Veterans Day - Promo Code MILITARY15
Showing posts with label advertisers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertisers. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

I Just Want My Pants Back

Watch this clip:



Like it? That's fine. You're an adult. But do you like it enough to watch it with a 12 year-old? MTV thinks you should. 


I Just Want My Pants Back is the latest attempt by MTV to parlay a lifestyle of drunken hook-ups into the living room of minors. But in all fairness (I am no prude), if adults want to complain about finding lost clothing because of a poorly-planned indiscretion, have at it. They are adults. They can do whatever (and, er, whomever) they want to.

But here’s where Watchdog Mom gets irritated: MTV is advertising this show to 12 year olds.  Don’t believe me? MTV’s head-honcho himself, the head of programming, David Janollari, is on the record saying the network is targeting kids as young as 12 with the content:

            “The idea is to reach out to the 12-34-year-old demo at a level that relates to them.”

Janollari and the rest at MTV want to intentionally target pre-teens and teens with a TV-14 rating. The episodes introduce a foursome, and a woman asking a man to insert his finger into her rectum during intercourse. 

If you agree this content is inappropriate for children of any age, please take action now by contacting the sponsors, Dr. Pepper, T-Mobile, and Toyota. Ask them if alcohol-fueled sexual foursomes and a woman who wants finger up her a**’ are an accurate reflection of their mission statement.  

Click here now to take action.


Monday, January 16, 2012

My Debate with Media Lawyer: Who Won?

In case you missed last week's post covering the suit before the Supreme Court, I discussed it on my local news with a media lawyer. His argument was flimsy, at best, citing some nonsense about networks having no idea what 'indecent' material could be viewed as. We did agree on one point, however: The free market will make sure any over-the-top content aired on broadcast television is not aired. Advertisers don't want to be associated with what the mass public views as offensive, and if consumers aren't happy, no one wins. Let's be clear about one thing: This lawsuit isn't about freedom of expression. It's about money.


 


What say you? Do the federally-funded public airwaves demand the same attention and accountability as any other commodity we invest in? Should advertisers and networks be held to a higher standard than paid cable?

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Apple iNsanity

The iPhone has a newish app out called "War Pinball HD". Based on popular films like Platoon, Navy Seals and Missing In Action, there's no denying that war film buffs will enjoy playing this game. And I get that; I really enjoy a good action flick. Given the choice, I'd take a war or spy movie over a 'chick flick' any day of the week.

But I wouldn't let my four-year old play a game based on it. Yet this is exactly what Apple is wanting you to do. The app, priced at an allowance-friendly $2.99, is rated for kids 4 and up. As in, not old enough to use a knife, still wears a Pull-Up, still sleeps with a blankie, four years old.

Uh..say what?

The game has a sound chip equipped with the same language used in the movies (not ideal for kids), as well as the artillery sound effects. Not one to be controversial, Apple feigned corporate responsibility by working with the game's inventor, Gameprom, and changed the default setting to 'mute', requiring a password to turn the sound back on. Brilliant.

Click here to submit your feedback to Apple. Send this post to everyone you know. My endeavor is to not stifle commerce, but to enforce basic decency standards. Parents buy these games based on the ratings; companies funded primarily by consumerism should refrain from obfuscating the fact that children are an at-risk demographic and their best interests must be taken into consideration. The advertising should accurately reflect the content.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Two and a Half Men: Sponsors, Pay Attention

A lot of the work I do at the PTC is centered around advertiser accountability. Specifically, the companies who support Two and a Half Men.  With Ashton Kutcher replacing Charlie Sheen, whose recent antics award him the Biggest Moron on the Face of the Earth trophy ("winning!" "tiger blood!" the "godesses"), the direction of the show remains to be seen. My guess? Down. Maybe not in ratings (yet), but in even raunchier and uncreative writing garbage. I don't know if Kutcher will be able to fill Sheen's dry and cantankerous persona so many found appealing; Kutcher's comedic chops were honed as a boisterous and practical-joke playing personality (That 70's Show, Punk'd, etc), so seeing him as a replacement for a crotchety sex-obsessed man-child is hard to swallow. No pun intended. Also, Kutcher is very good-looking; youthful and physically fit. Technically speaking, of course. Charlie...? Not so much:

(When you tell your kids to stay away from drugs and high-priced prostitutes,  just show them this picture.  'Nuff said.)
What is certain however, is that advertisers will jump as high as they can to obtain coveted commercial slots in the debut episodes. And that is where you and I come in: Since Two and a Half Men is aired on broadcast television (public), during the Family Viewing Hour, you know that highly impressionable little kids and tween/teens will be assaulted with masturbation jokes, threesomes, and gutter-swilling frat boy humor. All brought to you proudly by Burger King! McDonald's! Chrysler! The list goes on.

If you like that sort of humor, have at it. It's a free country. But most of us don't, especially at 8 PM. Move it cable or a later hour. I've linked this post to a page with some letters sent out to advertisers. Take a look and see what YOUR tax dollars and YOUR money is buying you. Still ok with it? Then this probably isn't the blog for you.

Advertiser Letters