|
We can laugh at drug PSAs that suggest smoking pot is going to cause you to kill your friends and fund Terrorism, but Meth is a huge problem in a lot of the US. Though I'm sure giving kids something to do other than doing drugs is probably more effective than making ads showing 15 year olds getting gangbanged by strangers. I read that its more of a problem in suburbs and rural areas because there's poo poo to do so meth is the only thing to do. Actually, come to think of it, I cannot remember ever seeing a drug PSA that wasn't aimed at white kids. Either that's because they know white kids are actually more likely to use drugs, or they just don't care what black people do. Canadian TV in the 80s always had Astar, a Robot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km4f-eRE4Kc Not to return to console chat, bad 90s consoles all pretty much had bad, bad ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZIbnZuqUuo CD-i https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxuna944dls Jaguar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCQRcinZYH8 Sega CD. I love how almost every shot from a game is just a shot from a FMV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYkgDWAYAE 32x Stick it in your Genesis!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn9pIqGSdeA R-zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkqWvuM41-0 3D0 because nintendo and sega are for BABIES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGJvO8Lt1ig N-gage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzR52PC6S50 Gizmondo Now, Some of these aren't bad ads from a technical standpoint. They are bad ads because they don't show the games you can play. It's the same thing with the Ps3. You get this slick ad that could be for anything and then at the end you get what its for.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Danger Mahoney posted:I think a lot of the bad sex ed stuff is made right the hell up. I grew up in rural Texas and got the sex ed experience you're describing. Condom on banana and everything. I got my sex education in Georgia, a state Mike Huckabee won in the last GOP primary and generally ranked just above or just below Alabama in education and I recall a relatively normal sex ed. 5th grade Boys went in one room, girls in another, and we watched a video. Later we had a health class that went into more detail. I can't recall if they pushed abstinence, but there was no religious aspect to the talks. Not to say this other poo poo didn't happen. Districts have a lot of leeway in how they teach these subjects. But yeah, many places do a fairly competent job explaining how baby is made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
"I don't get it, this looks like a pretty standard business envelo--" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Sex ed in Maryland was fine, very thorough. We got an absolutely grotesque slide show of terrible STIs from a Board of Health lady, but beyond that it was just our out and proud teacher giving practical, helpful information. If I recall, we even spent a day talking about orgasms and the importance of being a communicative lover. The teacher was required to pay lip service to abstinence only poo poo, but she was rolling her eyes the entire time. The class was for juniors and seniors only, and she taught with the presumption that most of us probably had a bit of experience under our belts by that point, which I think was pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:We can laugh at drug PSAs that suggest smoking pot is going to cause you to kill your friends and fund Terrorism, but Meth is a huge problem in a lot of the US. Though I'm sure giving kids something to do other than doing drugs is probably more effective than making ads showing 15 year olds getting gangbanged by strangers. I read that its more of a problem in suburbs and rural areas because there's poo poo to do so meth is the only thing to do. Actually, come to think of it, I cannot remember ever seeing a drug PSA that wasn't aimed at white kids. Either that's because they know white kids are actually more likely to use drugs, or they just don't care what black people do. That's a good point. As a comparative point to what I said about only one girl being pregnant in my high school, we've had at least three kids OD on heroin and plenty more either addicted or in the process of recovery and just flying under the radar. Only one of them OD'ed while still in high school so it doesn't compare perfectly to the pregnancy thing but I think "dying due to drug use" is a bigger problem than being pregnant in high school so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:We can laugh at drug PSAs that suggest smoking pot is going to cause you to kill your friends and fund Terrorism, but Meth is a huge problem in a lot of the US. Though I'm sure giving kids something to do other than doing drugs is probably more effective than making ads showing 15 year olds getting gangbanged by strangers. I read that its more of a problem in suburbs and rural areas because there's poo poo to do so meth is the only thing to do. Actually, come to think of it, I cannot remember ever seeing a drug PSA that wasn't aimed at white kids. Either that's because they know white kids are actually more likely to use drugs, or they just don't care what black people do. It's some inherent racism. Last I heard addiction rates are pretty consistent across all demographics. What you get addicted to depends on what your demographic prefers/can afford. Wealthier people get addicted to designer drugs or painkillers you can con a doctor into giving you a refillable script for. Poor people get addicted to whatever is cheap and you can buy behind gas stations. Everybody gets addicted to booze. But targeting it at white people reflects some nasty societal biases. If you look at it when a white person gets addicted it's a horrible tragedy. If a non-white person gets addicted it's just because those people make terrible choices. gently caress 'em, off to jail. Compare Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction to every story ever about a black person being caught with crack. Wealth is the bigger issue in that case. Wealthy addicts go to fancy rehabs that are basically vacations. Poor addicts go to jail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
catlord posted:Huh, what's up with that mid-'90's spike? This was quite a few pages back, but I think part of it correlates with the Joe Camel advertising campaign run by Camel during that period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Greatbacon posted:This was quite a few pages back, but I think part of it correlates with the Joe Camel advertising campaign run by Camel during that period. quote:In 1991, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that by age six nearly as many children could correctly respond that "Joe Camel" was associated with cigarettes as could respond that the Disney Channel logo was associated with Mickey Mouse, and alleged that the "Joe Camel" campaign was targeting children,[3] despite R. J. Reynolds' contention that the campaign had been researched only among adults and was directed only at the smokers of other brands. 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.[4] 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."[5] Wow, I was gonna say "yeah I guess he had some effect but I dunno if you could say it was that big" but apparently it absolutely was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Is there a story behind this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I'm gonna go with either 'customer support enters information into wrong field in SalesForce' or 'mail room uses wrong SalesForce field for address in mass mailer'. SalesForce is pretty pervasive these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
sweeperbravo posted:It's b/c people kept putting condoms over the gas nossel The issue was people wouldn't put them on all the way. You have to roll it all the way down to the handle. We need better sex ed if an entire state doesn't know this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Nouvelle Vague posted:Is there a story behind this? http://bfy.tw/2e2q
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Thanks, that saved some time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Wow, I was gonna say "yeah I guess he had some effect but I dunno if you could say it was that big" but apparently it absolutely was. Sounds like Joe Camel was the drug-pushing maniac DARE tried to warn us all about after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lROb1vWNiig
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Not to return to console chat, bad 90s consoles all pretty much had bad, bad ads You're right. I didn't see any indication that one could bomb some dodongos
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
The official Frosted Flakes marketing account is too sexy for Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Nouvelle Vague posted:Is there a story behind this? It all started when Mike Seay's daughter was killed in a car crash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Ugh is there anything furries can't ruin? canyoneer posted:You're right. I didn't see any indication that one could bomb some dodongos But does it make you so hungry you could eat an octorock?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Greatbacon posted:This was quite a few pages back, but I think part of it correlates with the Joe Camel advertising campaign run by Camel during that period. Huh. Interesting, I was completely unaware of this marketing as a kid (though I wasn't terribly old when they finally pulled it). That sounds like it would explain it too, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Are there any studies that show that any of those Truth ads have actually been effective? They just make all smokers and non-smokers I know want to smoke out of spite. Even in high school when I was in the target market for them everyone hated them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
I know at least 2 people who still smoke claiming that "doctors don't know poo poo, all they care about its their paychecks". So you should put money into multibillion dollar companies, also wouldn't doctors want you to smoke so you have more health problems they can charge you for? Smoking out of spite confuses me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Smoking out of spite confuses me. "gently caress you, I won't do what you tell me." It's basically just impotent contrarianism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:54
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:"gently caress you, I won't do what you tell me." I always assumed it was more "If I'm not happy, no one else can be" which is why they blow smoke in the face of other people and stand upwind of everyone else like complete shitbags.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Turfahurf posted:Are there any studies that show that any of those Truth ads have actually been effective? They just make all smokers and non-smokers I know want to smoke out of spite. Even in high school when I was in the target market for them everyone hated them. The recent ones with "left swipe" and the obnoxious memes are terrible. But I remember the late 90's early 00's Truth ads and I thought they were pretty effective. At least they worked on me, but I never had a strong inclination to smoke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_56BQmY_e8 I also remember there was a series of truth ads that would show three people doing something mundane and one would just keel over spontaneously. Something along the lines of "1 in 3 smokers will DIE." I was sufficiently creeped out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
insufficient guns posted:At least they worked on me, but I never had a strong inclination to smoke. Well that's the rub isn't it? I was ok never smoking until I found myself in a situation where suddenly cigarettes were a way to cope and not much else was available. I knew every stupid problem these ads had brought up but circumstances will usually beat out propaganda when the circumstances are strong enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Turfahurf posted:Are there any studies that show that any of those Truth ads have actually been effective? They just make all smokers and non-smokers I know want to smoke out of spite. Even in high school when I was in the target market for them everyone hated them. The truth ads specifically, no, but smoking by young people has been declining for awhile. Also for the first time ever more college kids smoke marijuana than tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:"gently caress you, I won't do what you tell me." I was a teen in the 90s, kinda before the Truth ads were a thing. Most of my friends who smoked would literally voice this attitude as the reason they started smoking. ...then they would get addicted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
At this stage it's probably just as effective to advertise smoking cessation methods. Some teenagers are going to smoke no matter how many edgy commercials you broadcast, but a lot of those would probably quit over the next decade given the tools. And then there are all of my cousins, whose one goal in life is keeping R.J. Reynolds' shareholders happy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Smoking out of spite confuses me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA7d0OYg0rI&t=4m16s Its not smart, but I can understand it. Teenagers you know?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
insufficient guns posted:The recent ones with "left swipe" and the obnoxious memes are terrible. But I remember the late 90's early 00's Truth ads and I thought they were pretty effective. At least they worked on me, but I never had a strong inclination to smoke. Some of them were just strangely catchy. "You don't always die from tobacco.."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I know at least 2 people who still smoke claiming that "doctors don't know poo poo, all they care about its their paychecks". So you should put money into multibillion dollar companies, also wouldn't doctors want you to smoke so you have more health problems they can charge you for? I get smoking out of spite, but that logic is flawed for so many reasons. Doctors can be some of the biggest pieces of poo poo imaginable, but if all they wanted was a paycheck there are loads of jobs that involve less work for even more pay especially if you have no ethical scruples and the kind-of discipline needed to get through Medical School in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:At this stage it's probably just as effective to advertise smoking cessation methods. Some teenagers are going to smoke no matter how many edgy commercials you broadcast, but a lot of those would probably quit over the next decade given the tools. Really the biggest thing was when cigarette advertising was banned. Banning tobacco is a poor idea in general for a lot of reasons but the adverts would often use cartoon characters from popular shows in the past (go look up Flintstones smoking adverts on the YouTubes some time, it's baffling how much they used to get away with). The tobacco companies would also sponsor popular, prime time shows that families would sit down and watch together. TV and movies were heavily saturated with people smoking so that it looked like a normal thing that people just did. Then the adverts were used to make smoking look cool. Look at the Joe Camel ads. They're all about how cool Joe Camel is and he smokes so you should smoke too if you want to be cool. There's even a damned cigarette brand named Kool. Smoking got associated with rebellion and, well, how many teenagers go through a rebellious "gently caress you, dad" phase? So if smoking is cool and rebellious and you want to be cool and rebellious but are also a dumb poo poo 15 year old...welp. I certainly won't judge smokers because I used to smoke and still do have a cigar from time to time but really, tobacco companies are evil as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Really the biggest thing was when cigarette advertising was banned. Banning tobacco is a poor idea in general for a lot of reasons but the adverts would often use cartoon characters from popular shows in the past (go look up Flintstones smoking adverts on the YouTubes some time, it's baffling how much they used to get away with). The tobacco companies would also sponsor popular, prime time shows that families would sit down and watch together. TV and movies were heavily saturated with people smoking so that it looked like a normal thing that people just did. Then the adverts were used to make smoking look cool. Look at the Joe Camel ads. They're all about how cool Joe Camel is and he smokes so you should smoke too if you want to be cool. There's even a damned cigarette brand named Kool. Smoking got associated with rebellion and, well, how many teenagers go through a rebellious "gently caress you, dad" phase? So if smoking is cool and rebellious and you want to be cool and rebellious but are also a dumb poo poo 15 year old...welp. Thank you for smoking covers this pretty well. Its also a fairly genius movie. Even more genius when you realize that the movie isn't actually about smoking at all, and NOBODY IN THE FILM IS EVER ACTUALLY SHOWN SMOKING.  Its one of those things that you have to go back and watch the film again because it doesn't seem true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:(go look up Flintstones smoking adverts on the YouTubes some time, it's baffling how much they used to get away with). My mom always told me about some interview she watched about The Flintstones- the voice actresses for Wilma and Betty couldn't laugh without winding up coughing, which is why the women on the show do that quiet little 'hm-hm-hm-hm" titter instead of actually laughing. And just as a (not really fun) fact, of the four main voice actors and actresses, IMDB lists causes of death as "lung cancer," (Jean Van der Pyl), "heart disease and emphysema," (Mel Blanc), and "left lung carcinoma" (Bea Benaderet). Alan Reed I can't find anything more specific than "extended illness" which I wouldn't be surprised if it was lung/heart related as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Our whole culture of smoking is probably related to the World Wars. I only found one chart with data before the 1940's, so I can't attest to its accuracy, but cigarettes were handed out for free to millions of servicemen and per capital consumption increased fourfold up until after the Vietnam war. War is the biggest, most effective tobacco aid ever. It's also kind of interesting how cutting cigarette prices in the 1990's slowed the decline for about 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
200 packs a year per capita 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:200 packs a year per capita In the parlance of the 50s and 60s a "light lunch" is what you called it when you smoked a pack of cigarettes on your lunch break instead of eating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:200 packs a year per capita "Three packs a day" has never, ever been hyperbole. Even now some people still smoke like chimneys. Yes I am well aware that that is 60 cigarettes a day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:48
|
|