Also, I'd just like to point out that just because an illustrated or animated character is used to market something, does not mean it is being aimed at children.
I'm not saying that the tobacco industry's use of cartoon characters like Joe Camel were not meant to appeal to children, but I've never heard any more justification for the argument that he was other than, "He's a cartoon character, so he's obviously meant to appeal to kids." and to be quite honest that kind of thinking fucking pisses me off. I take it as a personal offense or a sign of the utmost ignorance.
Radd said:
And why is no one up in arms about Homer Simpson teaching our children to drink? The Simpsons are still showing to this day, unlike those Flinstones Marlboro ads! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
When Duff beer becomes an actual brand, you'll have a point.
When Duff beer buys product placement on the Simpsons after it magically becomes an actual brand, then you'll really have a point.
The tobacco industry is regulated because they wouldn't play nice in the past and they sell a product which will kill most of their customers when used as directed, while levying a huge financial burden onto our healthcare system that is ultimately borne by the entire community.
Humour is lost on some people. Regardless, it could be argued that it still encourages children to take up drinking. I'd be surprised if some nut job hadn't already made that argument.
Also, if Budweiser wrangled a deal to use Homer Simpson to advertise their beer, that alone would not make it marketing to children.
radd
Madison, WI
OLD SKOOL
FEB 08, 2005 06:22 PM