"Wish.com, the advertiser, ignored the ASA – unsurprising given that the clothing retailer is an American company headquartered in San Francisco."
Personally I'd have described them as a 'random Chinese tat' retailer.
The Simon's Cat Crunch Time app accidentally served up a racy advert – earning the American advertiser a symbolic bollocking from Blighty's ad watchdog because children might have seen it. The advert featured "an image of a fake tattoo which looked like a bite mark on a woman's chest", according to the Advertising Standards …
Why is a youtube video maker, needing an "app" when the youtube site works? Why do they need an "app" when they can use a bookmark on their own site?
Why is the app pushing third party adds, when they can link directly into YT and it's API?
So, *assuming* the user has a phone locked into a safe "child mode", in the first place, and the app is the only one available to the child, even then, why is the app doing any more than linking directly to the videos?
Why advertise to children? Or why, on earth, is this ever even happening? I guess they just want a quick buck, so where do I sign up for a bit of the cash? ;)
I guess they just want a quick buck, so where do I sign up for a bit of the cash? ;)
On your own website, having sucessfully created a set of IP that is more popular than Simon's Cat. At which point, given the work that you'd put in, you'd probably consider advertising a very slow buck and be slightly irate about how advertisers flag their adverts on API's to get around normal categorisation rules which are supposed to prevent these sort of things from happenning.
And now, thanks to all the added publicity (so freely given by the ASA) the advert achieves much more exposure than it ever had in some child's cartoon.
One single complaint, huh? Presumably filed by the advertisers, safe in the knowledge that nothing the ASA could do would have anything except benefits to them.
Striking a sleeping person in the head with a big stick certainly isn't nice, even if it's an unindictable cat.
What if some little kid was led to do that in the game, and assumed that's how one wakes up sleeping parents? Shocking! I'm not sure this racy ad network wants to be associated with the creators of such vile and dangerous games!
@Anonymous Coward with the Garfield fixation
Garfield is a fat slovenly man in a cat costume, drawn with the intent of maximizing marketing potential (Although I will say the Blues album tie-in has a pretty good roster of talent).
Simon's cat is actual art.
And, Cat Man Do is (still) awesome.
'Garfield is a fat slovenly man in a cat costume...'
Naaa, want to really see what a fat slovenly man in a cat costume looks like? (ok, maybe minus the slovenly bit...)
I would apologise, but, be thankful, this is only the trailer, I've had to sit through this in it's weird entirety.....sans alcohol, drugs or anything else which might have improved my 'enjoyment' of it.
Tom and Jerry or Foghorn Leghorn anyone ?
Required viewing when I was a kid, Tex Avery was a genius.
People are far too soft and sensitive these days and need to learn to laugh.
These days? When I was a kid, we had to endure Tom and Jerry kids* which was horrible. I was practically grown up by the time there was a backlash/return to form in cartoons (Animaniacs, Tiny Toons, Tazmania).
* Special hell reserved for those responsible, I hope.
> "People are far too soft and sensitive these days..."
I don't think so. None of those old Avery cartoons ever had a character attack another (sleeping) character using a bat. The victim always at least had a chance at self defense. But now audiences are apparently okay with flat out assault on helpless people. That's not soft and sensitive in my book.
Tex Avery cartoons were well known for being violent WAY beyond the social norms at the time. Tex cartoons were about the characters literally destroying each other.
There are anecdotal stories of Fred Quimby vomiting everytime he watched 'What's Buzzin' Buzzard', such was the violence beyond his contemporaries.
Avery was far more shocking in it's time, than this trivial thing is, and despite watching many Tex cartoons, I never grew up carrying out violence. I think it's time people stop blaming cartoons and start looking closer to home. Kid growing up violent, Where is their influence? Do they have violent parents? Close Relatives? People are a product of their environment, not their bloody cartoons.
I find it hard to believe anyone could vomit watching What's Buzzin' Buzzard, or any cartoon violence.
OK, maybe a few people with weak stomachs might hurl watching Itchy and Scratchy, but that's a gag cartoon with deliberately ultra extreme violence (it is the cartoon Bart and Lisa watch in a number of The Simpsons episodes for those who don't know) where Scratchy is often beheaded, sliced into thin slices suitable for sandwiches, etc. by Itchy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019