Could Cereal Mascots be on the way out?

R

Roozbeh

New member
I just heard on the news that Obama adminstrtion is trying to pass a bill that would force companies to stop advertising unhealthy foods to people 17 and under. So all those brightly colored cereal and candy commercials could be on the way out.

What do you think? Is it time for Lucky the Leprechaun and the Trix Rabbit to hang it up? Me, personaly I think think this is pushing it a bit. I mean candy companys have a right to advertise, too,don't they?
 
I pretty much agree that they're going too far when it comes to banning advertisements for unhealthy foods to people under 18.

Face it, unlike cigarettes, the unhealthiness of some foods can be countered as long as they're eaten sparingly and the kids spend some time doing some sort of physical activity each day.
 
More dumb decisions from Obama. I doubt he has a reason for this. These mascots are embezzled into children's brains, they are like a part of their lives; they dress up as these mascots for Halloween for cryin' out loud! This is gonna get a huge outcry from the cereal companies, I guarantee it.
 
Cereal mascots have been getting toned down for a while now. Remember the Cookie Crook and Chip the dog from the Cookie Crisp commercials? For at least the last decade, they've been replaced by this generic wolflike creature. And what few cereal commercials I've seen lately seem to feature less of the old mascots. Maybe it's just a byproduct of kids getting forcibly weaned off of traditional animation that's causing Lucky the leprechaun, the Trix rabbit, Tony the tiger and their ilk to get left behind. :(
 
And also, unlike (legal purchases of) cigarettes, parents have to actually buy the cereal for their children. If the parent allows the kid to eat whatever junk food they want whenever they want or caves in to their whining for sugary snacks, why should companies be punished for it?

Seems like another "Lets play the blame game". There are lots of adults who gorge themselves on sugary snacks that don't even have mascots on them (Hostess snacks for example), trying to take away something that helps define/add to pop culture and a person's childhood isn't going to change that.
 
Because it's easier to ban things rather than forcing parents to take responsibility for their kids.

And really, banning is just like censorship. It's gives the feeling of accomplishment when really you accomplished nothing at all.
 
Man, is it weird that I'd sort of be upset if Lucky, Tony The Tiger, and the Trix rabbit went away even though I don't eat that cereal?
 
And honestly a lot of those cereals aren't that bad. I remember in "Eat This, Not That" they said that Cookie Crisp isn't as bad as it sounds if you don't eat it everyday and that Coco Puffs have less calories (or maybe it was sugar?) than Special K's Chocolate Delight.
 
That's not a reason? Visual persuasion theorists like Paul Messaris have done a lot of work on "embezzlement" of iconic mascots. People end up buying a product because it belongs to a certain brand - assuming frosted flakes promote athleticism because of a perception of Tony the Tiger, etc. It seems ridiculous, but there you have it.

I don't agree with censoring the mascots, but it's not some random idea someone in the government (since it's highly unlikely Obama came up with the idea himself) thought up to annoy cereal companies or because Obama "hates businesses" or something.
 
Thanks for the link.

I can't think of any candy that has cartoon mascotts but M&Ms and their commercials are mostly aimed at adults thru sarcastic humour.
 
Back
Top