Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
we will see how this comes out.... I know there have been rulings where companies have been liable for sorta similar things....the cigarette industry used "Joe Camel" to entice our youth in to smoking and they used things like neon colors that attracted our youth in the packaging of cigarettes and were held liable I believe....
companies selling alcohol, were limited in their advertising that was directed at our youth....
etc.
So, even though parents were parenting, those two things above come to mind....
And how is the Rate of Drinking amongst Youth since then workin' out for ya?...
peace...
teenage drinking has been going down, so it's working great
How's that dopey and derangey thing working out for you?
And how is the Rate of Drinking amongst Youth since then workin' out for ya?...
peace...
teenage drinking has been going down, so it's working great
How's that dopey and derangey thing working out for you?
You got Stats on that from the Restrictions on Advertising Forward?...
...
In 1991, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that more children 5 and 6 years old could recognize Joe Camel than they could recognize Mickey Mouse or Fred Flintstone, and alleged that the "Joe Camel" campaign was targeting children -- despite R. J. Reynolds' contention that the campaign had been researched only among adults and was directed only at the smokers of other brands.[2] At that time it was also estimated that 32.8% of all cigarettes sold illegally to underage buyers were Camels, up from less than one percent.[3] Subsequently, the American Medical Association asked R. J. Reynolds Nabisco to pull the campaign. R. J. Reynolds refused, and the Joe Camel Campaign continued. In 1991, Janet Mangini, a San Francisco-based attorney, brought a suit against R. J. Reynolds, challenging the company for targeting minors with its "Joe Camel" advertising campaign. In her complaint, Mangini alleged that teenage smokers accounted for US$476 million of Camel cigarette sales in 1992. When the Joe Camel advertisements started in 1988, that figure was only at US$6 million, "implicitly suggesting such advertisements have harmed a great many teenagers by luring them into extended use of and addiction to tobacco products."[4]
marketing is a very strong tool.....billions are not spent on it for no reason at all....there is a purpose.
And how well has Booze not being Advertised to Children Worked on Cutting Down Underage Drinking?...
Got Stats?...
peace...
marketing is a very strong tool.....billions are not spent on it for no reason at all....there is a purpose.
And how well has Booze not being Advertised to Children Worked on Cutting Down Underage Drinking?...
Got Stats?...
peace...
do you have fingers? if you want to know, you can google it mal
I suppose you may not understand what a civil suit is....?
I suppose you didn't get my point....? I was referring to more government involvement (Surgeon General). Just we need...more government regulations, more government departments to enforce them, etc.
marketing is a very strong tool.....billions are not spent on it for no reason at all....there is a purpose.
And how well has Booze not being Advertised to Children Worked on Cutting Down Underage Drinking?...
Got Stats?...
peace...
do you have fingers? if you want to know, you can google it mal
And how well has Booze not being Advertised to Children Worked on Cutting Down Underage Drinking?...
Got Stats?...
peace...
do you have fingers? if you want to know, you can google it mal
You made the Assertion, C4A...
Don't be one of them... Cause they Suck.
peace...
do you have fingers? if you want to know, you can google it mal
You made the Assertion, C4A...
Don't be one of them... Cause they Suck.
peace...
really? show me where i mentioned such? i mentioned cases in the past where good parenting did not matter, where companies were sued for their aggressive marketing campaigns towards underage children....
the joe camel results are right before your eyes....you want more dear? you can get it yourself....i'm pretty confident there was a reduction in underage drinking, but even if there was not, do you think liquor ads should be directed towards our youth?
It's sad that anyone can be a parent, but you need a license to fish. Man oh man...something's wrong here!
You're right. The whole idea of having to purchase licenses to fish is asinine.
You made the Assertion, C4A...
Don't be one of them... Cause they Suck.
peace...
really? show me where i mentioned such? i mentioned cases in the past where good parenting did not matter, where companies were sued for their aggressive marketing campaigns towards underage children....
the joe camel results are right before your eyes....you want more dear? you can get it yourself....i'm pretty confident there was a reduction in underage drinking, but even if there was not, do you think liquor ads should be directed towards our youth?
If they are of legal age, then yes, liquor ads should be directed at them. This bs legislating morality is pure and total crap. "It's ILLEGAL to eat fat!" "It's ILLEGAL to focus on one group of consumers!"
I can hear goose stepping in the background.
You made the Assertion, C4A...
Don't be one of them... Cause they Suck.
peace...
really? show me where i mentioned such? i mentioned cases in the past where good parenting did not matter, where companies were sued for their aggressive marketing campaigns towards underage children....
the joe camel results are right before your eyes....you want more dear? you can get it yourself....i'm pretty confident there was a reduction in underage drinking, but even if there was not, do you think liquor ads should be directed towards our youth?
If they are of legal age, then yes, liquor ads should be directed at them. This bs legislating morality is pure and total crap. "It's ILLEGAL to eat fat!" "It's ILLEGAL to focus on one group of consumers!"
I can hear goose stepping in the background.
So guys, I think everyone got off target here. What people are pissed about is the flagrant, disgusting marketing to children for these unhealthy foods by trying to lure them in with toys so that they'll pester their parents to go. I don't think marketers should be able to advertise directly to young, impressionable children who cannot make informed decisions for themselves. What do you think?
Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3 - TIME
Yeah, right. Let's ban all marketing towards kids . . . half of all commercials would disappear. Oooo, maybe we could replace them with even more pharma ads!
It's sad that anyone can be a parent, but you need a license to fish. Man oh man...something's wrong here!
You're right. The whole idea of having to purchase licenses to fish is asinine.
How about no TV for children?
Or maybe 1 hr per day?
