Ah one: A "child" is someone between the ages of 6-11, while the ages of 12-19 are "adolescent". In your examples, they commonly use the terms "young adults" or, if they do give an actual age range, it is 14/15-19 and mostly talk about them as a future market.
An a dos. Up until 1987, the legal age to smoke was 16. This means that they were legal a market that could be target with ads.
an a mittsu. A cartoon character linked to underage smoking is not the same as a cartoon character being used to specifically target, and create underage smokers. When your product is named "Camel" it makes sense that you'd use a camel as a mascot. Using a cartoony camel makes sense since it's a known fact that camels don't take directions very well and almost never pose the way a photographer would like. I don't know if they still do, but Hamms used to use a cartoon bear to sell beer. Were they trying to get 10-year-olds to go out and buy a six pack? Is Met Life trying to get minors to take out life insurance policies by using Snoopy? Again, was Joe Camel specifically created to target kids or did it just become so popular that kids recognized him?
an a whatever Sanskrit for 5 is. Do the tobacco companies hope that kids grow up and purchase their product? Of course they do, it's a legal product and their existence depends on having customers. Are they specifically targeting kids to create underage smokers? I doubt it. Back in the days that these ads were produced, there was a very good chance that mom and dad smoked. The most effective advertising was that pack of cigarettes laying on the coffee table. It created brand familiarity and as it was equated with the idea of growing up, smoking became a temptation for kids. Society was more effective at creating young smokers than any ad produced by the tobacco companies. All the techniques in the examples that were given have been used by advertisers for years to sell every type of product imaginable. Yet, no one claims that Esso was trying to sell gasoline to children by using a cartoon tiger in their ads. It's easy to find demons when we all agree that a product is a bad product, which cigarettes are. It's easy to say that Joe Camel was aimed at kids because we have a bias against the product but, because we appreciate good tires, we don't equate the Michelin Man with targeting children.
Bottom line. Cigarettes are bad. I would love to see them banned. Just because a child recognizes a product or mascot doesn't mean they were targeted. I could recognize the Playboy logo when I hit puberty. That doesn't mean that Huge was targeting kids to sell his mag. In my opinion, everyone loves a good witch hunt and this is a prime example.
Champagne bubbles for everyone -barely noticeable sigh-
The problem with this article is that it assumes hand-drawn advertising is directed toward and appeals to only children. Not one of the examples in the article has a child even appearing in the ad. Just because they used a comic book style format doesn't mean they were aimed at children. Were these ads placed in publications specifically aimed at children? You didn't find these ads in Boy's Life or My Weekly Reader. As far as I know, the only comic book that ran a cigarette ad was the old, Willie the Penguin comic book, and that was an ad for Kool cigarettes, who must have thought it was a good idea because their mascot was a penguin. The tobacco actually self-banned tobacco ads in comics back in 1964. The Flintstones, as the article noted, was a primetime show that families watched together. While using the characters to sell cigs wasn't a brilliant move, they were not specifically aiming their ads toward the kids. Mom and Dad were watching as well. Lucy and Ricky advertised cigarettes to the same audience as well. It was a common practice to run commercials in a show that contained the show's characters. Cigarette companies were guilty of glamorizing smoking and trying to gain customers but so does every other product and, at the time, it was legal. While I doubt the tobacco companies would lose sleep if the ads did convince underage kids to take up smoking, to say that the ads were directed specifically toward them isn't correct. We are far better off that these types of ads are now banned because, adult or child, promoting smoking is a bad idea.
I really hate articles like this one. They act as if these foods are a regular part of a person's diet rather than an occasional treat. If you eat Pigs in a Blanket on a regular basis, they're not good for your health. If you eat them a couple times a year as a snack at a party, they're really not going to have much effect.
Clutch Cargo was fun but the followup series, Space Angel, was great. The show aired in the years between the 1950s outer space sci-fi and Star Trek and was a little of both. Space Angel even had a Scottish engineer named Taurus, who was an early version of Star Trek's Scotty.
It's not necessary that Jane was a teenager when Judi was conceived. She could have conceived in the early months of her 20th year and given birth before she turned 21. In those days, however, it was common for people to get married just after high school. My mother was born in mid February and was 20 years old when I was born...in late February. That means she was 19 when I was conceived. My father was in the Air Force and my mother had been out of High School for almost two years.
Still going to have to disagree with you, Andrew. :) ISO 8601 is merely a format. In that format the year 1BC/BCE is written as 0000. You wouldn't say that 01 is the name of a month. It is a digital way to represent the month of January. ISO 8601 isn't a way to keep time, it is an internationally accepted way to write it. Decades, centuries and millennia are measurements based on the passing of calendar years, not of formats. Now, some enterprising individual could put out a calendar based ISO 8601. It might be a million dollar idea.....or nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine dollar idea if you start with zero.
Oddly enough, there are healthier alternatives to just about everything. Combine that with some people's love of telling others what they are doing wrong in their lives and you get articles like this one. Is sugar good for you? Not in the amounts an average 10 year old can consume if left to their own devices. However, treats are a part of childhood. The whole obesity in children thing is a fairly recent problem and has less to do with eating and more to do with inactivity. The problem with "educating" kids to the evils of sugar is that, in the kid's mind, they are immortal, junk food tastes good, and forbidden fruits are the most desired. Basically, feed the kid healthy meals, get them off their butts and moving around and treat sugary things like treats and not a food group.
I suppose you could make that argument but ISO 8601 is a format and not necessarily a calendar. Actually, ISO 8601 doesn't use the year 0. It uses the 0000. It's a great way to keep times and dates strictly numerical. No AM/PM, BC/AD, or BCE/CE.
Funky Freya is correct. Since there was no year 0, the first century was from year 1 to year 100 and the second century would start in the year 101. The 20th century would have begun in 1901 and all those folks who celebrated the new millennium in 2000 were a year early
An a dos. Up until 1987, the legal age to smoke was 16. This means that they were legal a market that could be target with ads.
an a mittsu. A cartoon character linked to underage smoking is not the same as a cartoon character being used to specifically target, and create underage smokers. When your product is named "Camel" it makes sense that you'd use a camel as a mascot. Using a cartoony camel makes sense since it's a known fact that camels don't take directions very well and almost never pose the way a photographer would like. I don't know if they still do, but Hamms used to use a cartoon bear to sell beer. Were they trying to get 10-year-olds to go out and buy a six pack? Is Met Life trying to get minors to take out life insurance policies by using Snoopy? Again, was Joe Camel specifically created to target kids or did it just become so popular that kids recognized him?
an a whatever Sanskrit for 5 is. Do the tobacco companies hope that kids grow up and purchase their product? Of course they do, it's a legal product and their existence depends on having customers. Are they specifically targeting kids to create underage smokers? I doubt it. Back in the days that these ads were produced, there was a very good chance that mom and dad smoked. The most effective advertising was that pack of cigarettes laying on the coffee table. It created brand familiarity and as it was equated with the idea of growing up, smoking became a temptation for kids. Society was more effective at creating young smokers than any ad produced by the tobacco companies. All the techniques in the examples that were given have been used by advertisers for years to sell every type of product imaginable. Yet, no one claims that Esso was trying to sell gasoline to children by using a cartoon tiger in their ads. It's easy to find demons when we all agree that a product is a bad product, which cigarettes are. It's easy to say that Joe Camel was aimed at kids because we have a bias against the product but, because we appreciate good tires, we don't equate the Michelin Man with targeting children.
Bottom line. Cigarettes are bad. I would love to see them banned. Just because a child recognizes a product or mascot doesn't mean they were targeted. I could recognize the Playboy logo when I hit puberty. That doesn't mean that Huge was targeting kids to sell his mag. In my opinion, everyone loves a good witch hunt and this is a prime example.
Champagne bubbles for everyone
-barely noticeable sigh-
OMG, big salt is tried to hook children on sodium chloride.