Comics I Don’t Understand

Things really have changed since the Flintstones’ time

Cidu Bill on May 26th 2010

Filed in Bill Bickel, Flintstones, YouTube, cartoons, cigarettes, commercials, television | 36 responses so far

36 Responses to “Things really have changed since the Flintstones’ time”

Danny Boy (London Derriere) May 26th 2010 at 07:01 am 1

It’s what’s up front that counts.

That sure sounds dirty nowadays. But probably meant to be suggestive but deniable back originally.
Nicole May 26th 2010 at 07:20 am 2

I saw this ad a short time ago and was struck by how it taught kids how to sneak a cigarette
Mark Jackson May 26th 2010 at 07:26 am 3

Nicole, it’s *not* teaching kids how to sneak a cigarette. It’s just encouraging kids who *already* sneak cigarettes to switch to Winstons. Perfectly harmless advertising. Nothing socially irresponsible to see here, move along.
Nicole May 26th 2010 at 07:42 am 4

Mark Jackson @ 3

Oh Duh … what was I thinking

This also reminds me of the cartons of cigarettes with Santa on them smoking — I think they were Kools — likewise , just advertising to Santas the world over.
GP May 26th 2010 at 08:00 am 5

I would have assumed it was teaching husbands how to sneak cigarette breaks. The Flintstones wasn’t a kids’ show (at least, not originally).
furrykef May 26th 2010 at 08:09 am 6

Heh, you guys are just now discovering this? I first heard of this ages ago, so it was only a matter of time before I looked for it on YouTube.

I don’t think this is really analogous with the Joe Camel thing (with the whole “teaching kids to smoke” affair) because cartoons used to have more respectability, so it wasn’t too unusual for adults to watch cartoons (though I’m sure it depended on the cartoon). Of course, today that’s still the case with shows like The Simpsons, and The Flintstones was basically the Simpsons of its time. It was a prime-time TV program — it’s kind hard to imagine the Flintstones being prime-time material now, isn’t it? — and they probably didn’t see advertising cigarettes with cartoon characters any different from advertising with live-action prime-time characters.

But times sure do change, though. But if studying Latin has taught me anything, it’s that life as a whole doesn’t change so much. You can read stuff written by Ancient Romans that basically goes, “Kids these days! They don’t know what they’re doin’, the world’s goin’ to hell, I used to walk ten miles to school in the snow uphill both ways…” — some things never change.

- Kef
Nicole May 26th 2010 at 08:22 am 7

GP @5 … In Amercia, if it is animated it is for kids. I am an animation fan, and have seen many kids at animation festivals very clearly labeled “Not suitable for children” . I very clearly remember watching the Flintstones as a child.

I have no doubt that this ad was aimed at children. These are the same people who would advertise cigarettes by claiming doctors recommended a specific brand, and that a particular brand was soothing to the throat. They not only ignored data that proved their product was harmful, they hid that data. These people have no shame.

BTW — IMHO — the Simpson’s is NOT a children’s show in any way. (who knew I was such a prude)
padraig May 26th 2010 at 09:41 am 8

Yeah, it was wrong of Fred and Barney to smoke, but fortunately it turns out Flintstone vitamins cure cancer.
zaphodb42 May 26th 2010 at 10:05 am 9

Nicole,

I agree with you in general, but I wanted to point out a few things.

Actually, two of the biggest shows in prime time in the early 60’s were The Flintstones and The Jetsons (simply a space age Flintstones developed because of the first series’ massive success in prime time).

I know it’s hard to imagine now, but so are cigarette ads on TV: it was a very different world. I watched the Flintstones as a kid too, but since I was born in ‘64, that’s well after it was off of prime time and, because television was so much more innocent then, it fit into Saturday mornings just right. As did WB cartoons made for adults back in the 40’s and 50’s. (In fact, that’s what I think makes the original WB cartoons so funny and timeless–they weren’t made for kids, they were made for all ages.)

All animation in this country isn’t made for kids, but that belief is why so many cartoons that shouldn’t be for kids are seen by them (Simpsons included, but I was thinking more of South Park and Ren & Stimpy, two shows I would never let kids watch). Parents who don’t pay attention to what their kids watch think it’s ok if they see that it’s animated. And because of the marketing of the characters, kids want the t-shirt or doll of what they saw on TV. They might not even watch the show, just the ads, or just seen their parents laugh at it.

It’s another place parents have to keep an eye on what they kids are watching, not just glancing. I agree that the Simpsons is not for children, but compared to Family Guy, American Dad, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, South Park, Robot Chicken, etc, it’s actually quite tame and has some social values every now and then, if just to illustrate how not to act.

All of that being said, I agree that the tobacco companies aim all their advertising to kids. It’s a product that, if the person is using it, they don’t need to be told to keep smoking–they’re addicted. They just might want them to switch brands. It’s aimed at kids because, no one older than their teens or 20’s is going to say, “Hey I think I’ll take up cigarettes in my 30’s. It’s cool!” Tobacco companies know they need to get their customers addicted when they’re young, before they have enough experience to see the downsides of smoking.
Karen May 26th 2010 at 10:05 am 10

Nicole. I agree with you about the Simpsons. And I loved watching the Simpsons. It cracks me up, and I still use lines from it in my daily conversations (”You don’t win friends with salad!”). That said, once I had kids, I didn’t watch it anymore. Most of the time the kids are around when I would be watching TV, and I do not want them watching it. Heck, I wasn’t watching The Simpsons at their age.

You know it’s funny, I once knew a guy from a very fundamentalist Christian family, whose dad wouldn’t let them watch “Alf”. He said it was because the father figure wasn’t respected, or authortitative enough. Yet this same dad loved the Simpsons and watched it with his kids. Who knew that Homer Simpson was an acceptable father figure compared to Willy from Alf?
Daniel J. Drazen May 26th 2010 at 10:31 am 11

As a Codger, I actually remember this commercial, as well as another one where Fred dives into the washing machine to retrieve his pack of smokes. But since one of my chores growing up was to keep the ashtrays empty around the house, I never picked up the habit.
Elyrest May 26th 2010 at 11:53 am 12

I’ve seen this commercial on YouTube before and laughed at what people would make of it now. I watched The Flintstones in it’s original run and never batted an eye at them smoking. Cigarettes were everywhere and none of the kids I knew were going to be influenced to smoke by a cartoon. I never thought the ads were aimed at me since only adults smoked and I wasn’t an adult. My Mom smoked and I hated the ashtrays (although I never had to empty them) and the smoke, but I didn’t think too much about them because they were everywhere. Mom stopped smoking when cigarettes went up to 50 cents a pack and year later she would always bring up how much money she has saved over the years.
Scott May 26th 2010 at 12:38 pm 13

I watched the Flintstones as a kid - and they were more of a ripoff of The Honeymooners than a show aimed at kids directly. I also watched The Dick van Dyke show, and I have a DVD full of old ads showing Rob and Laura lighting up in an in-character cigarette ad. Before that I have Lucy and Desi pushing cigarettes (and cars and appliances) in character.

Shows meant for kids were filled with misleading toy ads, not cigarette ads.
paperboy May 26th 2010 at 02:05 pm 14

Nicole#4- “This also reminds me of the cartons of cigarettes with Santa on them smoking — I think they were Kools — likewise , just advertising to Santas the world over.” Really?? When? I ask because Stan Freberg did a “consumerism-Christmas” satire called “Green Christmas”,circa late ’50’s, where an ad-executive pitches his idea of having Santa smoking a cigarette, and it was supposed to be laughably outrageous.

I watched the Flintstones, and lots of other T.V. as a kid, but, for some reason, I and my siblings were anti-smoking, and kept nagging our smoking parents to quit. I don’t know what influenced us; either the anti-smoking ads of the early ’60’s, or maybe we were “rebelling”.
Nicole May 26th 2010 at 02:23 pm 15

Paperboy #4 … yep really , these aren’t the ones I remember but they make the point
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/friday_photo/friday_phohohoto_santa_smoking_103915.asp

Elyrest #11 and Scott #12. Companies have been doing ‘branding’ for many years. Studies show that young children can’t tell the difference between a television show and a commercial. Certainly the cigarette companies knew that children would be watching the show, and see the shows character’s smoking a specific brand. I am sure many kids started smoking Winston’s because of comercials like this one.

zaphodb42 #8 … What I meant was that most Americans view anything as animated as fare for children. You are of course correct, the best children’s programming is that which can be enjoyed by adults as well. I remember watching Looney Tunes as I matured, some of the double entendres and references became clear to me, and they were funny all over again. The humor in those cartoons were far more clever and at times subtle than anything comercially produced today . And a Happy belated towel day to you.
Mark in Boston May 26th 2010 at 03:46 pm 16

Back then just about all prime-time shows were aimed at children. Gunsmoke, Dick van Dyke, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Munsters, Red Skelton, The Man From Uncle, Mr. Ed, My Favorite Martian, you name it — all with simplistic plots and easy laughs. And all with cigarette ads and car ads.
PeterW May 26th 2010 at 04:05 pm 17

The Flintstones was not “for children.” It was in prime time, and therefore a show for “the whole family.” Back then, “family” meant the parents and the kids together, as opposed to today when “family” is code for “this show will babysit your kids.”
wordlass May 26th 2010 at 04:12 pm 18

Actually, I think the Flintstones was family viewing. And remember, this was the late 50’s, before smoking was considered a social or physical evil (though I agree with DD @11 — I hated the smell and wanted my parents to quit). The advertisers didn’t need to market to the kiddies — they had plenty of adults on the line already, and all the kids needed to do was follow in their parent’s footsteps. Which, presumably, they would. Because why wouldn’t they?
ty May 26th 2010 at 04:15 pm 19

Because, you know, kids buy so many cars.
Whalehead King May 26th 2010 at 04:23 pm 20

You read my mind and beat me to it ty.
Pinny May 26th 2010 at 05:08 pm 21

Re: #13 (Scott)

“I also watched The Dick van Dyke show, and I have a DVD…”

Could one refer to a a DVD of Dick van Dyke shows as a “DVD DVD”?
Marshal May 26th 2010 at 06:31 pm 22

Now days it is called product placement. They just did it differently back
in the 50’s and 60’s. The Andy Griffith Show did something similar with
the different products that sponsored it.

Do a search on youtube for “Andy Griffith show commercial” and see what I mean.
.
Nicole May 26th 2010 at 09:38 pm 23

Yes the Flinstones was for ‘family viewing’ even though my parents never watched it while I did. But what is the point, do you think that dad told their kids “you know you shouldn’t smoke” while he lit up ?
Nicole May 26th 2010 at 09:41 pm 24

TY @19 — back then a pack of cigarettes were almost nothing (sorry I don’t remember how much) … what I do remember is that my mother would send me to the drug store to buy some for her when I was about 10, the cashier asked if they were for me, I said no and she sold them to me. It was very easy for a kid to buy cigarettes then
Elyrest May 26th 2010 at 10:18 pm 25

Cigarettes cost about 35 cents a pack in 1960.
mitch4 May 27th 2010 at 01:20 am 26

Relating to what Marshal points out at #22, before they were forced to semi-disguised product placement, TV shows were open to a more substantial sense of sponsorship. On talk and variety shows, it was not that unusual to have the star or sidekick be spokesperson / presenter for the commercial sponsor. And sometimes for live or live-to-tape shows, the pitch would be from the regular desk or podium, and have just a spoken transition to and from the regular program.
mitch4 May 27th 2010 at 01:24 am 27

Even a few years later, in 1968 and 1969, it was still under 50 cents a pack. I remember stopping at the 7-eleven on my way to or from my Post Office summer job and sliding my $5 bill across the counter to get a carton (10 packs) of Kools, which I would squirrel away in the messy trunk of my loaner jalopy.
Powers May 27th 2010 at 06:59 am 28

So apparently, since kids might be watching, all advertising is aimed at kids?
zaphodb42 May 27th 2010 at 08:49 am 29

Nicole #15–why thank you, and belated happy Towel Day to you as well.
Nicole May 27th 2010 at 08:50 am 30

Powers @ 28

No, but I think that it is safe to say that a ‘Family Show’ that attracts a large audience of children would have ads aimed at children.
Marshal May 27th 2010 at 12:08 pm 31

Powers,
Now days 18 to 49 seems to be what they are shooting for.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/tv-ratings-nielsen-overnight-tv-show-ratings
Marshal May 27th 2010 at 12:19 pm 32

Mitch4,
A good example would be Ed McMahon on The Tonight Show and
Don Wilson on The Jack Benny Show. Although both had other
duties they also did commercials.
.
Powers May 28th 2010 at 08:47 am 33

Nicole @30

Presumably, then, they would also have ads aimed at adults, right? So how can everyone be so certain that the Flintstones were asked to shill for Winston cigarettes in order to appeal to kids?

Powers &8^]
Nicole May 28th 2010 at 10:55 am 34

Powers @33

Of course it would be crazy to suggest that cigarette companies would target children with ads featuring characters from a cartoon show that millions of kids watch. Cigarette companies have always been honorable in how they market their product.

Can I be 100% sure … no. But given the track record of tobacco companies, it seems likely that they would not hesitate to target ads at children watching the show.
NitricAcid May 28th 2010 at 01:36 pm 35

I seem to recall reading that the first season of the Flintstones was aimed at adults (or the whole family), and had the cigarette company as its main sponsor. Later seasons were more child-oriented, and sponsored by a grape juice company (even as a kid I noticed that Fred drank Cactus Coolers or something silly like that, but Pebbles -always- drank grape juice).
Powers May 29th 2010 at 09:21 am 36

Don’t bother with facts, NitricAcid; they only get in the way.