What horrifies me about this is the normalisation of porn. Accept for a moment everything Jimbo says, that scat porn is just another form of entertainment and parents should regard it as a necessary part of life's rich tapestry. Obviously, I don't accept this, but arguendo.
Even in a world in which scat porn is in general circulation amongst adults, since when did a conservative company with a wide customer and stakeholder base like the Coca Cola company use it as a marketing tool? Were scat porn to be saleable in the UK, which is debatable at best, it would quite clearly have an R18 certificate. I doubt that Coca Cola would use 18, never mind R18 material in any other context. Somehow, once the words Facebook' and Internet' are used, a company which wouldn't dream of showing a racy picture of a lady's cleavage in soft focus to sell product is suddenly up for hideous filth.
That sociopaths in Hoxton are currently amused by this is irrelevant: Coca Cola is probably not, overall, keen to associate their brand with pornography, and the vast majority of their customers and shareholders will not see this as a bad thing. What is the failure of thinking that sees a company whose advertising would usually get a U certificate suddenly waving filth in front of children?
One problem is that `The Internet' is somehow seen as different, and a horrible lowest common denominator attitude is taken. Another is that advertising agencies are vying with each other to seem edgy, and advertising purchasers are reluctant to seem fusty. I plan to write to the agency's customers, which they helpfully list, asking them why they are doing business with people who promote filth: its legality is irrelevant, rather the question of if Cadbury and Virgin think that scat porn is part of their brand proposition, and if the risk that their advertising might allude to it unbeknownst to them is worth running.
But at root this is about normalisation. What material people might watch in the privacy of their own homes is one thing. But the material large companies associate with their brand is quite another. Coca Cola are now a company that encourages fourteen year olds to explore fetish porn: whether that is illegal or not is irrelevant to the question of what that makes prospective customers think of them. And the answer should be that Coca Cola's promotion of pornography to minors should be indelibly associated with them. People who buy their products should be aware of that.