I've been asked to give good and bad examples of a specific artifact relating to my current research. I have been looking at different characters, most of which have been cartoon and for children/adolescents. I find it quite difficult to think of any characters which are bad that I've come across whilst researching. This is because if they were bad characters then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be known or even successful enough for a handful of people to know who they are. I have interpreted this part of the brief in this way and can only specify in a hypothetical sense. I will state a good and bad formula for creating characters that appeal to a mass market of children/adolescents:

Good

• Easy to relate to
• Colourful/interesting to look at
• simple design and interesting story line
• diverse selection of co-stars
• humour
• Originality and imagination eg. sponge bob square pants is a sponge who can speak and lives in the sea. What an original idea.
• can be adapted into other marketable forms such as games, clothing and toys etc.
• Be a positive example and moral in characteristics
• Explores original use of media and experiments with methods of production which are original and individual
• Is aesthetically pleasing

Bad

• A character which is very similar to an existing character aesthetically and in content
• not considering colours and personality traits eg. very dull colours for a very happy character
• UN-interesting story lines (which purely depends on the nature of the character)
• not considering who the characters target audience are
• unjustified immoral behaviour
• a character that is so specific it cannot marketed
• is unintentionally ugly

The above bad examples are a theory alone, as i cannot see how anyone would unintentionally create a character without consideration or purpose.