Concerned Parent! HORRIBLE Nintendo Slogan!

[buckytom]

so we should all just roll over, or bend over to corporations, and take it.

"thank you sir, may i have another!"

not for me or mine.

the slogan has a very specific, very attractive (to particularly sexually inquisitive children) double entendre.
it's a bit of sleaze in sheep's clothing to entice the buyers, feeding into that dirty little side no one knows you have.

i'm ok if that's aimed at adults, but not in something predominantly used by children.

caveat emptor. the only way you can affect change is not to patronize the company, but also to make sure they know why. the middle level managers and creative people who make up this stuff are only as good as what they've done lately.

 

[GB]

Who is the arbiter of what is the "line" and what isn't?

The general public would be. it is up to the public to voice their opinion and outrage if a company does something as tasteless as this.

 

[phinz]

No, I'm not saying roll over. I'm saying that to "go after companies" because something "might be negative" is not the best approach.

You are correct. Don't patronize them. Make sure that others you know don't patronize them. Let the company know why. But to get shrill is not going to get any kind of results. This is a fleeting ad that would be forgotten a month from now if it's not turned into a media circus or screamed about from the highest mountaintops. Remember: Any publicity is good publicity. Witness Paris Hilton.

 

[phinz]

The general public would be. it is up to the public to voice their opinion and outrage if a company does something as tasteless as this.

Who is the "general public?" I don't sense a general outrage over this commercial in my circle of associates because it is a minor part of the world and the "general public" apparently doesn't even know it exists. It's so far off their radar it might as well be Oceanic Flight 815.

The "general public" have caused a lot of grief and pain over the millenia. Do you *really* want the "general public" to be the arbiter of all things?

The more you shout about it the more people will see the commercial, which is the ultimate goal of advertising.

Again, any publicity is good publicity if it puts your product in the public eye.

You can make your statement without "going after companies."

 

[GB]

I'm saying that to "go after companies" because something "might be negative" is not the best approach.

I do not think there is any doubt that this IS negative, not that it might be negative. Just look at the reaction is has gotten here on this thread. Not a single person has said yeah that is a good slogan. Everyone agrees that it is tasteless at best.

This is a fleeting ad that would be forgotten a month from now if it's not turned into a media circus or screamed about from the highest mountaintops.

That is an assumption you are making, but remember this ad is aimed at children. What if a child who is currently being abused sees this ad and learns from it that touching is good. After all, TV said so. A childs mind is very impressionable. What if that child does not say anything to anyone about his abuse because TV said touching is good? I think to say that this will be forgotten a month from now could be short sighted. Sure I am coming up with a worse case scenario, but if it negatively affects even one single kid then that is too many.

 

[buckytom]

if making money is what defines good publicity, then paris is your girl.
but not all publicity is good. my company is terrified of lawsuits creating bad publicity, therefore affecting ratings. so they cave in to every ridiculous claim. apparently, some people are more equal than others, and all you have to do is complain, and you get what you want. but that's another story.

getting back to paris, i think she's pretty skanky, and i would suspect that much of the country over the age of 35 does also (unless you're really lonely ).

selling your morality creates a debt that is eventually paid back with extreme prejudice.

 

[buckytom]

on the subject of the general public, isn't that what we call a democracy?

if not the public, with our religious, political, and other leaders in place, whom should make policy?

never underestimate the power of a single voice in a democracy.

 

[GB]

Who is the "general public?" I don't sense a general outrage over this commercial in my circle of associates because it is a minor part of the world and the "general public" apparently doesn't even know it exists. It's so far off their radar it might as well be Oceanic Flight 815.

Part of the circles you associate are the people on this site. We are a diverse group that spans the entire world. We have young and old alike. The people here have a sense of outrage.

The "general public" have caused a lot of grief and pain over the millenia. Do you *really* want the "general public" to be the arbiter of all things?

If not the general public then who? If a company decided to put up an ad that was negative towards Blacks or Jews, or then the general public would be outraged and the ad would be pulled. Why should this be any different?

The more you shout about it the more people will see the commercial, which is the ultimate goal of advertising.
Again, any publicity is good publicity if it puts your product in the public eye.

Unless the commercial is pulled because it is so over the line. All publicity is not good regardless of cliches. A company can fold because of bad publicity. If a company whose main demographic is kids is seen as pomoting child abuse then you can bet parents will stop buying their products.

You can make your statement without "going after companies."

Why not go after the company if they are doing somethng morally wrong? Why should they get to just do and say whatever they want without consequences? If the public doesn't make them be responsible for thier actions then who will?

 

[Alix]

phinz, your argument for free speech is eloquent. I am not sure though that you are seeing this through a parents eyes. As parents, we are supposed to protect our kids from danger and since TV is such an influential media it is something parents watch diligently.

Speaking as a parent, I think this is a poor choice of ad. Speaking as someone who deals with kids who have been abused, I think this ad is sending the wrong message. There are much better ways to advertise the product. No one needs to "shut down" Nintendo, but a strong message to the dork who OK'ed that ad is definitely in order.

 

[phinz]

I actually *am* looking at it as a parent would, because when in a discussion such as this I try to see all sides so that I may make informed commentary in return, and I agree that a strong message to the one who gave the green light would be the perfect way to make the point. I guess I'm more questioning the "anything that might be perceived as negative should be vilified and crushed by the nebulous general public" mentality than anything else. Again, the people of Salem were the "general public" and look where it got them. (I'm trying so hard not to invoke Godwin's Law right now. )

You can't censor everybody all the time. You have no right to *not* be offended. If you shriek about something to the four corners of the world more people would notice it than would if you just made your point to the company and moved on. There's a great example of that right here in this discussion. Corazon wouldn't have even known the ad *existed* if it hadn't been brought up.

And yes, Paris Hilton is a complete skank, but she wouldn't even be on the radar either if she didn't have all the publicity, negative and positive, that she's had. She would be just another spoiled little California rich girl with more dollars than sense.

 

[buckytom]

well, every good yankee fan knows that salem is a suburb of boston, so, whaddya expect?

ergot my butt...

 

[GB]

I guess I'm more questioning the "anything that might be perceived as negative should be vilified and crushed by the nebulous general public" mentality than anything else.

This is not just something that might be seen as negative. It is negative. This ad is sending a very dangerous message to children and as a responsible society we have an obligation to make sure that the children are protected from messages like this.

Corazon wouldn't have even known the ad *existed* if it hadn't been brought up.

But thankfully she was made aware of it so she can now do her best to protect her children from it or talk to them about the ad to let them know that no not all touching is good.

Sure you don't have the right to "not be offended", but that does not give the coporations the right to act socially and morally irresponsibly.

 

[GB]

well, every good yankee fan knows that salem is a suburb of boston, so, whaddya expect?

ergot my butt...

Hey Er ah bucky...Watch it

 

[buckytom]

lol, HAH! i knew you guys taked that way!!!!
andy tried to pull that "hollywodd version" garbage...

 

[GB]

I don't know what you are talking about. I am from Highland Park, NJ.

 

[phinz]

This is not just something that might be seen as negative. It is negative. This ad is sending a very dangerous message to children and as a responsible society we have an obligation to make sure that the children are protected from messages like this.[/quote]

See the following quote. I didn't get my "might" statement out of the blue:

Anything with children that even MIGHT be negative must be dealt with.

This is the statement that I take issue with, which started this whole discussion of who is the arbiter of what is and isn't "walking the line"?

But thankfully she was made aware of it so she can now do her best to protect her children from it or talk to them about the ad to let them know that no not all touching is good.

Corazon admits to not having a TV. How are the kids going to see the ad? By "talking to them about it" they are exposed to it when they most likely never would have been. That's counter-productive.

Sure you don't have the right to "not be offended", but that does not give the coporations the right to act socially and morally irresponsibly.

I don't recall ever saying it did.

 

[buckytom]

i say we burn someone as a witch anyway. we could charge for tickets.

where's alix?

 

[GB]

Corazon admits to not having a TV. How are the kids going to see the ad?

I am sure her kids have friends. I am willing to bet that at least one of those friends had a TV. Just because they do not have a TV at home does not mean they will not be exposed to this.

By "talking to them about it" they are exposed to it when they most likely never would have been. That's counter-productive.

That is what educating our children is all about. I would hardly call that counter productive. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this type of thing does not exist or is not offensive is more counter productive then telling our children that a slogan like this is giving the wrong message and that they need to be careful and report any bad touch.

I don't recall ever saying it did.

I was not saying that you did say that. I was just making a statement.

 

[phinz]

i say we burn someone as a witch anyway. we could charge for tickets.

where's alix?

 

[phinz]

That is what educating our children is all about. I would hardly call that counter productive. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this type of thing does not exist or is not offensive is more counter productive then telling our children that a slogan like this is giving the wrong message and that they need to be careful and report any bad touch.

Why not just educate them in general instead of using an ad that they might never even see as an example?

I would like to know, though, what show was being watched when the ad came on.