Dear Huggies GoodNites: Bad Advertising Means ALWAYS Having To Say You're Sorry

So the ad agency that made those horrible, skeevy Korean Huggies ads? They e-mailed us about the post that we wrote about their horrible, skeevy ad. They are very sad about that post:

(What follows is completely unedited. Because we just couldn't improve upon it. Too bad the same can't be said about their advertising campaigns.)

Dear Mr./Ms.

RE: http://www.thebadmomsclub.com/2010/02/dear-goodnites-i-prefer-my-diaper-fail-to-involve-messy-cleanup-not-um-this.html

The main reason is we did not expect people to feel this negatively about this ad.

If you can pull "rope" ad we would really appreciated it. If not we understand.

Truly, our intention was a parody to a designer underwear ads. We would never want to exploit children in any way what so ever.

We are very sorry for all this inconvenience.

Best Regards,

Person Who Reports To The Person Who Made This Ad But Totally Didn't Mean To OMG Please Don't Let Me Get Fired. (Name changed to protect the the totally not innocent but very possibly litigious.)

(*ahem*)

Dear Mister/Miss

The main reason is that we did respond negatively. Truly, our intention was to show that "a parody to a designer underwear ads" involving children necessarily exploits children, because parodying designer underwear ads is just a few degrees removed from parodying porn, and, well, you know. David Beckham pulling his rope is not a visual metaphor for his enjoyment of rollicking games of tug-o-war at family picnics. It's David Beckham pulling his rope.

Wait - what - did you say that you want us to "pull" the rope? We see what you did there.

We're also very sorry for all this inconvenience, but we won't be "pulling" the rope. You understand. We're not that kind of blog.

Best Regards,

The People Who Think That You Really Need To Read Our Bodies, Our Selves, And Also Madonna's Sex Book And Then Keep Those Waaay Down The Shelf Away From The Beatrix Potter.

Comments

[Robin O'Bryant]

HAHAHA! Love your letter!

[TwoBusy]

Please tell me that it's a Korean agency, and English is their second language.

[Patois]

Score!

[sashalyn]

you guys are THE BEST.

[zchamu]

There are so many points at which they could have drawn the line and still done a parody without being nasty. Like.. did nobody think "hey, maybe covering a toddler in body oil might be a little excessive?"

[*Pixie* @ ArtistMotherTeacher.com]

You are awesome.

[Julie @ The Mom Slant]

So they're sorry for the inconvenience...to whom? Themselves - for having to deal with the fallout of an ad that shows terrible judgment at best.

[Heide]

Love it!

[Angi]

FABULOUS!

[Mrs. Flinger]

HEARHEAR! Love it.

[RBlanco]

Dicen en una primera respuesta que la fotografía no estaba pensada para ser publicada y que un empleado la subió a Internet.

El caso es que esa fotografía -digan los que digan los publicistas y la empresa que encargó la publicidad-, fue hecha. Que contiene un alto grado de erotismo, que al ser su protagonista un niño, raya con lo pornográfico y que quienes la han hecho o encargado, deberían pagar con toda la fuerza de la ley, no ya la publicación, sino el haber hecho esa fotografía publicada y las que, posiblemente, han quedado por publicar.

Con los derechos de los niños y niñas no sirven excusas, ni se juega.