Only for Children: [via: DIY Photography]" The ANAR Foundation is a Spanish organization which helps kids in risk. They Operate a unique phone number - 116 111 - where minors at risk can get aid and consultation. Anar did a campaign advertizing the number, but were facing a problem where they did not want potential aggressors to see that a kid was even looking at the ad. The solution was using Lenticular printing [wiki] on street signs." [more inside]
posted by Fizz on May 6, 2013 - 13 comments

Let Children Be Children British government to recommend new measures aimed at preventing children from over-exposure to sexualised imagery in the media. [more inside]
posted by modernnomad on Jun 4, 2011 - 107 comments

BusRadio has a simple dream: to improve the safety of school bus rides for all students. Or, wait, maybe the dream is to exploit our kids for profit. To be fair, they aren't the only ones who think this is a great idea. Thanks, Massachusetts!
via CommercialAlert, which we've talked about before.
posted by gurple on Jun 5, 2006 - 35 comments

Plan59's Demoinc Tots and Deeply Disturbing Cusine: Plan59 has a bunch of overdone goodness (in a white bread sort of way) but this is the best. Link to their main page
posted by edgeways on Jan 27, 2006 - 17 comments

Won't somebody please think of the children? Oh, don't fool yourselves! Americans under the age of 12 now spend or influence the spending of $565 billion a year - up from $2.2 billion in 1968, and kid-spending has roughly doubled every ten years for the past three decades, tripling in the 1990s. Which means someone is always thinking of the children. The American Association of Pediatrics (pdf) cites this bludgeoning of kidvertising as creating in children "a fever for shopping and spending, swollen expectations about material needs, decreasing immunity to the assaults of advertisers, self-concepts defined by brands of clothing, and a rash of of debt by the time they leave college". [more...]
posted by taz on Sep 19, 2005 - 55 comments

UK bans controversial charity ads In recent weeks, UK newspaper readers have been opening their newspapers to find full-page, colour pictures of a cockroach crawling out of the mouth of a baby. Now the adverts, for children's charity Barnardo's, have been banned. Barnado's maintain that the pre-Christmas ads were justified as "a way of cutting through the apathy."
posted by TheophileEscargot on Dec 10, 2003 - 51 comments

Dressed as pieces of bologna, ham and cheese, Maryland 3rd graders sing corporate jingle and dance in Oscar Meyer contest...for school equipment money - $10,000 corporate checks for scarce school equipment, Dunkin' Doughnuts free doughnut coupons for students in exchange for homework...."Oakdale Principal Judy Sherman sees no problem with the Oscar Mayer and Dunkin' Donuts contests. No parents complained.... "It's great for the school as well as for kids who have to use their creative-writing and performing-arts skills, not to mention all those good social skills," Sherman said."

Oh my.
posted by troutfishing on Jun 23, 2003 - 93 comments

Has A&F stepped over the line this time? Calling it the "modern-day version of Underoos," a national clothing company is selling thong underwear in children's sizes - with the words "eye candy" and "wink wink" printed on the front.
posted by KevinSkomsvold on May 19, 2002 - 35 comments

What's it like to be born a sellout? Two parents not only expecting a new child, but expecting a corporate donor to give them half a million dollars for the naming rights to their son. Their ebay listing claims it's for the child's education, though the article says they're looking to buy a new home. And if you actually think naming your offspring "Aaa-Oh-El" is a good idea and would like to copy it, too late, the imitators have already sprung up. (via NextDraft)
posted by mathowie on Jul 26, 2001 - 20 comments

Sony's latest ad campaign has been pulled from the networks for being too edgy. It's certainly got an edge that I doubt children would understand, but they're still pretty funny (part 2 and part 3). Is this what happens when we have to protect everyone from anything remotely racy? Do you agree with the decision to pull them off the air?
posted by mathowie on Dec 5, 2000 - 35 comments