Years back, at least one PC game mag (Computer Gaming World I believe) had a few pages of porno ads in the back of the mag. It made me uncomfortable, and not in a good way.

Can't say I'm too surprised. Plenty of general readership magazines run ads for porno or dodgy phone lines in the back. And before the tobacco ad ban, pretty much every magazine had ciggie ads in them without any kind of age warning. As far as I know, the only magazines with formal certfication are ones with DVDs/demos on the cover that legally have to be certified.

"Although, to be fair, it says more about owner Rupert Murdoch than it says about Britain as a whole."

I don't think it does. The Sun is the top-selling newspaper in Britain.

Okay, so I agree that a warning of some kind might be warranted, but removing the ads entirely? Are you of the opinion that only children play video games and therefore the ads are inappropriate to the target audience? The fact is, there are just as many adults playing video games as there are children (if not more) and there is no reason that a video game magazine can't be targeted at the adult gamer demographic. If you don't like the content in the magazine, then don't buy it.

I wonder, considering the guy knew what his kid was buying when he sent her in "under cover", isn't he technically contributing to the delinquency of a minor by making her do that?

And it shows. "Nearly as repressed as Americans" shows how little you know. Similarly the comment about page-three girls from a country with a highly-developed pornographic industry.

"...a highly-developed pornographic industry."

Are you, as they say, taking the piss?

Cog, fair questions. While I'm well aware there are plenty of adults playing videogames, there are also plenty of children. This diversity of demographics is partly why we have ESRB ratings in the US and Certification in the UK. So if Imagine isn't going to apply that distinction to their magazine -- some content is appropriate for all ages and other content isn't appropriate for children -- then they need to assume a significant part of their audience consists of children. And if they assume that, they need to behave responsibly by not hawking pornography to children.

Also, the concerned father did not let his daughter have the magazines she bought. That would be like conducting a sting operation against stores that sell alcohol to minors and then getting your operatives drunk to reward them!

Ah, I see what you mean. I meant that the US had a highly-developed industry. Insert full stop after girls, add 'Coming from a person'. Mea culpa.

Gotta say, the ads themselves don't display any explicit material after checking the link. They're normally small 5cm by 5cm spots that I would be surprised if anyone actually noticed. I would assume that access to the material requires some sort of proof of age as they appear to be for phone lines and titillating mobile phone download service. It's still not acceptable in magazines that may well be aimed at an under-age market, but it's hardly uncommon to see such adverts over here.

Imagine may not actually be responsible for the advertising material either, it may well be that an external company organises adverts for their magazines. They should have been more careful and vetted the material, of course.

I'll have to admit that even despite the ESRB ratings I've gotten caught off guard myself. Basically b/c one company's mature rating for one game was much tamer than the mature rating for another. It was very inconsistent and shocked me when I played the game before my children were in bed. I hope I'm not stereotyping, but sometimes I wonder if marketers for the games and the fanmag's are thinking their primary audience are youth with developing hormones.

Albionian, not to be a dick about it but calling the American pornographic industry "highly developed" is a profound mistatement. It's actually been fragmenting since the mid eighties as large studios find it harder and harder to remain financially solvent and budgets drop precipitously. While Southern California remains a bastion of porn studios there are plenty of operations, round the world, to rival it. But the point still stands that you're arguing a sort of "cultural superiority" on behalf of a Rupert Murdoch publication. You're also arguing the sexual maturity of a culture still obsessed with the politic of gender and sexuality but wholly unwilling to discuss it openly. Consider the application of reparations following the Dudgeon decision. The only part of the case handled by the British courts involved tacit discrimination against the plaintiff on what were clearly grounds of his sexuality. But that's a huge digression, and way old, so I tip my hat. We lack your topless photos of women in magazines. That and Benny Hill exemplify your cultural maturity. Well done sir.

Also, Imagine damn well better be responsible for their advertising. That's where the majority of their publication's money is coming from, and they should be very, very concerned with what they're advertising in their magazine and how their readers and other sponsors are going to respond to it.

As for the discussion proper, I think this is kind of a strange gray area. I know that in America ads like that would banned, pretty cut and dry, for presenting puerile material in a fashion which makes it readily accessible to minors. Still, it's tough to try and expand that argument to encompass things like liquor and cigarettes. Think about Time and Newsweek and, to a greater extent, lifestyle magazines like Cosmo and GQ. It's undeniable that minors not have both ready access to these magazines and an active interest in the subject matter but these ads (at least for liquor) still feature prominently in our cultural landscap, both in and out of these publications. It's a little bit silly to argue that a new standard should be applied to sub-culturally focused magazines, especially when the cover of the magazine in question is advertising material that I think we can all agreed shouldn't be readily available to minors.

I also want to say that I know very little about the British protections of speech as applied to print, but judging by the famed third page of the Sun it's probably a good ammount better protected there (although I understand their libel laws, oddly enough, can be expanded to prevent parody).

It brings us all back to a difficult argument, one without an easy solution. We're part of a growing subculture encompassing many age groups, and we want to be able to include as many people as possible in our cultural discourse. But when the consensus seems to be that kids shouldn't be playing the games these magazines are covering in the first place is it really that great a stretch to say that their advertising should start to target the adults who, theoretically, already make up the majority of their audience?

It's a tough line to walk, but I think we can all agree that providing alcohol as an incentive to help minors participate in sting operations is an objectively awesome idea.

I think the ironic thing is that which is called "adult material" would have attracted me, & I presume my peers, as an adolescent now seems at best a distraction in later years. As an adult for some time I find the words "mature rating" to be oxymoronic. Titillilation does work across multiple demographics I guess, but again it seems that marketers aim just above the heads of pubescents with hopes they will miss.

My point wasn't cultural superiority, it was the strange standard set by the author of the article in first making a snide aside about page three girls and then claiming the British are nearly as sexually repressed as the British. Unless he is actually an ex-pat I would say those comments demonstrate a lack of understanding.

That in addition to a pornographic industry within his country that still appears to me to be turning out huge amounts of money.

When I said responsible, I meant that Imagine may well not choose the adverts that appear. However, as I said, they should have vetted the adverts regardless.

Lastly, nice of you to say you won't be churlish about it and then proceed to be churlish.

"As for the discussion proper, I think this is kind of a strange gray area. I know that in America ads like that would banned, pretty cut and dry, for presenting puerile material in a fashion which makes it readily accessible to minors. "

Bear in mind that the UK has two weekly magazines, Nuts and Zoo, that are very definitely aimed at minors (well, teens including those under the age of consent) which primarily feature pictures of topless women. There's even a daily paper, the Sport, which is a cross between the National Enquirer and a porn mag.
Decency/obscenity laws are much less strictly enforced on this side of the Atlantic, at least when it comes to anything short of hardcore porn.

"Also, Imagine damn well better be responsible for their advertising. That's where the majority of their publication's money is coming from"

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It may well be true, but subscription/cover price revenue is much, much more important to UK magazines than in the US. Basically distribution costs are lower (on a per reader basis) and the sale price is higher, so you don't get the same kind of loss-leader-to-boost-ad-revenues approach. Play, for instance, costs about £5 per issue at the newsagent.

FWIW, Imagine's advertising sales is done in-house.

Britons are nowhere near as sexually repressed as Americans. Not even close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFi2GWrliDA

Ginger - I was totally unaware. I actively avoid magazines when I can, and I'm only really familiar with them in regards to how they relate to book sales in America (large stores take a loss on magazine sales in order to draw people in). Still, thanks for the lesson. It's always interesting about publishing models and laws involving content restraint.

Yeah, I think it's a fascinating subject (well, I am a jouno, after all). In the wake of the EGM closure, there was a lot of discussion of the Edge formula in the UK (high quality paper, design and editorial, very high cover price), and why it wouldn't really work in the US. If you go back and listen to some of the podcasts from back then, you might find it interesting.