First glance, they look like they are the epitome of altruism, helping poor, needy, pink skinned, blue-eyed children who can't even afford Ben 10 or Barbie Elastoplasts.
And look! In case you didn't get the message that they help children, it is reinforced by a picture of a dog:
Surely they must indeed be a worthy cause, for why otherwise would they have a picture of a dog?
In fact, this isn't a charity, but a business which aims to get you to give them your old stuff so that they can sell it on for a profit.
I haven't got a problem with that per se, but it does try and emulate charitable organisations, and it's only when you notice there's a company number at the bottom rather than a charity reference, you realise.
It's even got the dodgy spelling that real charity fliers have.
Personally, I tend to give my old stuff away (if it's one of those rare items that I haven't destroyed doing whatever it is I do that turns clothes into rags within weeks) to charities like the Salvation Army, because they go directly to people who need them, rather than via a shop or agency.
This one is a bit cynical mind, although it defends itself by saying it provides clothes to the less well off.
This is true. If they pay for them.
I'm not here to bang on about faux chariddy, but it was the marketing technique of this one that got me thinking. Obviously, someone has read that cute things have big eyes and outsize heads, playing on our inherent protective instincts of infantile things. From this, they have decided that the dog must be photoshopped to have an even bigger head and bigger eyes than you might find in the real world.
Because, obviously, you can't find a picture of a genuine cute puppy anywhere, can you?
Look at this one though:
A normal picture of a real one would've been better, even if it is one of those tiny dogs which are supposed to be fluffy and white but have those horrible reddy-orange patches where they constantly drool, lick or piss on themselves.
So I wonder where cute ends and hideous begins. Probably the cutest thing I've ever seen on the internet is that Slow Loris being tickled. It's got the big eyes, the gentle demeanour and the appropriate baby-like visage to bring out all the gooeyness in you.
The makers of Shrek got it down pat with Puss in Boots:
What about stuff people have phobias about. Is a baby snake cute? A spider?
I think that's fairly cute.
This however, was supposed to be, but misses the mark by an order of ew:
What are they trying to do? Encourage little girls to hate babies?
Of course some humans, who worry about what they look like because they no longer have to worry about eating or being eaten, notice when someone else is cuter than they are and then try and increase their own cute levels when they feel they are in deficit, with mixed results.
You see, this is cute:
However, despite much thought, work and money, this is . . . er . . :
. . . I don't think anybody knows what this is, but cute isn't the adjective that immediately springs to mind.
I suppose we should remember the shallow subjectivity of beauty, and maybe we can all be cute on the inside.
Actually, scratch that. I've seen a liver.
Wonder if they'll