Thursday, July 29, 2010

I don't get it...

I am consistently seduced by the art direction of magazines like Country Living. Although there aren't too many of these home decor mags on the stands these days, the photos never fail to mesmerize me...Muted toned dining rooms like this:

Gorgeous table settings like this:

Fabulous and restorative porches like this:

And then, just as you are about to be lulled into complete design bliss, you turn the page and your eyes are assaulted by this:


AAaack!
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me what the hell these ads are doing in Country Living magazine? Do the readers of C.L. actually buy this cr*p? I'm thinking there is a serious disconnect on the demographic. I could also bring up the topic of what the design meeting for these "babies" must have sounded like, but it makes me want to set my hair on fire. It's (almost) enough to put me off M&M's for life. Almost.

15 comments:

Rose H (UK) said...

OMG! You're quite right, it's so awful :o(

Janet said...

LOL I'm falling off my chair laughing!

svelteSTUFF said...

OH! Those Ashton Drakes are HORRIBLE!!

Joan@anythinggoeshere said...

I totally agree! I guess the magazines have to get their revenue where ever they kind, but Yikes! xo Joan@anythinggoeshere

Tamera @ the Stone Fence Cottage said...

OMG--that's EXACTLY what I thought when I saw the ad in the magazine!!
CREEEEE-PEEEEE

Kari said...

its more Ashton Drakes fault than M&M's. There is a huge population of women who collects these realistic type of dolls. Its big business. A lot of them never tell anyone they even collect.. Most only have a few at a time as the silicone's are typically about 2,000. I know all this because I used to sculpt dolls and made really good money at it. But all of it REALLY got to me so I had to quit. The mass consumerism of it all...shiver. Still kinda makes me sick and that was four years ago. CL is definitely their demographic! Heck most magazines would be, this is the second collectible right after mens something or another.

Janelle said...

Oh, you are SO right! LOLOL!

laurie -magpie ethel said...

I always make fun of those ads...and I love the fine print of three easy payments of $??? - they are always so overpriced, besides the creep factor. You won't find me collecting those...and you KNOW I like to collect!

RITA DECO - Vintage and Fabulous Finds! said...

These would make great dog toys.

Amber Von Felts said...

I was lulled into your post until that picture popped up! Blarg, those are horrible! I push him back down into that bowl of candy and hold him under until he stopped kicking...um...sorry, I just went off the deep end!

Vonlipi said...

I feel the same way! That is a really weird ad...scary M&M's baby!

Vintage Christine said...

I think I'd rather find a cockroach in my bowl of M&M's than one of those creepazoid babies! From the way it's being dangled maybe she thought it WAS some kind of icky
mutant!

Robin said...

Well, here's my theory. Within the demographic that loves country interiors there are the folks who still love those geese with the ribbons around their necks (think 1980 bad country via China import). I think the ribonny geese folks may be the target market for creepy M&M babies that you hold by the scruff of their neck like a mother cat holds its kitten. But I could be wrong. -R.

DogsMom said...

I am going to have to find that ad in my magazines, tear it out, frame it and in 10 years it will be highly collectible for the horror of it.
Not only are the dolls ugly but the costuming is worse. How could M&M allow licensing to that!

Goes along with their ad about "inserting" a pretzel into the M&M person.
Not the wholesome candies of my youth (with red dye number #)

Jennifer Worick said...

Thanks for that. Another scary baby to haunt my nightmares.