Yeah, I have no idea what’s going on there, either.
I’m all for saying sometimes a “connected” sign is just a “connected” sign. But I am really having trouble understanding how the agency might have failed to notice it was a closeup of the girl’s crotchal area that was around the “Connected” sign. Especially since it wasn’t a brief part of a moving image, but essentially a freeze frame. You have to assume either utter cluelessness or some strange desire to use underage girls’ crotches as a marketing tool. Neither makes any sense.
Why the fuck is he letting ride the bike in the house on the hardwood floors?
To be honest I think one would have to be a bit of a sexual deviant to see anything sexual in that ad at all
I’ve got to say I’m in this camp, too. We’re all getting just a tad hypersensitive these days.
I didn’t either, but then again I didn’t seee anything in that ad. What wa it trying to tell us?
Oh, come on! Closeup of a girl’s crotchal area! On a bicycle seat, a well known fetish! The word “connected” denoting one thing being plugged into another thing! One has to be OBLIVIOUS not to see it.
The chick on the unicycle is 12??? She looks at least 18 in the close up!
outb4 Dio’s wrath descends.
Jeez, haven’t you people heard of bucycle seat fetishes? I mean, aside from the close up crtotch shot of a young child.
How do we know its his daughter? Andmaybe I am missing something, but isn’;t the sign hanging off the back of the seat of the unicycle?
Yes, apart from there’s no crotch shot, no bare thighs and no ‘upskirt’, I completely see the reason for outrage…!
Come on guys, paedophilic…? Really?!
You must be gay. 
A lot of people don’t go around reading about fetishes that other people have. And it isn’t on the screen for very long. I didn’t even notice the impropriety until I freeze framed it. (I paused it and scooted the little circle until I found a frame with the offending image in it.) My eye focused on the object they actually zoomed in on: the connected sign.
I also think they noticed the problem and tried to correct it. I noticed earlier in the clip that the kid is wearing leggings. They probably thought they could both have the girl in a little dress (to fit the stereotype) but cover any improper bits. But you’re right that it doesn’t look right. A preteen could just as easily wear shorts and pull off that look.
But the implications you gave would never have crossed my mind.
Not pedophilic exactly but definitely creepy, and yet people got paid a lot of money to make it and many people worked on it without any of them going “ewww”. Kind of like the Nimbus 2000 adsof years ago. It makes you wonder how nobody notices these things.
Am I the only person who misread “Cisco” as “Crisco?”
Please, somebody else admit it.
Bicycle seat fetish? I had to look up “loli” too. Thanks.
Y’all are a bunch of preverts.
Sorry, you’re on your own 
I just didn’t get the ad. Not that I spent a great deal of time on it, but it made no sense to me that a young girl would be riding her unicycle in the house with a plate that said “connected”. I almost never pay attention to the narration of any ad (I tend to mute all commercials), so the speed of the connection point eluded me.
I did find it creepy that the camera zoomed in on her ass.
That’s disgusting. And the very next frame is “Dad’s sharing pictures.” Appalling. I would never buy stock in a company whose management is this stupid.
Oh, I gotcha. Knowing stuff is pervy. Ignorance is evidence of non-perviness. A very, um, revealing assertion, he said knowingly.