Not much left to the Imagine'ation - Magazine publisher serves up porno to minors

[FarFarAway]

Taken this far? I think it's a perfectly justifiable thing to be making a fuss about. As I said before: those who aren't parents may not appreciate the concern about this. I'm not a parent myself, but I fully support any action taken and understand why it is taken.

It's not as if this is a politically correct crusade like the Daily Mail tend to shout about, this is a serious concern by a parent who does not want to see his children be able to buy a magazine with explicit content in it.

The point is that mayhem has seen the content (that shouldn't be there as the mag is aimed at kids), and acted on it as a responsible parent.

Glad to see a local has picked it up matey

 

[FarFarAway]

Taken this far? I think it's a perfectly justifiable thing to be making a fuss about. As I said before: those who aren't parents may not appreicate the concern about this. I'm not a parent myself, but I fully support any action taken and understand why it is taken.

It's not as if this is a politically correct crusade like the Daily Mail tend to shout about, this is a serious concern by a parent who does not want to see his children be able to buy a magazine with explicit content in it.

The point is that mayhem has seen the content (that shouldn't be there as the mag is aimed at kids), and acted on it as a responsible parent.

Glad to see a local has picked it up matey

 

[mayhem]

Not sticking up for the company but it is up to the parent to check the magazine. If the magazine has a 15 label then you're not allowed to purchase the magazine (legally) unless you're 15 or over.

Yes you are correct so why does the publisher not have rating or warning on any of there mags aimed at kids or young teenagers. There is "NO" rating on the mag. You keep contradicting your self. Please understand i can see my self some people may not like the idea of this but that is up to them. how ever if we had a pole of parents you may see a different out come than what you may consider what is right.

You have you point of view which i respect but weather you like it or not you ideas are different to mine and many other responsible parents.

Thks Kempez

 

[Youngie1337]

Yes you are correct so why does the publish not have rating or warning on any of the mags. There is "NO" rating on the mag or haven't you read the article properly. You keep contradicting your self.

Thks Kempez

Tbh no I haven't read the whole article, only bits from replies. Well since you are 100% certain there was no age rating I'm behind you. I thought that every magazine has an age rating when it comes to gaming because of images inside (game images).

Yes it is not suitable to have indecent images, and I agree. But when the magazine clearly states 15 you do not buy for anyone younger if you're going to get offended.

Apologies since I thought it had age rating .

 

[mayhem]

thank you mate.

Yeh its taken alot of work but im not hitting out at the publisher who are responsible such as dennis and future as they do implement a age rating system. All we do ask is that Image do the same (yet they are not). Its not as though were asking them to do some thing unreal.

All though all there managers have been in advertising meeting's all day to day .. wonder why .....

thank you once again.

 

[llwyd]

Age ratings mean nothing, I've seen PG's much scarier than 15's, and I have seen much more nudity in a 12 than an 18.

Like I said if you don't want your child looking at the adverts rip them out or don't buy the mag. Not sticking up for the company but it is up to the parent to check the magazine. If the magazine has a 15 label then you're not allowed to purchase the magazine (legally) unless you're 15 or over. Buying the magazine for someone younger is up to you, not the shop or publisher.

Raving on to them saying about explicit content in their magazine which most likely clearly states an age rating somewhere is lack of caring on your behalf.

The point of the article was that his kid was able to walk in and buy magazines containing adult content without any age cert on them - which clearly undermines the whole certification system

I'm just as much against the nanny state we're living in as anyone else but what mayhem demonstrated with his daughter is frankly unacceptable. I'm 6'2" and have a beard, I still get asked for ID to buy a bottle of wine in tescos, you cant have one rule for one thing and another for others

edit: christ im a slow typer - congrats on the newspaper involvement. I would be cautious that they themselves dont blow things out of proportion - also a pretty good chance to drop a link to the article on OC3D

 

[swishypants]

A few years ago, I wrote to Paragon publishing, asking them about the ads for sex lines in the back of GamesTM. I wasn't outraged, just genuinely curious. Here's the reply I got from their advertising manager, Felicity Mead (this was 2005, I have no idea if she still works there or not).

Thank you for your email. gamesTM actually targets 20 - 45 year old males. Through reader surveys and research, feedback via forums etc. we know that games is read by older gamers. In our last reader survey, out of a sample of 500 readers, 82.4% were over 20 and over 55% were aged 25 - 40.

Having said this, gamesTM is obviously a very key title for us. The adult chat lines were initially booked on a three series trial basis. This trial finishes in issue 30 (on sale 24th March).

We have made a decision not to continue with this advertising from issue 30 however this is no reflection on the reader age as games genuinely is read by older readers .

gamesTM is a magazine for serious gamers, guys who have grown up with games and want an intelligent read on the games industry as a whole. I agree with you that adult chat lines are not suitable for this title however more because we want the magazine to be as high profile as possible rather than because the target audience is too young and for this reason we have decided not to rebook adult advertising into gamesTM.

I hope this answers any confusion you had as to why we were running the adverts and I also hope that you continue to read and enjoy games in the future!

I can completely understand their point of view. Gaming isn't just associated with children. It has become more mature, especially as the cost of entry has become so much higher. These types of ads are in a sort of a grey area. On the one hand, they're probably inappropriate for a publication that anyone can buy, but on the other hand, they're certainly no worse than what you might find in any of the red-top tabloids. I think there should be a level of consistency in indignation.

As well as this, it just highlights our dual standards when it comes to sex and violence. We're quite happy for our kids to read about (and see screenshots of) giant space-marines curb-stomping aliens and sloshing about in their viscera, but we balk at even the hint of a nipple.

That said, I understand that it's a complicated issue. I also think it's dangerous and counter-productive to sensationalise the whole thing.

 

[mayhem]

I dont have any issues with what there advertising. I do have issues that my daughter can buy it or my son. They should not be able to buy things like that till there older.

All were asking is it be certified. Nothing more nothing less. nice little 15 or 18 sticker on the front.

If not then don't put the adds in the mags.

I don't think its a complex thing to ask. And im not out to destroy them as such but if they just fob me off then ill push that little harder.

as for violent videos games my son doesn't get to play then tbh. And he cannot because he can only get games for his age.

If video games and moves can be put into a class then so should the mags. why are they different to the rest of the world.

Allso nothing as such is sensationalise all i did was use real facts.

 

[swishypants]

All were asking is it be certified. Nothing more nothing less. nice little 15 or 18 sticker on the front.

...

If video games and moves can be put into a class then so should the mags. why are they different to the rest of the world.

I completely understand what you're saying - I'm just wondering where you draw the line. For example, why just pick on videogame magazines? They're not the only ones that advertise such things. "Lads" magazines have content that is easily as bad, if not worse, than the kind you are talking about and can easily be bought by kids (I used to buy Loaded from the largest Irish newsagent when I was about 12). Would you suggest they should be certified? Or would you think their content immediately precludes children from wanting to buy these magazines? Even movie magazines, like Empire, feature these kinds of ads in their back pages. Should they be classified too? And then, what about, as I mentioned, the red-top tabloids that still feature "Page 3 Stunners"? Should newspapers be classified?

Then there's another problem. From Merriam Webster's Law Dictionary:

Pornographic material is protected expression unless it is determined to be obscene.

(Emphasis mine) But then you've got the issue of what exactly counts as "obscene", because this is a pretty subjective term. A common yardstick, the Obscene Publications Act says that an obscene publication is one which is intended to 'deprave or corrupt'. Again, these are extremely subjective terms. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that.

In a way, though, we do have a kind of a certification system for magazines. It's just not as fine-grained as the ones we have for movies or games. We basically have magazines that are for everyone and magazines that are for adults only. Top-shelf magazines. This has worked well for years, but I think it's definitely getting more difficult to apply this as gaming - which is still seen as relatively childish hobby - matures. I think there probably will have to be a change, but I'm not entirely sure that "certification" is the right solution, precisely because of the difficulty in formulating and applying a consistent set of rules.

 

[mayhem]

Yeh we could go all out and hit mags but what was amazing was the publisher had photographic mags and Sci- Fi mags and yet none of the contained these sort of adverts.

So they are targeting there prime audience as such. Classification is wired though because its a 2 rules system on one hand they say you can do this and that and on the other they say some thing completely different.

What we need as parents is the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong for our children. Simple and understanding classification there for should be in place to help us parents decide if the subject material is right or not.

We all understand its not easy making money in the publishing business but all so at the end of the day they do have a responsibility to follow through with what is morally right and if they do not then should be accountable for there actions. This goes the same for Shops.

If its illegal to sell cigarettes to children and knifes to children and porn to children then why is it not illegal to advertise porn to children. At the end of the day the way you bring up a child is important and we as parent do our best (in most cases) to make sure we protect them and teach them what is right or wrong. When they reach a mature enough age (legally or morally) then its up them them to decide...

Ive only chosen to do Console & PC mags because this is what my son bought and i cannot afford to go buying every mag off the shelf. This was done off my own back and for the reasons stated in the write up. Every thing that i have done so far has been off my own back as well as cost. I gain to make nothing except my goal out of this.

As for other lads mags i cannot comment as i dont read them and never had same goes for page 3 ... ect ect.

 

[chudley]

I am behind you Mayhem, although for the record I do not usually buy Powerstation but did notice it was on the top shelf in ASDA yesterday . Which meant I had to get on my tippy toes just to have a peek

As i said earlier, interesting article with good debate. Let me know when the paper goes to press, it will be interesting to see their take on it.

 

[mayhem]

hehe. thank you for that.

I did phone Asda quite a few times... they must have got my message as well as a tone of other places.

Today well in fact 20 min ago i had a call from WH Smith who are looking into the problem and all so contacting Image publishing ref this matter. They how ever say its there goal "not to sensor" (which i agree) mag's. They how ever agree that children should not be able to buy mags easily and are looking at shelf placement and hopefully for the publisher to add a 15 to 18 cert on them.

they will get back to me soon.

 

[UncleJaysus]

I was part of the launch team for X360 magazine, back in the days before it went to Imagine Publishing. From an editorial point of view, we hated the porn ads. Not only is it inappropriate for a percentage of the readership, but it drags the overall quality of the magazine down.

Unfortunately, these ads are necessary. Or so we were told. In a time where people are spending more on internet advertising and print circulations have fallen, these porn ads are an easy and regular source of revenue. Sure, magazines such as Sci-Fi Now don't have porn ads, but that's not a magazine about games that relies on videogames advertising. Clearly the film industry is still willing to spend respectable amounts of money to target the small-yet-focussed audiences of low selling magazines such as Sci-Fi Now.

Traditionally you'd find grot-line ads in FHM - magazines of an overtly sexual nature that were clearly pitched at adult males. The pitch is fuzzy with games mags (especially when you consider that the bagged nature of the mags makes it impossible to see the content at point of purchase). The ad sales people would tell us that something like 75 per cent of our readership were over 18, as a way of justifying the presence of the ads in X360. And they'd also point out that they were perfectly entitled to get away with such choice taglines as "30 sec quick relief", "Hear me moan" and "Do me from the back" because of the fact they used black bars, stars and the word "censored" to cover up any nipples. But, by saying 75 per cent are over 18, you're also admitting that 25 per cent of your 30k selling magazine are under.

Is it OK to advertise pornographic services to 7,500 children? Children who probably also own mobile phones that can easily access this content without the need for any parental consent?

 

[mayhem]

I was part of the launch team for X360 magazine, back in the days before it went to Imagine Publishing. From an editorial point of view, we hated the porn ads. Not only is it inappropriate for a percentage of the readership, but it drags the overall quality of the magazine down.

Unfortunately, these ads are necessary. Or so we were told. In a time where people are spending more on internet advertising and print circulations have fallen, these porn ads are an easy and regular source of revenue. Sure, magazines such as Sci-Fi Now don't have porn ads, but that's not a magazine about games that relies on videogames advertising. Clearly the film industry is still willing to spend respectable amounts of money to target the small-yet-focussed audiences of low selling magazines such as Sci-Fi Now.

Traditionally you'd find grot-line ads in FHM - magazines of an overtly sexual nature that were clearly pitched at adult males. The pitch is fuzzy with games mags (especially when you consider that the bagged nature of the mags makes it impossible to see the content at point of purchase). The ad sales people would tell us that something like 75 per cent of our readership were over 18, as a way of justifying the presence of the ads in X360. And they'd also point out that they were perfectly entitled to get away with such choice taglines as "30 sec quick relief", "Hear me moan" and "Do me from the back" because of the fact they used black bars, stars and the word "censored" to cover up any nipples. But, by saying 75 per cent are over 18, you're also admitting that 25 per cent of your 30k selling magazine are under.

Is it OK to advertise pornographic services to 7,500 children? Children who probably also own mobile phones that can easily access this content without the need for any parental consent?

thank you for that. how ever im so goob smacked i do not know how to respond. Ill get back to this later on.

If you take you 7500 x 6 (how many mags there in) = 45000 you start getting close to some very serious figures.

 

[mayhem]

you just got to love the hypocrites .... Image publishing that is

This is there forum rules

Imagine Publishing Forum Acceptable Use Policy

This Acceptable Use Policy applies to all forum posts and all private messages.

(load's of bull removed)

b) Constitutes pornography.

Think i might just send them there own adverts in there forum and lets see if it brakes there rules.

 

[zak4994]

you just got to love the hypocrites .... Image publishing that is

This is there forum rules

Think i might just send them there own adverts in there forum and lets see if it brakes there rules.

Pwnge shall be dealt tonight...

 

[zzzzz]

This is pathetic. This "news" is literally a decade old.

Nearly all game magazines have "porn" (lulz) ads in the back, even the big name ones. They're mainly sexchat ones. No nipples or asses. Just things like "horny granny" overlayed on a thumbnail of an old woman in lingerie, like what you have in the pics. They also appear in the magazines of all mainstream newspapers.

Those magazines she's holding have Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell on the front. Games rated 16+, with violence, swearing and sexual references.

"Don't let your child be a victim"? Jesus Christ.

edit: I am holding copies of Play and 360 magazine in my hand. they BOTH have a "15" rating clearly marked on the front. and the idea that they should be rated 18 for that level of nudity is laughable. this isn't the 1950s where people would faint at the sight of an ankle.

 

[mayhem]

zzzzz welcome to the forums ...

do they wow . care to scan them in and show me. or you going to pick one with a 18 cover disk were they legally have to put it on .. not this months ....

one sec ill just look again for that invisible 18 sticker shall I ...

here you go you can help me.... ... hmmm ... dam i must be going blind after having 3 kids ......

(they acutely broke the law with the last one but im not going to tell you why ill leave that the the news papers that are seeing me tomorrow)

Would you like me to scan in the back covers as well ...

as the Borg should be saying "you ignorance is futile ......"

 

[zzzzz]

pssst, with promotional copies of mag covers used on their webiste they don't put the stamp on.

Your article is one of the most hysterical pieces of FUD I've ever come across.

This warping of children's mind's at such a early age is not something I wish to happen

This is almost undeniable proof that they are aiming their pornographic material directly at the younger generations. A very disturbing thought.

I suggest that they remove the magazines immediately as they are selling pornographic material to under 18's

These sort of perversions should never be allowed to be seen by children

Won't someone please think of the children!

You drag your child around at least 6 stores buying magazines and taking photos and over this?

*where pic of ads would be if I could post urls*

Newsflash, that's not classified as pornography. For you to label it so says more about yourself.

You claim that the magazines are marketed towrds children when they cover mature games. They're about as kiddy-orientated as Edge or EGM were. You then somehow make the ridiculous assertion that it's a deliberate conspiracy to put porn towards young kids so they'll buy the mags. "Undeniable proof"? It's such a leap it's laughable. As I said newspapers and magazines have been carrying this stuff for years (and I'm talking broadsheets like The Independent, not tabloids like the Sun). Know why? Because it's not considered porn! You can't even see a person's ass in there.

The only crime here is shops selling mags rated 15 to youngsters, which you yourself mention despite trying to paint it as part of your conspiracy:

We found that at every shop we had gone to that she could easily walk in and buy literally any gaming magazine she liked. On one occasion even some with 18 certifications from a local news agent.

and considering how easy it is for kids to buy video games and movies above their age group, we all know how often it happens.

You come across as an interfering reactionery who would ban Dora the Explorer because she hasn't got her arms covered up. You're about as journalistic as a fundamentalist. It's embarrassing.

 

[mayhem]

real scan just for you.