The Parents Television Council condemned Burger King, Carl’s Jr., and Hardee’s for a rash of new advertisements that are taking sexual innuendo to the next level. PTC slammed the companies for their gross irresponsibility and for insulting their own customers by using sex to sell fast food.
Hardee’s has enlisted the help of their patrons to name their new “biscuit holes” and is using the inappropriate names — such as “A-holes” and “bis-ticles” referring to a part of the male anatomy — to market them. Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr., after using half-naked women to market their hamburgers on TV, are now calling all “hot chicks eating burgers” to submit sexy videos for the opportunity to win cash, a trip to Vegas and a role in a new marketing campaign.
Last but not least, Burger King shredded the envelope with a print ad that is running in Singapore and is available on the Internet for a “Super Seven Incher” sandwich that’ll “blow your mind.” The image shows a woman with hot red lipstick opening her mouth wide for the “Seven Incher.” According to the PTC, corporate responsibility shouldn’t have varying standards based on geography.
The first Transformers movie, which was rated PG-13 but lent its brand to Happy Meal toys aimed at kids 4-9. Too bad the adult meal didn’t come with a person to explain why the movie was a non-starter for kids that age.
Age-inappropriate targeting — arguably begun in 1992 when McDonald’s got scolded for pushing toys to kids for “Batman Returns” (rated PG-13 for violence) — has become a time-honored practice. This summer, the new PG-13 “Terminator Salvation” (whose predecessors were all rated R) ties in with Pizza Hut. Subway is shilling “Land of the Lost,” and Burger King backs “Star Trek,” “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” and “G.I. Joe.”
Children understandably expect that if there is a toy or game associated with a film, it is suitable for them to see. Parents need to be very clear that just because a movie is marketed to them is no reason to expect that they will be seeing it.
What kind of lunatic would try to improve on Jessica Alba? Apparently the folks at Campari felt that the beautifully curvy star was just a little too curvy and they retouched her photo to make her look slimmer.
It is just this kind of nonsense that sends a message of impossible standards to young girls and women. Anyone who thinks the retouched picture is more attractive than the original has a distorted idea of beauty and of reality — two concepts that did not used to be considered mutually exclusive.
A teacher whose budget would no longer cover the expense of printing out his math tests has resorted to selling ad space on calculus quizzes and exams.
Rancho Bernardo teacher Tom Farber says that his budget for print-outs is $300 but the costs are $500. Rather than pay the difference out of his own pocket — or cut down on the number of tests — he is selling small ads to local businesses. “Brace Yourself for a Great Semester!” says one ad from a local orthodontist. Some ads are taken by parents. The ads cost $10 for an ad on a quiz, $20 to appear on a chapter test and $30 for a final exam.
I am sympathetic to the enterprising teacher and to the school administration that chose to cut expenses rather than personnel. But does anyone think that this is a good idea for the kids or the advertisers? Do the kids need the distraction of ads when they are trying to focus on a test? And do advertisers really think they will inspire warm feelings for them and their products if they are associated with the stress of crunching equations for a good grade?
Thanks to fark.com for the reference.