GDPR discussion aside, this seems like an example of something I've been thinking about: why are we (societally etc) okay with ads that have basically nothing to do with the product?
When this first came on, I thought: oh, did someone make a new documentary? It was full of nostalgic nice things that Mr. Rogers was known for. It brought back memories.<p>And then, it ended in the cheapest, most offensive, most un-Mister-Rogers way possible: just a Google ad. I refuse to even let myself recall what crappy product apparently demanded the outright abuse of a man’s lifetime of genuine contributions to society out of some sense of clever advertising.<p>This feels like a bunch of Google executives just took a can of spray paint to deface everything that Mr. Rogers ever did. And Google, you don’t understand <i>anything</i> about <i>why</i> Mr. Rogers was so great.
“Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.”<p>Yeah I can really see how that impacts Fred Rogers /s<p>How hard can it be to build a publishing website in a privacy-respecting manner? It's been a while since GDPR was introduced.
I doubt fred rogers would have liked being deified as some form of secular saint by nostalgic adult info workers either, nor his face plastered on t-shirts, motivational books, etc.This is just shameless enough to get you thinking about that.
<i>Google paid an undisclosed, presumably large amount for Rogers’ voice, words and music. But it’s hard to understand why the heirs to his production company would compromise his integrity in this way.</i><p>Not hard to understand, but disappointing. Fred's high standards for how children should be treated were ... advanced.
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.<p>Some things should remain inviolate.<p>In this case, not just for the memory, but for the new children who continue to engage with Rogers' program (it will run in repeats and streaming for years and years) and experience its commercial free attention and insight.<p>Further, Fred Rogers was genuine. This commercial is disingenuous.<p>You should take a hard look at yourself, Google. (Speaking to individual Googlers, where the corporate structure refuses to.)
How is this different than the "Think Different" Jobs era ads with Einstein and Martin Luther King?<p>Or the giant American flags waving over every car lot? Or pictures of veterans learning to walk again on an add for Prudential insurance?<p>This is a very old marketing game, and I'm sure whatever qualms the team creating it had, if any, were overruled by the need to make it rain and get bonuses and keep all of us engineers employed.<p>"Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack."
Advertising at children should be banned. Parents should consider it no less than predatory, and act accordingly.<p>Children can't consent to all the psycho-behavioral research and artfully composed subliminal content a modern advertisement delivers. It's creepy that we accept there are adults in offices with whiteboards and Adobe products thinking hard about how to influence and manipulate children.
>Rogers, who died in 2003, spoke out against commercialization aimed at children. “The question is not,” he once said, “what can we sell the children and families who use ‘Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood?’ or even ‘What can we give them?’ but rather ‘Who are they?’ and ‘What do they bring to the television set?’”<p>what does this mean?