For Melissa Wardy (and others who take the time to call out childhood sexualization and sexual objectification): Here’s a fun game to play while reading your many comments and emails.
Most people who disagree with me and my quest for more regulation on marketing to kids invoke the nanny state argument: Parents, not the state or federal government, are responsible for what their children see/do/buy.
To me, it’s not so much nanny state v. marketing to kids, but more, who is allowed to reach my kids? To teach them? As many would not like the government interfering in our family’s life, I don’t want corporations interfering. And make no mistake, that is exactly what corporate advertising directed at kids is meant to do: Interfere with parenting.
It cites several new media strategies, such as a McDonalds text messaging campaign, Mountain Dew and Lucky Charms campaigns that ask fans to create their own promotional videos, thus turning marketees into unpaid marketers. My favorite example is of the KFC campaign that embedded a high-pitched sound into advertisements which most adults cannot hear.
If you don’t want the government texting your children, or convincing them to create pro-liberal/conservative videos, or embedding sounds that parents cannot hear into messaging to reach your kids without your consent — why is it okay for corporations to do so?
One sure way to gage the progress in the fight against marketing to children is to see what articles and blog posts come across our RSS feed. Here’s what we’ve seen in just the last couple weeks:
Imagine a world where every girl grows up with the self-esteem she needs to reach her full potential, and where every woman enjoys feeling confident in her own beauty. Imagine the world of possibilities we can open up by helping to build self-esteem in the people we love most.
I’m trying, Dove, I’m trying. But your boss is making it hard.
Spurlock was in town promoting the documentary during the Minneapolis St. Paul International Film Festival in April. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed Spurlock’s work (Super Size Me, of course, and he also produced What Would Jesus Buy?), and there’s no doubt that a film about product placement was right up my alley, but what I ABSOLUTELY LOVED was that he tackled advertising and children.
PEM: I was pleasantly surprised to see that PWPTGMES addressed the issue of advertising to children, especially in-school advertising, like Channel One. I’ll ask you the same question that I get: What’s the harm? Kids see ads everywhere anyway. If advertising revenue helps educate kids, what’s the big deal?
Morgan Spurlock: I understand that schools and districts need money, but I believe it starts to set a precedent that you will never be able to end. Once they’re in, they’re in and once it starts, it will only lead to more pointed, larger-scale advertising. In my new film, a girl in a classroom (in response to being asked what she thinks about [Channel One] advertising being in her school) says that “Schools should teach you how to think, not what to think. And I believe advertising tells you what to think, and that doesn’t belong in a school environment.” I couldn’t agree more.
PEM: The students you interviewed about Channel One seemed pretty advertising literate, stating that they simply ignore or talk through the commercials while in class. Do you buy it? Are today’s teenagers unaffected by marketing directed at them?
MS: I think we are inundated with advertising and marketing on a daily basis, but the argument that “kids are literate” or that they’re “unaffected” by it doesn’t hold water to me. Everyone is affected by it, that’s why it exists. The question is, on what level and to what degree are they affected by it? I think schools are the one place where we should find a better way to bridge budget gaps than by opening the doors to advertisers.
PEM: Do you think corporations have a responsibility to limit advertising to children? Does our government?
MS: A corporation’s job is to make money, but if part of your consumer demographic is children, then I do believe you have an ethical responsibility to curb how you market to kids. Now, many folks will say ethical corporation is an oxymoron, and that’s where the government needs to intervene. It can’t solely be left up to the parents (another argument that I don’t 100% agree with) to police how their children are marketed to. Parents can provide them the tools to understand what the marketing means, but the government needs to outline the parameters within which that advertising can take place.
PEM: In 2008 you received the Fred Rogers Integrity Award from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. Has what you’ve learned about advertising/marketing to kids while making your films informed how you now parent? How?
MS: I really try to limit the amount of TV my child watches by engaging him in what Susan Linn calls “creative play.” We have battles with knights and dragons and fly through space in our cardboard spaceships (we just moved so cardboard forts and spaceships abound!). The day he was watching cartoons and came running into the kitchen to tell me, “Daddy, I want that wrestler set I just saw on TV.”
“OK,” I said.
“But all the pieces are sold separately.” That was the day I turned the TV off.
Don’t you love him? I mean, really?
So I’m a tad star-struck. So shoot me.
During the Q and A at the Film Festival showing, a teacher thanked Spurlock for basically putting himself out there as a social experiment and said she uses his television series, 30 Days, in the classroom all the time.
I think what it comes down to is that I am so damned thrilled to see this being talked about on the giant screen in front of hundreds of thousands of people. It just may open up some eyes to the effects of advertising on kids.
And for that, I say, thank you, Mr. Spurlock.
PWPTGMES opened last Friday in Minneapolis and is playing at the Uptown Theatre.
Image: Morgan Spurlock (Director) and Joshua Wanatik (Stunt son), Jet Blue; photo by Daniel Marracino, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
Ariah Fine, author of Clean Water for Elirose, north Minneapolis resident, father, and long-time PEM supporter, is seeking collaborators for “The Positive Princess.” The weekly YouTube video series will feature diary-like episodes with “The Positive Princess” who wears a tiara and dresses — though not all the time — and whose adventures counter the dominant princess messages girls hear.
Episode Ideas
– What makes a princess? Emphasizing attributes of being smart, powerful, adventurous, etc. Not about being pretty, wearing dresses, etc.
– Pink is not my favorite color! Girls can like any color. And so can boys.
– Disney Princesses are boring. They just sit around in dresses and make-up they don’t do anything. How boring! Do they ever climb a mountain? Play a sport? Build something?
– Boys? Being a princess is not about waiting or chasing a prince. Princess have better things to do then sit around waiting for a boy. We’ve got adventures to pursue, boys can wait.
Additional Feature Ideas
– Ask a Princess – Girls can write in questions to be answered by the princess
– Princess Power – Video of girls/women doing awesome things and receiving a Princess Power sticker from the Princess or one of her fans/viewers (user submitted videos)
– Book recommendations – Highlighting positive children’s books with strong female characters.
Interested? Want to know more? Let me know in the comments. Ariah is specifically recruiting:
– Princess – Strong acting abilities, ability to improv well, solid understanding of the theme/message of the series.
– Script Writers – Experience writing for a young audience (children age 3-7), understanding of the ‘princess culture’ and ability to write positive counter-messages.
– Video Editor – Quick turn around. Likely will be editing footage shot from a webcam as well as user submitted materials. Experience with creative animation/transitions a plus.
