Target’s ”snow angel” billboard is still the focus of frenzied energy in the blogosphere: Is the ad really offensive? And/or, Why won’t Target engage bloggers? (Update: New York Times article causing even more frenzy.)

The overwhelming sentiment in the responses that I received from my posts, from the WCCO-TV story, and in many of the discussions I’ve read elsewhere, can be summed up by this comment I received from Jennifer:

This is absolutely ridiculous. The woman is in full winter gear making snow angels, how can you find anything sexual in that? Anybody who looks at that add and sees something inappropriate already had their mind in the gutter. I would think someone that is a member of Parents for Ethical Marketing would have something better to complain about then a woman making snow angels. Get a grip!

Photo courtesy szlea.

Jennifer, this is why it is important to “complain:”

Objectifying women to sell product is nothing new; in fact, it has been almost thirty years since Jean Kilbourne’s video Killing Us Softly pioneered the study of gender in advertising.  

Dr. Scott A. Lukas at Lake Tahoe Community College has created the Gender Ads Project. There, he describes several methods to “read” advertisements, including Katharine Frith’s Levels of Analysis (from Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising). Frith describes three levels, or layers, in an advertisement:

(more…)

I’m putting the finishing touches on PEM’s application for tax-exempt status. My plan is to try to find some grant funding to help expand our scope, then — world domination. And t-shirts. If you’d like to be a part of it, please look to the left, find the “Join PEM” message, and pass along your email address. Joining means you’ll get the monthly newsletter (first edition scheduled for February), and I’ll get to count you among PEM’s members. You don’t need to be a parent. But you should believe in ethical marketing to kids. Questions? Contact me.

I’m late with this one but Chilihead has reminded me: McDonald’s has pulled their ads from kids’ report cards in Florida. Congratulations to Susan Pagan, a parent who brought the issue to the CCFC, who took it from there.

And from the Department of You’ve Got to be Kidding Me, Chicago edition: Toymaker Ty, Inc. refuses to pull recalled toys from store shelves. Any way you look at it, that’s bad PR. And:

. . . the state attorney general’s office remains at odds with Ganz, a Toronto-based manufacturer, over a heart-shaped ornament that the Tribune found contained high levels of lead. Ganz officials have said the charm is not children’s jewelry and therefore not subject to lead-safety rules.  

At some point, doesn’t this kind of corporate behavior become criminal? Ganz also makes our not-so-beloved-anymore Webkinz. The Chicago Tribune’s story is a follow-up to their fall special report.

Image courtesy The Mushroom Kingdom

An excited six-year-old came home and asked his mother:

Mom, Mom can I drink this Power Up?

I don’t know. Let me see. What it is it?

It is an energy drink.

You are six. You don’t need an energy drink. Let me see that.

 Small type: Product not intended for children.

This story comes to us from KFOX in El Paso, Texas. Watch the video report here.

Nicole Green, a marketing student at the University of Cincinnati, has graciously allowed me to reprint an opinion piece she wrote for The News Record.

An old boss of mine shared with me an anecdote about her young nephew. The boy had overheard his parents arguing over finances, and naturally he wanted them to stop. He opened the door to the room in which they were arguing and profoundly stated he had the answer to their problems: debt consolidation.

Be not fooled; this boy was no seven-year old financial prodigy. His knowledge was derived solely from a thirty second commercial that probably interrupted his after- school cartoons.

I wondered about the way this commercial had stuck in the memory of the child. He may not have known what debt consolidation was, but he knew that whatever it was, it fixed money problems.

I was reminded of this story when I read about “pester power.” The term is used to describe the ways marketers endorse their products through the relentless way children nag their parents for goods. Not only do marketers recognize this behavior in children, they target and thrive from it. The goal is to appeal to a child so intensely that a child will whine and beg to receive a certain product.

(more…)

A coalition of advocacy organizations, led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, is asking the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) to stop advertising movies rated PG-13 to young children.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission urged the MPAA to reconsider their guidelines on where and how PG-13 movies are advertised and marketed.

Trouble is, the MPAA doesn’t have any guidelines.

The advocacy organizations, including Parents for Ethical Marketing, would like to restrict advertising PG-13 movies during children’s TV shows, prohibit fast-food toy giveaways aimed at young children for PG-13 movies, and insure that any toys based on a movie are sold with an age recommendation consistent with the film’s rating.

Cheryl Lanza, a rep from the United Church of Christ, Inc., who also signed the request, says:

It is distressing that the industry response to parental concerns about media content is almost always to place the full burden on parents. These industry members essentially offer parents a Hobson’s choice: either expose your children to content that you find unacceptable, or withdraw your children from popular culture.  This serves no one. We all benefit with more mutual communication and understanding, not less.

Agree? Contact Dan Glickman, MPAA Chair and CEO, by calling (202) 293-1966 or faxing (202) 296-7410.

The letter to the MPAA was also signed by:

Action Coalition for Media Education
Alliance for Childhood
Benton Foundation
Center for a New American Dream
Center for SCREEN-TIME Awareness
Commercial Alert
Concerned Educators Allied for a Safe Environment (CEASE)
Dads and Daughters
Hardy Girls Healthy Women
Industry Ears
Kids Can Make a Difference
The Motherhood Project
National Institute on Media and the Family
Obligation, Inc.
Parents Television Council
Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment (TRUCE)

A vast majority of the comments to my two posts on the Target ad came as a reaction to the WCCO-TV story aired last night. Seems the majority of TV-watching commenters do not see anything offensive about the image.

Many, however, were offended by the fact that I chose to talk about it when WCCO contacted me.

If you don’t want to weed through the comments I approved (I did not post about 20 comments because they violated my Comment Policy), I can summarize them by saying: 

I need to get a life. I have too much time on my hands. My mind is sick/in the gutter and I need psychological help. I’m a prude. I need a man. I am insecure and must control others. I’m a dumbass Republican. I wish I had a penis. I’m a typical overreactive female. I wore too much makeup and obviously had my hair done. I should consider wearing makeup and doing my hair. My children are probably also degenerates and should be shipped off to social services. Bullseye, the Target mascot, should piss on me. I am a disgrace to all freedom.

And I should move to North Korea.

I also received an additional fifty emails through the PEM site.

Boy, a lot of people really like Target.

While I am saddened that the conversation moved from being about the ad and Target’s response to Amy Jussel’s inquiry about it, to being about my worth as a person, there were some good discussions elsewhere and some people even agreed with me:

– Shakesville has the comments (and audience) I was hoping to have here.

– MnSpeak has a great discussion about bloggers and mainstream media.

– Minnesota Monitor covers the story and actually makes some progress with Target: Target to reconsider no-blogs communications policy after billboard flap

– And The Deets? Lets just say I don’t know if I could have made it through today without The Deets.

In retrospect, probably not an interview I should have done. You never know how a story will turn out. Next time, I’ll take a chance on an interview more in line with PEM’s mission.

P.S. Comments on the two Target posts are now closed. I got the message.

Does the Target Corporation really think that no one cares about this?

Shaping Youth’s founder Amy Jussel found the image that Target was using for advertising just a *tad* disturbing:

After seeing a photo of the Times Square Billboard, Amy wrote about it on her blog. She also called the media people at Target Corporation, left her concern, her contact information, and a request for a call back. This is what she got: 

Good Morning Amy,

Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets.  This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.

Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.

Emphasis mine. Needless to say, Amy doesn’t take this response very well. 

My, my . . . how terribly, terribly naive from a corporate marketing standpoint.

. . . their arrogance and naivete is REALLY making me consider this ‘dismissal of citizen journalism’ . . .

Would Target have responded if the “non-traditional media outlet” was something closer to home? The Twin Cities Daily Planet? Minnesota Monitor? The Blotter?

And does Target really think that their “core guests” don’t read blogs? A quick Google blog search of the words “went to Target” came up with almost 120,000 hits. I guess that’s blog writers.    

At least she received a response. I sent an email (a version of this blog post) to Target Corporate via their online form (there wasn’t an option for “Report Offensive Advertising Images”). I let them know where they could find the complete blog post.

I got nothing.

I was ready to let the whole thing go and move on. But then this morning, with my morning cup of coffee and the Sunday Star Tribune, there she was again. In my Weekly Target Ad. On the screen of a portable DVD player.

The Target Corporation needs to acknowledge that this image is offensive and discontinue using it immediately. Is this so much to ask?

I’m done. Now I can get back to the concerns that drive Parents for Ethical Marketing: Target Corporation’s ability to monitor lead content in the toys they sell. And why Target continues to promote Bratz dolls. And Target’s choice of gendered t-shirts (also from today’s Weekly Ad):

And have a nice day.

Target billboard image courtesy Bennett4Senate

Comments are closed.

Marketing consultant MC Milker blogs at The Not Quite Crunchy Parent. Before blogging, and before becoming not quite crunchy, she spent 20 years in the corporate world, marketing products like toys, food, and school supplies to kids and parents.

She reports here on the Consumer Electronics Show. Also see The Sandbox Summit - A Not-Quite-Crunchy Look at a Major Trade Show Event, D is for Digital – A Report from the Sandbox, and Toys in the Sandbox – New Digital Toys at CES. 

D is for Digital, a report released at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, confirms parents’ worst fears about video games marketed as educational. The study by the respected Joan Ganz Cooney Center found less than 3 percent of the games studied were based on educational curriculum.

Educational toys (including video games) is a $1.1 billion segment of the $22 billion toy industry and the fastest growing one, according to Playthings magazine.

Sadly, it is an unregulated one. Manufacturers must abide by “truth in advertising” laws but as no standards exist for educational claims and those made by electronic toy manufacturer remain largely unsubstantiated. 

Though some companies such as LeapFrog, Hooked On Phonics and Knowledge Adventure do devote sections of their Web sites to describing research and impact studies, such research is not widely available or documented.

And the voice of reason is often drowned out. Though child development experts and prestigious organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend no screen time for children under two, the infant and preschool market for electronics has exploded in the past few years. Despite an alarming rate of attention issues noted by teachers and rising childhood obesity, American children still sit in front of a screen, TV, computer, and increasingly the myriad of handhelds and game consoles, an average of 5 hours per day — well more than the amount recommended by experts.

And still the category of products keeps growing.

The Joan Ganz Cooney Foundation recognizes that parents have no way of knowing whether or not a game or toy marketed as “educational’ really is:

Without firm and independently verified standards of educational value, how is a typical parent or educator able to discern if the multitude of products in the marketplace live up to their claims?

And has these recommendations:

Federal regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission, voluntary industry groups such as The Better Business Bureau, and parent advocates such as Common Sense Media should collaborate on a consumer protection initiative to better describe educational effectiveness in interactive media products for children.

Until then — caveat emptor.

More from other attendees at the Sandbox Summit:

The Daily Mom
YPulse
Media Minds