Wednesday, August 10, 2011



"Bullying" M&Ms

Australia:
"The Advertising Standards Bureau spent two months investigating the social interactions on talking M&Ms in commercials - after viewers complained the ads could lead to an increase in childhood bullying.

An ABS spokeswoman said the bureau spent just under 60 days investigating the television commercial, which featured a red M&M taunting his candy cohorts, after receiving a number of objections to the message portrayed by the talking chocolates.

One complainant said the advertisement gave children the impression bullying was OK. "M&M's is the most influential product on the market and needs to ensure the message that children receives is positive and assisting in their growth and development," the complainant said.

"When marketing a product the message should be about development of our children not showing them that the red M&M can dominate the rest of the group. Children will see this as a normal way of life as the M&Ms portray to them those they mix with at school."

After deliberating for two months, the ABS determined the advertisement was "humorous rather than bullying".

Source


Video here


6 comments:

sig said...

"When marketing a product the message should be about development of our children not showing them that the red M&M can dominate the rest of the group."

While I certainly understand the context and intent of the complaints, I can't help but wonder if the ads had instead portrayed a blue M&M, would there still be the same level of complaints?

A. Levy said...

Australia, like Britain, is becoming The Twilight Zone

President Not Sure said...

I always knew those red M&M's were bullies.. They have that look in their eyes like a feral pig..

Anonymous said...

I remember when M&M's only came in lite and dark brown . Much simpler times .


ISHGEBOR

stinky said...

When it takes two months to decide if you should laugh or not, your sense of humor might not be the best....

Anonymous said...

Does A.Levy really think the US is any better, or is there a hint of chauvinistic bias creeping in?