Pink Poogle Toy Forum

*clap clap clap* This was exactly what I was going to say. So what it's sponsored by deodorant. It's mainly about strong women through history (And whether anyone wants to believe it or not, Mother Theresa was a great woman, no matter what your religion. She is not in there promoting Christianity, she's in there because she was a great and wonderful woman.) and their accomplishments. I think it's a great game, especially for preteen and teen girls.

I honestly find it disturbing- Sure, it educates people about these noble historical figures, but I find it disgraceful that these women should be used as part of an advertisement for deodorant. After all, do you think that Mother Teresa would say "I will feed the hungry and Sparkle Deodorant the smelly?"

Heh, I don't care. I just play those kind of sponsor games for np. (unless i miss 'em )

Anyone remember the Kelly Clarkson movie sponsor game? 'What is the best movie?'

Oh, she says that? Oh that's right, she doesn't. It doesn't matter who it's sponsered by, it no where says the women actually use the product. Although I'm sure you would probably feel differently if it were sponsered by say...candy? It doesn't make any sense to be so against something that does such good for small girls to learn about these strong women in history.

So if they started up tobacco ads with Gandhi lighting up or an ad of Martin Luther King Jr. for preperation H, it'd be all good because they're good people?

Ok, first of all, comparing tobacco and preperation H with girls deodarant is reaaaaaally stupid concidering they're not on the same page. Secondly, I do believe I said none of the women in the quiz are said to actually use the product so your comparasion of "Gandhi lighting up" is irrelivent. Thirdly, I do not understand the problem with deoderant. Is it some icky girls thing or what?

Well, they're not actually showing these women using their product. Although, I'm pretty sure that tiny detail wouldn't appease anti-tobacco companies if they had Gandhi in an ad... *continues to straddle her fence*

I have no problem with girls deoderant. What's your problem with Preperation H?

I just don't feel that a great woman should be exploited like this. Do you honestly believe a girl will now strive to become a better person because she saw Mother Theresa on that quiz, or will she just start to associate her with some of the other slutty, no talent popprincess in the same "Great Women" quiz.

Personaly I'm more annoyed that they're comparing hillary duff and anne frank. I don't think that people like Susan B Anthony need to "sparkle" to be important. Nor do I consider many of the women chosen to be particularly "strong" That said I still play the game and it's easy np.

Note on the tobacco argument:
Even leaving the marketing to childern aspect out of it, the comparison is frankly misleading. Implying that the ads would show people using, meaning endorsing the product makes it very different from the example, of deodernt, we are considering.

Would an adult directed tobacco sponsored history triva game be generaly accepted? Why yes it would. It would probably cast a more positive light on tobacco advertising.

Which is not to say that you have to think it's totaly appropreate to use historical figures as corpeate shills.

So back to the important stuff

Who would actualy want to use glittery deoderent? I thougth the whole point of deoderent was to be as invisible as possible

I've played the game a few times. I see nothing wrong with it. It's much better than some of the other sponser games out there. Rather than shoving the product in your face (as other sponser games have done). The game isn't even about the product. It's a trivia game about "Strong Women Who Sparkle" they're not trying to say that any of these women in the game use the product or endorse it, they're saying that these are women that didn't take a backseat in life and deserved to be recognized. While playing the game, the only indication that it even is a sponser game is the logo in the corner of the window. They could have made it an in-your-face game that screams "Buy our product!" but they didn't. They made it a game that teaches you something worth knowing, while subtly displaying their logo.
Why is it so bad? If they had tried to imply that Mother Theresa did use the product, then that would just be stupid. But they're doing nothing of the sort. As far as her presence there is concerned, I'm not a Christian, and I'm not offended. It wasn't her religion that made her great, it was her acts.
For some reason I don't look at it as "We're using Mother Theresa to advertise our product." Because they're really not, it's more like "We're using our money and our product to help make people aware of these great women, Mother Theresa included."
Yoplait yogurt has the "Pink lids to save lives" campaign. You eat the yogurt, and mail back the pink foil lid, and for each lid they give 10 cents to the Susan G. Koman breast cancer foundation. Are they exploiting cancer to sell their product? Or are they just putting their name on something for a good cause?

Yes, but maybe Susan B. Anthony would have been more popular if her underarms sparkled like the morning dew...

The game has been taken off the site, but...

Frankly, the game didn't bother me. The ad did. Not because it was for deodorant, but because it was sparkly deodorant.

I mean. What's the point of sparkly deodorant? Are you going to flirt with a guy through your nice sparkly smelly 'pits? No. (Unless you're weirder than I am.)

Or is it supposed to be all, "Oh, YOUR armpits don't sparkle prettily, like ours do. You freak! You can't join the club! Get away before you contaminate my trendy clothes and wonderfully sparkly 'pits!"

*Blinks*

LOL I think it's to appeal to Preteen girls. Honestly. I remember being in junior high and buying that sort of stuff. Boy was I silly.

It's in case you lose your bathing suit top in a pool, people's attention will be drawn to your sparkly pits shimmering in the sun, rather than your.. erm.. embarrassment.

I will retract every single one of my previous statements, just so I can agree with Alex.