The hotshot was designed in response to a study, overseen by Nancy Bodmar. She was shocked at the risky behavior displayed by young boys:
"They have more of a tendency not to protect themselves," she said, adding that because of their young age, they also do not know much about sexuality. "They do not understand the consequences of what they are doing," Bodmer said. "The results of this study suggest that early prevention makes sense." [from the article]
Such condoms do not strike me as the most effective strategy: I can't imagine that the difference in difficulty of use will cause fewer 13-year-olds to have unprotected sex, and it certainly isn't the best marketing strategy. (Adolescents generally dislike products that make them feel like children, particularly with regard to sex.)
More importantly, such a product sends exactly the wrong message: it's fine for children to have sex. Some people, of course, might think that it's more important for 14-year-olds to protect themselves, but what of 10-year-olds? and 7-year-olds?
In discussions about sex-education I often bring up the point that most people do take a normative attitude towards what is taught at what age: if kindergartners were having sex and getting pregnant (enabled by too much non-organic milk) we would not say "teach them to use condoms! If they're going to make that choice, we want them to at least be safe." Instead, we'd find the situation so unacceptable that we'd say "teach them not to have sex!" I--and hopefully most people--also feel that way about 12-14 year olds. And 17-year-olds. (Were we really more emotionally mature at 17 than at 12?)