like they would figure this out and go about things a different way by now.
Of course, that only works if you're offended by the product itself and can avoid it. Having him frightened to death by an ad on the local bus you have to use to take him everywhere is neither the product itself nor avoidable.
Yes, but I wasn't talking about advertising for the product. Just the product itself. Admittedly, this is a thread about ads and I knew that I was venturing slightly off-topic when I brought this up. But I thought it would an interesting aside.
@KalTorak: True enough. Children want what they can't have. But they're likely to be more receptive to "No, you can't have that" if the reasoning is given by a calm parent than a mob of sensationalist people.
I'm under no illusions that children can be 100% protected from "bad" things. I just think there are much better ways for people to go about the situation that are less inflammatory and more effective.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/10/25/dc-metro-rider-complains-about-fallout-3-ads
Rigorous Scholarship