Page 1 of 10

Those ads... again

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:32 am
by Dudley
EDITED BY CRAIG: Seeing as the 'help make Retro Gamer' thread was getting derailed, I've split the ads stuff off here. And round and round and round we go...

FURTHER EDITED BY SIRCLIVE: For those who wise to make a complaint against the Ads in RG (or anything else for that matter), the following contact details would be a good start;

Imagine Publishing Ltd.
Richmond House
33 Richmond Hill
Bournemouth
Dorset
BH2 6EZ

Scott Caisley - Advertising Director: scott.caisley@imagine-publishing.co.uk

Finally, I have a real problem with the increasingly pornographic advertising at the back of the mag. I know this is a bugbear so I won't rant about it. Suffice it to say that I don't really want to have to worry about where I've left my copy of RG in case my 3 yr old lad finds it.
At the risk of starting this off again.

Yeah, no problem your 3 year old seeing pics of games where you kill and rob hookers and blow up planets but heaven forbid he should see a PG rated picture of a girl.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:58 am
by Heavy Stylus
Dudley wrote:
Finally, I have a real problem with the increasingly pornographic advertising at the back of the mag. I know this is a bugbear so I won't rant about it. Suffice it to say that I don't really want to have to worry about where I've left my copy of RG in case my 3 yr old lad finds it.
At the risk of starting this off again.

Yeah, no problem your 3 year old seeing pics of games where you kill and rob hookers and blow up planets but heaven forbid he should see a PG rated picture of a girl.
Now, now Dudley. Be nice. :wink:

Like Craig says - this isn't a subject worth raising *again* in the forums. If anyone has issues with the 'porn' content, please write to Imagine - NOT Darran/RG.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:56 am
by felgekarp
Dudley wrote:
Finally, I have a real problem with the increasingly pornographic advertising at the back of the mag. I know this is a bugbear so I won't rant about it. Suffice it to say that I don't really want to have to worry about where I've left my copy of RG in case my 3 yr old lad finds it.
At the risk of starting this off again.

Yeah, no problem your 3 year old seeing pics of games where you kill and rob hookers and blow up planets but heaven forbid he should see a PG rated picture of a girl.
My memory's a little fuzzy but how many games where you kill and rob hookers have appeared in Retro Gamer?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:03 am
by Heavy Stylus
felgekarp wrote:My memory's a little fuzzy but how many games where you kill and rob hookers have appeared in Retro Gamer?
Not enough by my reckoning! Can we have a feature on this please?

:D :D

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:49 am
by Dudley
felgekarp wrote: My memory's a little fuzzy but how many games where you kill and rob hookers have appeared in Retro Gamer?

I'm fairly certain GTA has been mentioned but I think you'll agree I wouldn't have to go far to find coverage of games unsuitable for 3 year olds.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:00 am
by felgekarp
Dudley wrote:
felgekarp wrote: My memory's a little fuzzy but how many games where you kill and rob hookers have appeared in Retro Gamer?

I'm fairly certain GTA has been mentioned but I think you'll agree I wouldn't have to go far to find coverage of games unsuitable for 3 year olds.
Not neccesarily Dudley, does the coverage mention violence or does it depict it, there's a difference between the 2, at least I think there is.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:08 am
by Heavy Stylus
I remember beating the censored out of hookers in Double Dragon. Alas, there was no robbing though.

On a violence related note, has there been a feature on Syndicate yet?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:39 am
by DonkeySpank
Thanks for taking it seriously.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:57 am
by CraigGrannell
DonkeySpank wrote:Dudley's attitude stinks and unfortunately it's quite indicative of the attitude RG has taken to this serious issue that concerns it's readership. So I'm voting with my feet.
I can't speak for Dudley, but what attitude Retro Gamer has taken? As far as I know, the only person to have commented on the ads is Darran, and he doesn't have any control over what adverts go into the magazine. Have any of the people who are annoyed at these adverts actually written an email or letter to the publisher/MD yet? If so, and if they said something negative, fine, but my understanding is that they haven't said anything, because no-one's actually bothered to contact them directly about this.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:58 am
by Utini
More's to the point, what three year old is going to understand the overtly sexual nature of those ads, and why would is it any different than a three year old inadvertantly seeing the lingere section in a mail order catalogue like Littlewoods?
DonkeySpank wrote:Craig, no need to lock the thread, I'm out of here. Cancelling my sub right now and won't be back here either. Dudley's attitude stinks and unfortunately it's quite indicative of the attitude RG has taken to this serious issue that concerns it's readership. So I'm voting with my feet.
Huzzah! Someone's finally taken my advice!

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:59 am
by CraigGrannell
Darren's response, moved from the other thread:

Darran@Retro Gamer—Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007
Crikey, if only I had time to read every thread...

Sorry to hear you're cancelling your subscription Donkey Spank but I think it's somewhat unfair that you're implying RG doesn't care about the porn issue.

I don't like it anymore than you, but there's not a lot I can do about it. As I've explained before I don't see the adverts until the day before the magazine goes to print, and even I was shocked with the quality that was seen in the most recent issue.

They've been downgraded in issue 37, and I will see if RG can have the same porn free zone that gamesTM apparently enjoys.

I was going to say that if it bothers you that much then write in to management, but refusing to buy the magazine will obviously have the same effect...

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:59 am
by FatTrucker
DonkeySpank wrote:So I'm voting with my feet.
*****
I've recently purchased my first subscription so I guess that means I'm voting with my wrist?. :roll:

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:02 am
by CraigGrannell
Darran wrote: I was going to say that if it bothers you that much then write in to management, but refusing to buy the magazine will obviously have the same effect...
The thing is, it won't. One subscriber canceling won't make much odds. Someone writing a letter, saying they're going to cancel purely because of the ads might.

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:32 am
by Dudley
Oh crap what have I done?

I would say though, both Craig and I in the last thread said "Write to the publisher" and I predicted no-one would.

It's a month later. Does anyone want to guess how many they've received? I'm going with "0".
Craig, no need to lock the thread, I'm out of here. Cancelling my sub right now and won't be back here either. Dudley's attitude stinks and unfortunately it's quite indicative of the attitude RG has taken to this serious issue that concerns it's readership. So I'm voting with my feet.
And this is especially hilarious. You do realise that I'm absolutely nothing to do with Imagine right?

What you've done is akin to refusing to ever eat at McDonalds again because you overheard someone 5 miles down the road say they quite like the McRib.
"Those ads" at the back - to a 3yr old or a 33yr old, there's no mistaking that it's porn.
Seriously?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:42 am
by Heavy Stylus
Good grief Duds - where did you find that shockingly uncensored picture? :shock: I'll have nightmares for weeks! It's a good job *my* child didn't see it or you'd have to face my wrath! :D

EDIT: Where did that picture go?

Oh well. I have to admit that I'm often intolerant of narrow-minded people, so I hereby apologise for any comments that may have added to Mister DonkeySpank cancelling his subscription to RG. Sorry about that guys.