Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:13 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Is putting overtly sexual content magazine covers in plain liners a move forward?
Yes 28%  28%  [ 10 ]
No 33%  33%  [ 12 ]
Remove them completely from the shelves if they are offensive. 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Couldn't care less! 25%  25%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 36
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:34 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
gtRTSdh wrote:
Neil wrote:
has society become some vapid and vacuous that "sex sells" needs to encroach practically everything?


Yes.

Can you think of anything that hasn't got a pretty (instant I would) girl selling it?


Well yes, acksherly. A computer monitor I bought, recently, seemed completely devoid of any scantily clad women in any adverts for it I've seen - same with a mobile phone. In fact I can think of plenty of things that I'd buy that don't (from what I can remember, anyways) seem to leverage T&A to sell them.

On the other hand, there does seem to be some kind of arms race mentality with the inclusion of it in certain magazines. As I said before, T3 and Stuff are the ones that most puzzle me - they don't seem "lads mags" in quite the same way as what I think we're discussing (although, admittedly, both, perhaps, are predominantly bought by "lads" - of various degrees of maturity, though).

I suspect they obviously understand their demographic, but all the same, it does seem a bit artificial and stilted - in a way that other magazines focused or targeted on techies / nerd don't seem quite so played.

As to the impact - well it's not something I feel strongly about - but then I don't really object to them covering them up with black bags, either - I'm not getting the harm of that, either. I suppose the thing with it's impact, is you can't unsee things, and as much as we may want to believe it's all the fault of parents with kids who assert they are screwed up because of unrealistic media portrayal - all the same, we can't ignore the wider aspect of societal conditioning in the maturing of kids - people don't live in a bubble, and there's only so long that the parents are viable role models during a childs evolution, before their natural pathos makes them look to the wider society for influence(s).

If there's any real "crime" it must surely be false bloody advertising - photoshhop, airbrushing and that special magic they work that somehow manages to fleetingly disguise the cynical sneer or any true hint of the person behind the eyes, can't be that far from breaching some ASA guidelines, surely?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:50 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
legrandefromage wrote:
Phhhoooooar!

Image


You certainly have a stunning pair there LGF! You should think about signing up with Max Clifford.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:55 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16938
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Not seen him around lately. Max. Or LGF for that matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:17 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Well if I had a pair like that I wouldn't leave the house either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:22 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16938
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Don't know what this is about :lol:


Attachments:
image.jpg
image.jpg [ 91.21 KiB | Viewed 82 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:17 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
Neil wrote:
On the other hand, there does seem to be some kind of arms race mentality with the inclusion of it in certain magazines. As I said before, T3 and Stuff are the ones that most puzzle me - they don't seem "lads mags" in quite the same way as what I think we're discussing (although, admittedly, both, perhaps, are predominantly bought by "lads" - of various degrees of maturity, though).

I suspect they obviously understand their demographic, but all the same, it does seem a bit artificial and stilted - in a way that other magazines focused or targeted on techies / nerd don't seem quite so played.

As to the impact - well it's not something I feel strongly about - but then I don't really object to them covering them up with black bags, either - I'm not getting the harm of that, either. I suppose the thing with it's impact, is you can't unsee things, and as much as we may want to believe it's all the fault of parents with kids who assert they are screwed up because of unrealistic media portrayal - all the same, we can't ignore the wider aspect of societal conditioning in the maturing of kids - people don't live in a bubble, and there's only so long that the parents are viable role models during a childs evolution, before their natural pathos makes them look to the wider society for influence(s).

If there's any real "crime" it must surely be false bloody advertising - photoshhop, airbrushing and that special magic they work that somehow manages to fleetingly disguise the cynical sneer or any true hint of the person behind the eyes, can't be that far from breaching some ASA guidelines, surely?


Nicely put.

I don't have a problem with what grown adults want to do but for me the issue comes when you have to explain to a 5 year old. I don't think it possible to explain semi nude unrealistic women without an understanding of sexuality that a 5 year old just doesn't need to be aware of, and that probably goes as far as 10year olds. Maybe I'm being naïve. I'm not for censorship, but the marketing industry targets children (and their parents spending power) and the manipulation of children by marketing muppets is something that is very deeply wrong in our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:26 am 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16938
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Agree with sentiments re age appropriate exposure. As for marketing to children, when wasn't it so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:38 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
our daughter aged 5 asked the other day why things seen on TV often weren't as good in real life, she'd seen a toy advertised that she really wanted but we had refused as clearly ad hype, anyway she got it for last birthday and since realized for herself - result.

whatever you do as a parent it is difficult to combat what goes on at school and comments from girls in class / friends about weight which has already happened, as an aside I remember seeing my first "gentleman's" magazine - it was at school but knew what it was from seeing in newsagents, difficult to see how parents can do anything except explain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:51 am 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16938
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Aah the original furby! My daughter was so unimpressed I ended up taking it apart so we could see what was inside. Wired it to a transformer, permanent furless furby! They soon learn. As for appearance etc you just have to explain and reassure as others have said/done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:11 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
The History Man wrote:
Agree with sentiments re age appropriate exposure. As for marketing to children, when wasn't it so?


The magazines are sold in regular food shops and newsagents where young children will be, if they were sold in pubs, a primarily adult environment then it would be different.

I don't know a date when the marketing peeps realised that advertising to children on a vast (TV) scale was efficient. When I grew up there were four TV channels, two of which had adverts, there was afterschool TV for a couple of hours and Saturday morning TV with a few Tom and Jerrys every now and then. Now (and I've only got freeview & freesat) there are probably more hours of toy advertisements than there were of TV when I was a young'un. I can rarely find a program actually playing on TV for all the adverts inbetweeen (and lest not forget the BBC advertises it's own programs continually).

I've not watched the childrens channels & I assume/hope they're not allowed to constantly advertise toys, I will have to check.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: al-onestare, Bollox64 and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group