Association Sets 'No Minors Under 16' Standard

The question we asked last week, How young is too young to be a marketer?, has now been answered. Under 16 is too young.

"We've been concerned about the issue of marketing on the backs of minors for a long time," said VBMA President Brian Clark. "We believe the legislation offered by Rep. Festa is an important step toward protecting kids from exploitation, and we encourage all of our word-of-mouth industry colleagues to join us and take a stand on this critical issue."

(read more inside)

"The Massachusetts legislation is addressing the very concerns that the VBMA's been raising for months," continued Clark. "Our standard goes even further than the proposed legislation because, as marketers, we recognize the inherent difficulties in verifying "parental consent" for children online. Simply put, it's safer for kids -- and more honorable for marketers -- to quit using kids in marketing efforts, period."

It's not often one sees "honorable" and "marketer" mentioned in the same breath, admit it's giving you a warm fuzzy feeling inside. It seems terribly logical to me, if you are not old enough to drive a moped or play hide the salami, then you really aren't old enough to be bellowing out marketing messages for major corporations either.

Now, reading the Herald today I find another itch that needs scratching... Online advertising tops £653m, great news.

The proliferation of broadband, snappier
advertising campaigns that were spawned by the largely sex-based viral adverts that previously targeted young single males, and fragmented
radio and television advertising have been cited as reasons. Viral
advertising, where often a spoof advert not connected to a company
circulates the internet, is considered as having bolstered the medium
for selling goods. The recent spoof for a Ford car, in which Ford had
no involvement, that showed a cat being decapitated by a sun
roof was given as an example of how illicit advertising has reached a
mass circulation via the internet.

I've said it before and I'll link to it again: Viral marketings worst nightmare - Hoaxes. Years after the Ford Ka cat decapitation viral, where Ogilvy protested that they had nothing to do with it, and the ad leaked out on the web by accident, it seems people still won't believe them. Even mythbuster Snopes doesn't know what to make of the Ogilvy official denial. If everyone is suspicious of virals ads being "leaked" on purpose, real fake ads such as the Bryan Adams Vomit comet, could do some real damage. Does the industry really want to arm the anti-advertising crowd which such volatile ammo?

- Ford Sportka - Cat Decapitation - (2004) :30 (UK)

see ad here