Unsuitable Advertisements In The Magazine (Fortean Times)

[Yithian]

I think that's pretty funny.

 

[Quake42]

Anyone else notice the extremely unsavoury advert on page 13 of the latest issue? From the two books described, it appears to be a publishing house specialising in what looks horribly like paedophile literature.

I don't have a problem with adverts for bongs, seeds, bad taste T shirts or massagers which turn into vibrators. This, however, seems like a seriously bad judgement on the part of whoever deals with FT advertising space.

I'd be interested in a comment from David Sutton if he sees this post...

 

[Cultjunky]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, I can't find the thread though, could have been in one of the earlier FT edition threads, but the ad has been running for a while now, so I doubt that it will be pulled prior to it's alloted timeframe.

 

[stu neville]

Yes, it has been flagged up before. I will ask about it, but I fear Cultjunky may be right.

 

[Dr_David_Sutton]

We've been looking into this for past couple of days and I'm awaiting a response from the ad team after discussions with the publishers. They don't seem to specialise particularly in paedo books - just 'edgy' nonsense generally - but this particular title looks well dodgy to me and will not be reappearing in FT; that I can guarantee.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...They don't seem to specialise particularly in paedo books - just 'edgy' nonsense generally...

looking at their website, I'd agree - although I'd have to add that what they really seem to specialise in is trying a bit too hard.

You do have to wonder at their judgement. When the only examples of your published material included in an advert both contain the same dodgy elements it's really not going to be surprising if questions are asked. Bit like Waterstones setting up a window display base entirely on Death in Venice, The End of Alice and Lolita - although I don't doubt the writing would be of a better quality.

 

[ramonmercado]

Its been mentioned before. A previous ad wasnt so objectionable (imho) but this one is a bit nasty.

 

[GNC]

Yeah, it was me who brought it up, I did so a few times regarding various issues of the FT and didn't get much response so I'm delighted the ads are finally being given the boot. Maybe I should have started my own thread!

 

[Quake42]

Just to say thanks to David for addressing this so quickly. Very, very much appreciated.

gncxx - sorry didn't see your previous posts on this and I didn't notice the offending ad in the magazine before this month. Maybe the content was particular objectionable in this issue?

 

[GNC]

gncxx - sorry didn't see your previous posts on this and I didn't notice the offending ad in the magazine before this month. Maybe the content was particular objectionable in this issue?

Don't worry about it, I'm just glad it wasn't only me who objected. Actually I've just checked, and those books had been advertised in the FT before in exactly the same way. Brr!

 

[escargot]

I rarely look at the ads, mainly because I've come to expect to feel insulted by either what they want to sell to me (pseudo-scientific ghosthunting gadgets, drug paraphernalia) or how they try to sell it (obscene teeshirt slogans, sex aids promising 'org*sms').

Not sure I fit any of the advertisers' target audiences but I bet there are very few FT readers who crave Lolita-lit.

 

[Cultjunky]

I always thought that advertisers tried to place their ads in targeted mags, like a motocycle clothing shop placing ads in motorcycle mags. So what do the advertisers think of us lot, eh?

 

[escargot]

My point exactly!

The point has been made before that the target audience seems to be a sex-mad occult-obsessed drug-using male teenage gamer. :lol:

 

[WhistlingJack]

I checked my copy of FT 272 last night in order to look at the advert and I really can't see what the problem is. The advert is so eye-catching that I hadn't actually noticed it before and, reading the description of the book which has raised so much attention, it's hardly 'The Paedophile's Handbook', is it?

Personally, I always found the adverts for drug growing/smoking paraphernalia much more objectionable and in comparison, a discrete advert for a book which might not be for you isn't that bad, surely?

 

[CarlosTheDJ]

My point exactly!

The point has been made before that the target audience seems to be a sex-mad occult-obsessed drug-using male teenage gamer. :lol:

Well, I'm not a teenager any more but........

 

[escargot]

I've just had a look at the ad and can't really see what the fuss is about, unless the female character in the photo is supposed to be underage. Can't really tell but she looks old enough to me.

The text is rather sloppily written but doesn't seem to be promising any lurid accounts of child abuse. We've probably seen worse on The Bill.

I'd probably read it on along train journey, were I inclined towards creepy crime fiction.

 

[Spookdaddy]

The blurb for both books implies paedophilia as a subject. I thought that this was the point: that their advertised product - based on the two titles described - implied (very possibly wrongly) a prediliction for the subject .

 

[escargot]

The context of the paedophilia is detective fiction though, where the forces of law'n'order bring the baddies to justice and all that. It's not written from the offenders' point of view and we don't know whether or not the abuse of children is described in it*. I doubt if it is.

Wonder if the publishers would send me a copy to give it a once-over?
:lol:

*A lot of crime fiction deals with the horrific abuse of adult women. Nobody seems too bothered about that.

 

[Cultjunky]

According to Wiki (that fountain of all truth and knowledge), even the author has some doubts about the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child%27s_Play_(novel)

Reading the Wiki page, it would appear that it does try to rise above the superficial 'paedo lit' tag, and IRIS tells me that the main character poses as an underage girl in a kind of entrapment type thang. Thereby negating the paedo lit tag. Unless I'm confusing the novel with some other book I haven't read either.

Thin edge of the wedge tho

 

[Spookdaddy]

The context of the paedophilia is detective fiction though, where the forces of law'n'order bring the baddies to justice and all that. ...*A lot of crime fiction deals with the horrific abuse of adult women. Nobody seems too bothered about that.

Oh, I'd agree. The crime section of Waterstones is awash with books that include child abuse in their subject matter - to the extent that it seems to have become the MacGuffin of choice for many authors in the genre. I don't really have a problem with it as subject matter in any genre, if it's dealt with in an appropriate manner.

My original point was that the publishers have rather brought any problem on themselves by - possibly inadvertantly - emphasising this type of content in their advertisement.

 

[Quake42]

According to Wiki (that fountain of all truth and knowledge), even the author has some doubts about the book.

I actually thought the other book looked dodgier - something about creepy uncle Dave the child molester being best placed to care for some woman's little girl.

:cross eye

My original point was that the publishers have rather brought any problem on themselves by - possibly inadvertantly - emphasising this type of content in their advertisement.

Absolutely - Escargot may well be right in her speculation that these are actually just bog standard crime novels, but that certainly isn't the way the publisher has chosen to market them.

 

[taras]

I was too busy stocking up on long-sleeved black shirts with angels/spiders/skeletons on them to notice this one!

Just off to put on some mascara now.. :wow:

P.S. Just noticed the ad for the "Orgasmotron Massager" - or whatever it was called - is no longer with us!

 

[escargot]

'Orgasmotron Massager'? Don't you mean the 'Org*smotron M*ssager'? Or '*rgasmotr*n M*ssager'? Or '*r*a*mot*on *assa*er'?

Or summat, oh I dunno...

 

[Dr_David_Sutton]

The advertisers have been told we won't be running this ad again and asked to come up with more suitable titles from their catalogue if they want to advertise again. Our ad team say that they are still waiting to hear from them on this.

 

[titch]

The advertisers are all ginger haired,labour voting, left handed,welsh people.

 

[47Forteans]

The advertisers are all ginger haired,labour voting, left handed,welsh people.

And I've always fancied ginger haired, Labour voting, left handed Welsh people!

 

[Yithian]

The advertisers are all ginger haired,labour voting, left handed,welsh people.

A legion of Neil Kinnocks! Run!

 

[Anome]

The advertisers are all ginger haired,labour voting, left handed,welsh people.

Oi!

OK, technically, I'm not Welsh. It's the only part of the British Isles I don't have recent ancestors from. And the Labor Party here is spelled wrong. Still, I resent the implication.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I can't help but feel that some readers are taking the wrong message from Gooch's theories.

 

[titch]

I was being sarcastic about the gooch article in the latest fortean times,it was not my intention to offend anybody,and i apologize if i have done so.
As for reading gooch wrong,on the strength of what i have read in the FT he stands condemned,hung drawn and quartered and his body sent to various parts to be displayed in a gibbet.
If somebody is sent into exile from their chosen field it doesn't automatically hold that the establishment is in the wrong,in his case he was in exile because his theories are those of a lunatic.
I do not always expect to agree with everything i read in the FT,the John Michell obituary issue in particular left me thinking i dont "get" this,but i didn't mind as it was harmless,gooch seems anything but harmless and i am surprised that so many readers seem to be able to agree with or at least ignore some of his more disturbing theories.
I am sorry for saying this here,the only other gooch thread i can find is his rip thread and i do not think it would be appropriate to put down my thoughts in there.