Hawaiian Punch, a drink which has changed hands several times since its conception (and was originally an ice-cream topping) has a mascot named Punchy.

Hey, want a nice Hawaiian Punch?

And the joke is of course that he gets to hit some guy in the face thanks to a play on words.  He would do this continually — ask the same tourist (named “Opie”) if he’d want a Hawaiin Punch, deck him when he said yes, and move on.

Punchy would hit anyone.  Even a mother of small children.  In a commercial featuring the woman in the shoe (although she’s clearly not old here) you clearly see him winding up.

He’s not allowed to strike her thanks to her kids who tackle Punchy.  But it’s the thought that counts.

EDIT: The infamous “User Violation” account kill of YouTube strikes again.  Granted it’s not all YouTube; copyright holders can be less-than-forward thinking… in this case, I doubt whoever owned Hawaiian Punch at the time of the take-down was upset about having their advertising shown to more people for free.  But to fill in the gaps — Punchy was going to do his usual “Want a Hawaiian Punch?” line to a young version of the woman who lived in a shoe, when he’s tackled by her kids.  The follow-up video used a cartoon ‘explosion’ instead of actually showing the punch impact and aftermath.

Later, they stylized the violence using an old technique used in comedy and horror to either lessen or heighten the impact of an action.  By having the punch turn into an explosion, and not showing poor foolish Opie lying in a crumpled heap afterwards, it’s everyone’s favourite “violence without consequence”.

There’s a difference in execution here that makes it a lot more light-hearted, but Punchy’s still a jerk.

Lessons of “If someone asks if you’d like a nice Hawaiian Punch, duck” or “Hit him back first” aside, you don’t see commercials like this anymore.  For one thing, it’s advertising directed specifically at children which is now regulated.  For another, it’s featuring comedic violence which you generally don’t see in advertising these days.

Like everything else ever published, Punchy’s legacy is now immortalized on the Internet — although being a nostalgic character, he avoids the “suck it up or embrace it” scenario that McDonald’s might with some of their ads.

Given all the now-acceptable death and violence in cartoons these days (thanks in part to Japanese imports) the polling questions are:

• Would “Punchy”-style commercials be acceptable today?
• Could “Punchy”-style commercial characters find new life on the Internet?
• With marketers morally obligated to not target children, could Punchy (and his kind) be marketed to adults via nostalgia angle?

The above questions link to a Survey Monkey survey, the results of which will be added to this post as an edit over time.