Showing posts with label babies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label babies. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2015

Canadian Subway restaurant welcomes "screaming kids" after competition doesn't

Via CBC
As a parent, I love this.

It all started when a seafood restaurant in New Sydney, Nova Scotia, decided to let the town know that they are NOT child-friendly:


The local and social media outcry was immediate and effective, and the restaurant issued an apology. 

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me, but I feel very strongly that children have a right to be in public spaces. Their parents have a responsibility to keep them from unnecessarily disrupting other people's peace-of-mind, but the really young ones — especially babies — often cry. Deal with it. You were one once, too. 

It amazes me what a truly family-unfriendly society we are, when I visit countries where children are cherished by the society as a whole. It seems like a much healthier environment for them to grow up in.

Anyway, kudos to local Subway franchisee Kirk MacRae, who told CBC: "We've had a few [screaming kids] and hope to have a lot more, and don't have any issue with it whatsoever."

Let's hope this goes viral in the good way.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Drunk and camwhoring "babies" used to sell infant monitors



These are supposedly for Motorola, by Revolution, Brazil. I'm not even sure what to believe anymore, after all the ad spoof idiocy that's been going on lately.

If these are "real" (as in, approved by client for publication) they are a really bad idea for the brand. If not, they are still tacky and weird.




The other two show a guy getting a huge chest tattoo and a shark diver.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Pymes Magazine doesn't know what babies eat


I understand where the idea came from. But the all-male creative team at ADN Comunicación, in Buenos Aires,  don't seem to know the difference between human breastmilk, infant formula, and cow's milk.

While human milk is recognized by all health authorities as the ideal infant food for the first one-two years of life, manufactured formulas are a reasonable substitute. But while many formulas include cow's milk as an ingredient, it is highly processed to extract purified whey and casein as protein sources.

Normal cow's milk is actually bad for babies. From the American National Institutes of Health:

Cow's milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old. Infants fed whole cow's milk don't get enough vitamin E, iron, and essential fatty acids. They also get too much protein, sodium, and potassium. These levels may be too high for the infant's system to handle. Also, whole cow's milk protein and fat are more difficult for an infant to digest and absorb.
Cow's milk could actually make a baby quite sick.

You could rationalize that the concept implies that more babies means a need for more formula, which will increase demand for cow's milk. But that's a rather indirect way of communicating the idea.

The other two ads in the series indicate that a much more direct link is intended:

I won't even get in to the other awkwardness here...


...or the fact that nobody has used quills for 200 years or so.

Overall, it's just bad advertising. But bedsides that, it might have unintended negative consequences of making women without good prenatal education think that giving "milk" to their baby is OK. And that's a bad idea.

Let's fix it, shall we?


Yay!

Campaign found on Ads of the World

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Luvs loves breastfeeding moms



Not only is it a nice, socially-responsible consumer ad. It's also well-targeted and pushes forward a single-minded message that experienced moms choose their product.



Okay, you can tell me that disposable diapers aren't socially responsible. But I'm not convinced washing and bleaching cloth ones is all that much more enviro. Disagree with me if you want (I know my very baby-experienced sister does) but it's still a good ad.

There are three more (unembeddable) ads in the series, about rectal thermometers, transporting babies, and of course diaper changing. It's a refreshing change from their exploding diapers campaign.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Put your baby to sleep with a hairdryer?




I'm trying to figure out these Ogilvy Poland ads for Philips hairdryers. Apparently, "white noise" is good for putting kids to sleep. But putting a corded, heat-producing device in a crib and turning it on?

Reminds me of this campaign:


...in a bad way.

Via Ads of The World

Friday, August 3, 2012

This baby photo is absolute shit


It's not what it seems. That's the stamen of the hibiscus flower, that this unfortunate baby has been superimposed on, that reads as an explosive fountain of poo.

Found on the site "You Are Not a Photographer" with all identifying information blacked out.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Why I hate these anti-SIDS shock ads

Shock advertising is on its way out in social marketing in general. But if there's one target audience that still responds strongly to fear, it's new parents.

Which is why this campaign by the City of Milwaukee Health Department (via Osocio) does everything I hate. It dramatically overstates a risk, increases the fear and anxiety of new parents (especially mothers), and it is a lazy bid for attention and/or awards by the agency, Serve:




Co-sleeping is one of those issues that really polarizes parents. On one side, you have the "rule follower" parents, who accept the risk-averse dictates of public health authorities who say that babies sleeping in their parents' beds are more likely to die. Then you have the "intuitive" parents who question these dictates, based on their own feelings and diverse cultural practices.

According to celebrity baby-care expert Dr. Sears, there is a third way to look at the issue: statistically.

"During the 8-year period of this study, about 34,000 total cases of SIDS occurred in the U.S. (around 4250 per year). If 65 cases of non-SIDS accidental death occurred each year in a bed, and about 4250 cases of actual SIDS occurred overall each year, then the number of accidental deaths in an adult bed is only 1.5% of the total cases of SIDS. 
There are two pieces of critical data that are missing that would allow us to determine the risk of SIDS or any cause of death in a bed versus a crib. 
How many cases of actual SIDS occur in an adult bed versus in a crib? 
How many babies sleep with their parents in the U.S., and how many sleep in cribs? 
The data on the first question is available, but has anyone examined it? In fact, one independent researcher examined the CPSC's data and came to the opposite conclusion than did the CPSC - this data supports the conclusion that sleeping with your baby is actually SAFER than not sleeping with your baby. As for the second question, many people may think that very few babies sleep with their parents, but we shouldn't be too quick to assume this. The number of parents that bring their babies into their bed at 4 am is probably quite high. Some studies have shown that over half of parents bring their baby into bed with them at least part of the night. And the number that sleep with their infants the whole night is probably considerable as well. In fact, in most countries around the world sleeping with your baby is the norm, not the exception. And what is the incidence of SIDS in these countries? During the 1990s, in Japan the rate was only one tenth of the U.S. rate, and in Hong Kong, it was only 3% of the U.S. rate. These are just two examples. Some countries do have a higher rate of SIDS, depending on how SIDS is defined."
What is going on here?
"Who is behind this new national campaign to warn parents not to sleep with their babies? In addition to the USCPSC [U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission], the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) is co-sponsoring this campaign. The JPMA? An association of crib manufacturers. This is a huge conflict of interest. Actually, this campaign is exactly in the interest of the JPMA."

I understand that many parents would rather not go against authoritarian advice when they believe it is a matter of life and death. I wouldn't advise them to. But my wife and I made the informed decision to keep our infant son in our bed. It actually made breastfeeding much easier for her, as she barely needed to wake up for night feedings. We believed it was far better for him, too, because he was fed at the first signs of restlessness and never had to wake up feeling abandoned and alone. (Dr. Ferber is an asshole, BTW.) And safety? We believed that it was far safer to have the baby with us, where we could directly detect and address any issues of respiratory distress, rather than trusting wireless technology to do it for us.

We also believe that SIDS has many causes, that are not well understood. Second-hand smoke, parental drug (including alcohol) abuse, poor nutrition, and suffocating bedclothes have all also been blamed. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, has been linked to lower SIDS rates. There are various explanations given for this, but I have my own theory: that close encounters with an engorged breast while feeding strengthens the baby's awareness of, and response to, the anti-smothering instinct. But I'm not a scientist. I'm just an adman who plays one on his blog.



Monday, October 3, 2011

Sleep like a baby

Using babies in adult situations to indicate comfort and innocence can end up looking creepy, but not this time. The mattress (?) campaign from Grey Indonesia seems to get the right balance of surprise and clear messaging:





Those of us who are parents know babies don't sleep like that for long, but when they do they are the epitome of contentment. The couple is my favourite, because it manages to portray familiar intimacy without being inappropriately sexual.

Via Ads of The World

Friday, July 29, 2011