A Little Righteous Indignation
Posted June 15th, 2007 by Howard TaylerA few days ago one of my advertisers switched their image, their text, and their target page. The network through which they were advertising, BlogAds, had been a pleasure to work with, but I did not realize that such switches were allowable.
When I attempted to defer the ad it wouldn’t go away. Rather than pull the ad-code from the site and suffer contractual wrath, I pushed the ad to the bottom of the skyscraper column and hoped it would go away. In hindsight this was irresponsible. You see, the advertisement featured a picture of two romantically-lit naked people preparing for over-the-top chemically enhanced sex (or so the ad said), and this imagery was now running right alongside my blog post about the coloring book.
One of the most memorable email complaints I got was from a fellow parent. I’ve copied it here:
This is my first time visiting your site. I was looking to see if the comic would be appropriate for my three boys ages 8, 10 and 11. I was glad that did. The advertisements you have running on your side bars are appalling! I would never want my young boys to see advertisements with provocative pictures talking about sex products. ( … )I don’t think I will be visiting again. You sound like a decent person, but your advertisements are highly inappropriate.
She was right. Had I been vetting sites for my own kids, had I actually been paying attention to the drek my advertisers were paying me to display, my own site would have been un-bookmarked.
I work hard to keep my comic family-friendly. To that end I’ve spent years (seven of ‘em!) trying to build a reputation I’m proud of. I left Keenspot in part over this issue. And with one foolish act I scuffed and scarred a large measure of my credibility. I should have pulled the code the moment I saw that ad, but I didn’t. We can argue all day about how ad approval should work, but that particular bit of folly is my own. I accept 100% of that responsibility.
I’ve had a pleasant email exchange with Henry Copeland, CEO at BlogAds. He apologized, and offered to more carefully vet the advertisers he sends my way. He conceded, however, that they would not be changing their policy. Advertisers demand the ability to alter campaigns on the fly, and will pay a premium for that ability.
I can see why. The campaign in question appeared to be extremely successful. Click-throughs skyrocketed in those final hours. Sex sells. I am compelled to conclude that this kind of thing will happen again. It is a proven tactic, after all.
So… I’m no longer running BlogAds. It always hurts to surrender revenue, but as mercenary as I may eponymously appear, I know that it hurts far more to have my name sullied by activities that I’m willing to accept payment for. The ad in question paid me all of $90, which I willingly forfeit (though my prorated share of it should have been around $85) when I pulled the ad code and demanded that the campaign be terminated.
(Note: I shall not be identifying the ad campaign in question. That would generate more traffic. I will not send any more of my friends and fans in the direction of these diseased troglodytes. If you choose to post links in the comments, I will delete them. If I see questionable trackbacks, I shall delete those, too. These soggy-headed sphinctroids already got free advertising from me one time too many.)
Ahem.
My remaining ad providers have been excellent. Google rarely sends me anything offensive, and when they do it is a matter of a moment to forever block that domain. Project Wonderful has been particularly good to work with, in that I can choose how much oversight I want to have. Right now no campaign and no change to existing ads can appear on my site without explicit approval from me.
I may screw up again sometime, and accidentally let something through that I should not have. But never again will I hesitate to yank ad code if that’s what it takes to remove offensive material. To that end, if you see something that you think I shouldn’t have allowed in, email me.
In related news, I need to re-design that left-hand sidebar. I’m not happy with the current navigation widgets, and it would seem that a large chunk of commercial real-estate has been re-zoned as public lands. I have already demolished the existing skyscraper, and shall shortly put in a park, or perhaps a space elevator.
Explore posts in the same categories: Advertisers, Uncategorized
June 15th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Huzzah for you, Howard. I hope that the parent in question accepts your apology.
June 15th, 2007 at 8:18 am
hida: I doubt she will. When the first impression is such an unpleasant one, the impresser does not deserve a second.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I know that odds are she won’t. However, I disagree with the “does not deserve” part.
Anyone who has surfed the web for any length of time should realize how something like this can happen. The bait and switch is nothing new. It can and does happen to everyone. Even on my own journal, I have to keep an eye out for people changing quiz result graphics on me.
Also, giving forgiveness is something we all should strive for. It’s not as if you ignored the situation once you were aware of it, much less tried to defend it. You acted like a responsible individual. Not recognizing that would be irrational and over-reactive.
Yes, you may have not thought of the other ads. Oversight is a human trait. But not necessarily one to beat one’s self up over. We are expected to make mistakes and learn from them, not let them drag us down.
Anyway, I hope the person in question at least recognizes that you did more than most would have in the situation. Not giving credit where credit is due is still a form of bearing false witness.
And on second thought, she did say that she thought you seemed like a decent person. Maybe she came on strong because she wasn’t certain what was going on or was still dealing with the shock. Perhaps now that her concerns are addressed, she will reconsider her initial decision.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I too hope she accepts your appology, and returns to try again…
Even I, the hormone-drenched 28 year old male that I am didn’t even notice the ads your talking about (honest, I have NO memory of them, and I suspect that I would had I noticed them).
You’ve get an amazing track record of family-friendly. The innuendo is, in my eyes, always harmless due to it’s context, and I just plain love it.
Had I a kid (heavens forbid), and you had 100% control over every little thing on your site, I’d feel quite safe leaving them to play on your pages…
June 15th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I have no memory of the ad, but wow Howard…. “diseased troglodytes” and “soggy-headed sphinctroids” is pretty harsh. I totally support your efforts to control what’s displayed on your site, but did what they use as an ad really justify that kind of vitrol? I presume their ad campaign wasn’t just for your site – was it simply patently offensive for any consumption anywhere?
One of the things I’ve always admired about you is that you’re an admirable and honorable guy and respectful of other people’s choices and lives regardless of whether they are the same as yours. This seems kinda out of character.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Possibly there are people that even the lawyers of the Partnership Collective would look down on.
As you say, sex sells – and to some people, that’s all that matters.
You’ll know what to do about that sort of sneakiness next time – having seen it once, we’ll all be better able to recognise it. And the snakes with ties and briefcases will come up with something sneakier.
(My vote would be for a space-elevator. It’ll make it easier to get my ‘weapon of choice’ into orbit)
June 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
well we now know to tell BlogAds to put their system into the shiny end of schlock’s BH209 and yell pull
worst case for every one that came for the first time and got offended there’s several that didn’t notice it or ignored it and thousands of us that read schlock more often than a newspaper by several orders of magnitude
and stow the crap about “with one foolish act I scuffed and scarred a large measure of my credibility.” men are not judged by how they handle success so much as how they handle failure and you can’t get much better than admitting in public that you messed up then fixing the issue and in the end losing revenue and an entire revenue stream you no doubt could have used
Rule 16 Howard you just grew a few more and as far a schlockers go BlogAds is down to using the blender
juenger1701
June 15th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Phearlz: I take a bit of issue with the suggestion that my indignant response to the abuse of a privilege is somehow out of character and intolerant of others’ lifestyles.
Advertising here at schlockmercenary.com is a privilege that I pointedly take care in extending. Those that abused it did so consciously. I never would have approved the ad they switched to and they switched it on the last two days of their contract with me. They have earned every ounce of vitriol I’ve poured out, as well as piles more I’ve left here in the cup.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
speaking AS a lawyer, I can see why you made the choice you made initially….and I certainly hope the liquidated damages when you pulled out weren’t too bad. Let the Schlock community know what you lost, I’m sure, between us all, we’ll make good on it. I’m no prude (what 3 men, 4 women, a dwarf, a donkey and a parrot get up to on their own time is THEIR business), but I approve strongly of your actions in keeping this a family-friendly place.
Now I’m off to get a certain coloring book. I’ve no short people to share it with, but it looks like fun.
Bryan
June 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
No fan should be so seriously discouraged at not noticing first. As I understand it, the ad in question was switched out during key times (it may have been up for a matter of hours, it may have been up longer. I wonder if it had been up for a matter of hours over a several day period).
I was unfortunate to have seen it, and thought to bring it to Howard’s attention. Unfortunately the next time I saw him he was telling me about the problems it had caused. Too late I guess. I’ll give you a phone call if I see something that bad again.
(of course, if it is just a dumb-yet-inoffensive advert, I’ll go ahead and wait)
June 15th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I agree with Howard that the vitriol was perfectly apropos. Getting that vehement about the same ad on someone else’s site would be intolerant of other lifestyles, perhaps, but not being in control of what appears on your own site is perfect justification for the names that he called them.
That said… “Soggy-headed sphinctroid”? That’s totally and completely awesome.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I find my best work is often derived when I begin by writing something completely and unabashedly profane and/or obscene. Then I start pushing letters and memes around until it flits past my internal censor with teeth bared in what can be misconstrued as a polite grin.
I’m told this is where the name “Slartibartfast” came from.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I don’t think, Howard, that you really lost much credibility. Not with your fan base, anyway. We know that that’s not your style. I didn’t see the ad in question, but had I seen it I would have blipped that it wasn’t something you would deliberately allow through.
Now on to the navigation on the left side… I think it would be much more effective if it had cannons on it.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:45 am
ps awesome curses. As a big-time cusser I totally support anybody who comes up with cusses beyond the usual f*** and s***.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Speaking as a fellow-fellow-parent, if that mother was really concerned about the ads her children may or may not be seeing on the internet, she should jolly well install Firefox along with the following Add-Ons: Ad-Block Pro, Anidisable, & Flashblock. I have those 3 & I see zero ads offensive or otherwise & it can be like that for them too.
Just sayin’…
June 15th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I know it’s probably not in the same league as the ad that was pulled (which I didn’t see), but I had to laugh at seeing this rant while the banner on the right was showing an ad for a ‘threesome’ t-shirt…
June 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
That particular ad has the advantages of being quite vague enough to skim over the heads of the yung’uns (and myself, actually), and being in no way graphic at all; other than it being an actual graphic.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think phearlez was thinking those excellent curses were caused by Howard’s opinion of the content of the ad, not his opinion of the underhanded manner in which the got it on the page.
That being said, I hope that mother does give the site a second chance. In addition to being family friendly, it is also one of the most consistently funny strips I’ve ever read, and there is actually quite a bit you can learn from reading it. Much like Calvin and Hobbs actually. There I learned “Defenestration”, here I learned “adiabatic.” Any comic that describes a guy as having the attention span of Lawrencium gets an A+.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Personally, I’m looking back at what I remember of the ad. It certainly wasn’t any more risqe than something you’d see on the cover of a magazine at Wal-Mart (although if you read the text, it did go a bit farther). Just one of those things where the mother in question needs to learn to separate the content of the site from its advertisers. If you replied to her e-mail with an explanation of the situation, I’d hope she would be willing to give you a second chance. (whether the kids are allowed to come back after seeing “Elf and the Grunts in the Jungle” is an entirely different matter.
That being said, I certainly understand (and approve of) Howard’s attempts to keep the site “Family Friendly”.
Keep up the good work Howard.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks, Howard.
I wish the NRA was anywhere near as interested in doing the right thing; I’m about to drop my subscriptions since I’m tired of trying to explain to my 8y/o why our shooting magazine is suddenly full of sex and snake oil.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Howard, I’m wondering– do you consider Schlock Mercenary to be appropriate for 8-year-olds?
I have to admit that I find the level of violence in Schlock to be pretty appalling sometimes. I enjoy it as an adult, but I have trouble with the idea that the strip is “family friendly.”
But then, I wouldn’t let my kids have a coloring book made by a munitions company either, so I may just be uptight.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I’ll have to admit, I did see the ad. I didn’t think anything of it; I assumed that all ads are screened, and that the actual product advertised couldn’t be that bad, or it wouldn’t have gone up. I didn’t even suspect for a minute that someone would be so underhanded as to pull the switcheroo. Now I feel bad for not speaking up. :(
June 15th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Never saw it. I run AdBlock on Firefox at all times, so it’s a rare occasion indeed that I see something on any site. Although, I have gone the route of disabling AdBlock and using your site every time I need to get something from Amazon. Being a poor college student, I have little (read: negative) disposable income. I figure this is the least I can do to help.
I would (and do) recommend your site to anyone. It is the most internally and externally consistent sci-fi productions I have ever seen. Keep up the good work.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Lots to respond to… been busy all day.
Enumerated for clarity, not priority:
1) is Schlock Mercenary appropriate for 8-year-olds? No more or less so than a PG-rated cartoon feature. PG stands for “Parental Guidance.” I doubt there’s much on the internet that should by 8-year-olds WITHOUT said guidance.
2) Threesome? Oh. so THAT’s what the t-shirt means. That’s subtle. I’ll let it slide — especially since I did that “gleesome” joke with the gate-cloned wives back in 2002.
3) Adblocking — you know, it shouldn’t be required in order for safe surfing on sites like mine. Since I make money off of ads (and lose money off of people who run adblockers and then don’t ever buy anything) I’m of two minds about ad-blockers. Right now both minds are tired.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Where was the outrage when the ads were for weapons?
I figured those ads were shown because some script or clueless person saw “Mercenary” in the title of the site and assumed such ads would be appropriate. When I saw the ad now in question I was surprised – until I read it. Then I understood why it was on the site. It made even more sense than the “mercenary” ads. I’m sorry you’re not going to accept the money from my click-through.
Howard, I understand that this site is your livelihood and you literally can’t afford to have anyone offended to the point where they won’t return to the site and might complain about it to others, but that’s bound to happen without questionable ads. You’re lucky that person didn’t log in when the gang was running around in the jungle, or right after Kevyn was… er, reassembled.
June 15th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Centauri:
A picture of weapons is a very different thing than an obviously naked couple engaged in amorous activity. Especially given that the name of the site contains “Mercenary”. It would be a very odd webcomic with a name like that that did not have weapons in the comic (and if the comic contains something, blocking ads that contain it would be rather odd).
As to the comic’s “nudity”, there is quite a bit less skin showing than in some malls and definately the beaches (except for the Kevyn-bum shots, but even then there are thongs all over the beaches). It is also a non-photo realistic drawing, where I believe the ad was an actual photo.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I have already demolished the existing skyscraper, and shall shortly put in a park, or perhaps a space elevator.
I know which one I would vote for. But space elevators – while cool – are not very exciting visually. At least ones that are rendered ‘realistic’ are. And if you draw it to scale .. that’s one long web page.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Howard, when Phearlz said what he/she (I have no idea your gender Phearlz, so forgive), I think it wasn’t accusing you of acting out of character, so much as itwas saying that for something to rile you us so much it has to be bad. I have a coule of friends whom I have never heard swear in my life, and if they ever should, I would know that something so divergent from their general mannerisms must be very severe.
I think that’s what they were going for. I must admit that you… Venting… Surprised me as well, but on in that it seemed so VERY heartfelt, and it just was one of those “Whoa, did the pop just tell that dude to go eff off and die?” oments.
It detracts nothing from you, it was just surprising…
June 16th, 2007 at 12:05 am
towards the end, “pop” should have been “Pope”…
I need to sleep more…
June 16th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Amaranthine:
Not weapons in the comic; weapons that used to be advertised on the site. I can’t remember if there were photos of them, but as I recall, there were. I never followed those, so I don’t know what they were really about. They haven’t been up much recently, though I don’t know if that’s because Howard thoughtfully pulled them ot they disappeared in the normal course of things (since I doubt we were the target audience).
It’s a shame we can’t talk about the actual ad and what it was really about. Don’t suppose it would be kosher to post a link to an offsite discussion of it either. Oh, well. I understand Howard’s decision. It’d be like someone pasting gross-seeming ads on the corkboard at the mom-and-pop’s. Just sort of a shame it worked out the way it did.
Oh, and hey, swj719. Good to see you over here too. Small world wide web.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Re: Slartibartfast; according to the footnotes in the published scripts that is indeed so. Mr Tayler, I salute you for consistently producing gloriously inventive material; even your invective shows a creative and wholesome mind.
And kudos for … well … being thoroughly decent in the old fashioned and complimentary sense of the phrase.
I hope the offended one takes the opportunity to reassess the situation – after all, how many web cartoonists would even apologise?
June 16th, 2007 at 5:22 am
I’ll share that hope.
FWIW, I use Safari and the PithHelmet ad blocker. The latter has the ability to disable blocking for a site. The first (and, so far, one of only about three) site that I used that function on was this one.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:00 am
I guess I just didn’t understand the circumstances; from your writing I took it that the advertiser innocently exercised their option to change the image in the ad mid-campaign, which you said is an option open to them from BlogAds. Presumably whatever they were advertising didn’t offend you before they changed the image, it ran on other sites and they weren’t changing the ad solely to put one over on you. Maybe I’m naive but I just usually assume people are behaving without subterfuge unless I have reason to believe otherwise.
So based on that, I assumed you were referring to them in derogatory terms based just on the fact that you find their ad distasteful. That just surprised me. I certainly didn’t mean for you to take offense – I only commented on it because I can’t think of any other ‘internet personalities’ who I have more respect for as kind, thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable than you.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Howard, I commend you. I, for one, greatly appreciate the “family friendly” aspect of your site. I may be 25 (and without kids of my own as yet), but I still prefer to keep my own surfing as “PG” as I can, and you consistently provide that. Your webcomic is one of the few I read that I am sure to enjoy on a regular basis for that reason. That said, even if I *had* seen the ad in question, it would in no way have deterred me from visiting your site in the future, because of your exemplary response to the situation. We all know that “to err is human,” and it’s nearly impossible to get through a day without slipping up in one way or another. I have been a Schlock fan for about a year and a half, and I suspect that I’ll continue to be a near-daily visitor until the day you retire. Thank you for keeping your standards high, and keep up the excellent work!
June 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I use adblock, but only to disable the REALLY irritating ads. There are none of those here on Schlock Mercenary… except BlogAds. I actually blocked it quite a while ago. It was bugging me for some reason.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
While I’m not a fan of advertisements, I can understand the financial reasons for putting them in.
The more annoying ad sites get tossed into my hosts file, and are never seen again after the cache clears. Howard’s sites are not among those in that list. (although BlogAds might end up there. that was a classic bait-n-switch to my mind.)
As far as actual honest to dog weapons being advertised on Schlock? The last one I remember was for the wicked lasers, while not technically a weapon (unless you qualify blinding someone with a class three laser beam as such) was the closest thing I’ve seen. And personally, I don’t think I’d have a problem with having such ads being shown to me.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I believe the point about weapons is a broader one about social values on the whole. Phrased another way, the perspective runs like this: “You’re offended by physical love–which is a wholly natural thing–and the human body–as natural as it gets–but not by something whose sole purpose is to wound, maim, or kill?”
I’m not supporting either side, so turn off your flamethrowers ;) I’m simply shedding some light on the point of the argument. All in all, it comes down to social values.
Howard, your comic would be considered nowhere NEAR family friendly in, say, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, or countless other nations, because of social values regarding violence, bloodshed, etc. The ad wouldn’t even raise eyebrows; in Germany they have–or had–a gameshow that was the equivalent of “Stripping for Marks”, and Paris subway ads contain photos that would be softcore porn in NYC.
All Centauri was trying to do–if I interpret his remarks properly–was shed a different light on things, via the lens of cultural diversity in regards to sex, nudity, violence, and war.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I’ll just chime in to say that I use Firefox and Adblock Plus, and Schlock is the only site to get whitelisted. I didn’t see the add in question, and I probably wouldn’t have paid it any attention. I’ll still look at the ads here to support you and your family.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I use the Proxomitron for ad blocking, set to block javascript, java, and Flash-based ads. Any normal banner ads or Google ads get through just fine. This means I see all the ads on Schlock Mercenary, most of the ads on Keenspot, and very few ads anywhere else.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Well, I’m of two minds on this issue.
On the one hand, being a hormone-drenched early twenty-something, I can’t say I really disapprove or even care about the subject matter of the ad. As such ads went, it was mild, dare I even say it, somewhat tasteful. Moreso than some ads I see run on primetime TV during Law & Order at 9:00 PM.
Plus, being mostly on the liberal side on a lot of issues, I don’t really have much of a head of steam to work up an angry about the content of the ad.
But, pulling a bait-and-switch is another thing. THAT I can get angry about. While I may have loose standards, by which you may read “no standards” as far as what I view, and even loose standards about what I’d allow a ten year old or so to view, Howard does, and I respect that it is his domain, and his choice in the entirety what to run on his page.
That’s perfectly understandable. Hell, to do anything less would be irresponsible! And to pull a bait and switch, by promising one advert and then changing it midstream with no consultation… Is low. It’s really low, in fact I daresay it’s “Special”, and anyone who watches Firefly knows just what kind of “Special” I mean. It’s the kind of irresponsible, scum-sucking, “make a buck at any cost” nonsense that makes me despair for the world.
So, I’m glad BlogAds got pulled. If they understand the gravity of the situation they’re enabling; specifically, allowing websites that are nominally strictly controlled for being child-safe, to get into a position to lose traffic because some schmuck advertiser baited and switched to something sexual, and they REFUSE to change it…
To be perfectly frank, Howard, I think your vitriolic blast was misdirected. The advertisors are losers, low-life snakes that would fit in perfectly at the Parternship Collective, they’re the lowest common denominator. They did only what they can be trusted to do, which was be themselves. They can certainly be faulted for what they are, but not for doing what they are.
BlogAds, on the other hand, deserves a summary boycott because of their refusal to change their policy to prevent this kind of shennanigans from happening again. I will in fact be employing my own ad blocker (something I never employ for non-popups) to catagorically block anything by BlogAds, and I suggest you make a public call for the same.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Just dropping in to say I completely agree with your decision. One of the main reasons I use adblock with firefox is because of ads like that, the scandalous “dating” sites, “enhancements”, etc, etc. I didn’t get to see the ad, probably because I pay little attention to the ads except the top banner, and I’m kinda glad. Those types of ads are also the reason I’ve removed my account on myspace and no longer use yahoo mail. I just can’t see supporting a service which advertises those kinds of “services”.
I honestly don’t see the comic as being 8yr old friendly. Although you do have a very good personal filter, I don’t think I’d want my 8yr old (if I had one) to see some of the violence that has occurred in the archives. On the other hand, even a 21yr old such as myself sometimes doesn’t really care to be pelted with those kinds of ads at every turn.
BTW, I’ll be dropping a few bucks in your paypal next payday, both in support of that decision and cause I want a coloring book!
June 16th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I recall the ad in question, and thought it was a bit much. But then, I thought it had to do with a sci-fi webzine promoting a story, as the claims in the ad were unbelievable anyway, and I recall seeing ads for a sci-fi webzine of some sort in that location. Perhaps I was confused— it certainly wasn’t clear to me exactly *what* product or service the ad was offering, and when an ad on the Internet isn’t clear, I *DON’T* click on it, even if I’m curious. That’s a recipe for all sorts of nastiness that I choose to avoid.
(As a professional ad man for sixteen years, I have to note that a confusing ad is also more often than not a very poor one— but that’s another discussion.)
Having said that, I’m scratching my head a little at what difference there is between the actual content of the ad and the recent jokes and story line in Schlock Mercenary. Over the past few months we’ve had:
1.) Direct references to a sexual relationship between two unmarried characters.
2.) Humor revolving around male anatomy and the removal/recovery of the same.
3.) Naked characters, albeit with the “naughty bits” variously hidden for humorous effect.
4.) A major character having his throat ripped out and his chest blown open, then later engaging in a near-slaughter fest where he is depicted dripping blood on one occasion.
5.) A character depicted half clothed and sitting on a toilet.
Now, personally, I haven’t had all that much objection with any of this (I suppose I could have done without the toilet scene, but that’s just a matter of taste). But as a father of an 11-year-old, I have to say just based on *comic* content, I wouldn’t let him read this site. Schlock Mercenary is certainly clean, hardly ever objectionable, but the fact remains that the themes and ideas presented are adult in nature— not in any sort of pornographic sense, but in the sense that these are the sorts of concepts that adults are able to understand and appreciate because we have the ability to place these ideas within their context, and within the context of our own understanding of what is and isn’t morally acceptable. We do not assume that an action taken by a character in this comic is necessarily the most moral, wise or beneficial action that could be made— or that such an action would be in any way appropriate in the real world.
Children, however, are not as discerning as adults. Their reactions are either excessively black and white (as my son, seeing ads with girls in bikinis, declares them “inappropriate,” with much righteousness and regardless of context), or, if no moral instruction has been offered on a point, thrown into confusion (if the child comprehends the behavior), or simply non-existant as the actions depicted don’t fall into any area of understanding. Thus, a site with adult themes, however clean and tastefully presented, simply isn’t a site for children as they are not able to place the material into an appropriate context for understanding and analysis. For that reason, I would say that Schlock Mercenary is a PG-13 site (not that I think 13 is a magic age of understanding). “Family friendly,” yes. “Family oriented,” no. But I do support Howard in his decision to pull the ad, simply for the reason that he should indeed have approval of whatever runs on his site, period.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I’m more or less happy that the those ads are gone. No particular ad stuck out, but they just in general seemed sort of shady and low quality. I hope you find someone of appropriate quality to replace them.
As for ad blockers, I use ‘Adblock’ with Firefox, but the only things that get added to the block list are ads that:
1. Open a new window
2. Make noise
June 17th, 2007 at 1:19 am
While we may not neccesarily see eye to eye on what content is over the line, I must admit that I agree with everyone saying that switching an add to one more risque with only 2 days left on the contract is kind of shady. Hopefully BlogAds keeps the money that company paid and that they don’t benefit from their actions in this particular instance.
Also, might I suggest another project wonderful tower? I’m really impressed with the the quality and diversity of the sites they advertise for. Especially when it’s webcomics I’ve never heard of before like Looking For Group webcomic. (although i may have seen that one somewhere else…)
June 17th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I made sure to click on a couple of the other ads today.
Hey, does the Firefox thing pay off if it’s just clicked, if there’s a click and a download… or does the install send a little thumbs-up to somebody while you’re looking in the other direction?
June 17th, 2007 at 11:02 am
. But as a father of an 11-year-old, I have to say just based on *comic* content, I wouldn’t let him read this site.
Interesting. I’m the father of a 12-year old (and a 26, 24, 14 and 7-year old) and I’d have no objection to him reading Schlock. The seven-year old – maybe.
It takes all kinds and kids get weird about different things.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
The comic here is definitely rated PG. That means I parents should decide whether or not it is age-appropriate for their children, and should also be prepared to answer lots of questions from their kids.
June 17th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Dude, you had a busy day! Look at all the entrys! Your site is definately family freindly. I’d let my niece and nephews read this (then show off the sketch you did, just to look cool).
All of the negative comments here suck. You’re one of the most descent, and well respected guys in this industry. Having met you, I know what a truly good guy you are. Ok, now off of my soap-box…
June 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
You have my support, Howard. I absolutely respect your decision, and it makes me all the more willing to support Schlock and crew with my hard-earned dollars.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:23 am
The original ads were annoying. I was actually interested in their product, but they were using a “deceptive ad” campaign. One of their ads suckered me in, only to find out their real product. This upset me greatly on one hand, because the ad was not about the product I wanted. It made me chuckle on the other hand, because the actual product was of interest to me.
As the campaign went on, they started slipping in more sex and terror. At least two terror ads would have scared any parent I know.
I try and click on ads that interest me so A) Howard gets money and B) I see more ads that interest me. Using a “deceptive ad” campaign on any website but their own, is stupid in my opinion. It loses them customers who might have been interested and offense customers who are not interested. Especially using terror and sex. These often trigger web filters and angry emails.
If BlogAds will not voluntarily pay Howard damages, and lets this continue, I see problems cropping up in other areas.
-wjb3
P.S. This upset me enough that I registered for another annoying internet password. But WordPress would not allow me to comment without registering.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:15 am
What Monsterhedz said… If Randy over at S*P gushes over you, you HAVE to be a nice guy…
June 19th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Amaranthine: “A picture of weapons is a very different thing than an obviously naked couple engaged in amorous activity.”
I agree. It seems fairly clear that weapons that kill people are much worse than people who love people. Which is worse for children is a question I don’t know how to answer for certain, but I can guess.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:25 am
dfeuer: We hear this argument a lot from people who can’t get enough porn. It’s like this: pictures of weapons, and pictures of people carrying weapons do not incite violence. Pictures of naked people and pictures of naked people engaging in sexual acts DO incite lust.
Graphic violence does desensitize us, to some extent, to violent acts, but even then it lacks the ability to charge us the way pornography does. Repeated exposure to porn insidiously re-wires the pleasure centers so that the victims find themselves LESS able to enjoy a loving relationship.
In order to program someone to be a killer, you have to work pretty hard at it. Modern militaries have gotten very efficient at this, and their techniques demand that participants go “against the grain” of their most human instincts — we are not, by nature, murderous sociopaths. It’s hard to kill.
In order to program someone to be unable to have a healthy, loving relationship you can achieve a high measure of success by just feeding them a steady diet of pornography for a few formative years. They’ll do the rest for you, once they’re addicted.
If pictures of naked people would encourage us all to be more loving, to cherish our spouses, and nobly rear our children, then there would be no rational objection to porn. That, however, is not what it does.