A student in the U.K. contacted PEM via our Facebook page with a request to respond to a survey. Danilen Nursigadoo is conducting a survey for a research paper on advertsing aimed at children.

I warned him that the results from Corporate Babysitter readers wouldn’t be a proper representative sample of parents, but he’d like our input anyway.

I’m all for encouraging any education about marketing to children. Survey is here.

Danilen, please do let us see the results of your research!

A popular response to the Target-snow-angel-ad issue (and to many critiques of advertising) was, “It’s just one ad — what’s wrong with that?”

Here’s an answer. This is about subliminal advertising, but works for any image we pass by every day.

If you didn’t find the Target ad offensive, think about advertising images that are. How do these enter our consciousness? And what happens to them there?

And what about product images?

Then, think about those images entering a child’s underdeveloped brain.

This is seven minutes long, which is quite a bit for blog readers, I know, but watch:

(via iamjoshbrown via dawudmiracle)

Vision Conscious Brands has a couple more questions for you.

Thank you so much to everyone who responded to their first questions. If you can, please take another moment and answer these:

1. Of the larger, more mainstream toy companies (found in Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, etc.) which do you see as the most socially responsible and why?  Is there a difference between any of these companies?
 
2. If you had to choose one, which issue would you like companies to address (assuming lead paint is already a priority):

– philanthropy or community action,
– reducing environmental waste in packaging,
– recycling toys or toy parts/materials,
– ethical labor practices (wages and working conditions),
– toy safety parent education, or
– something else.

I’ll start: I don’t see any toy companies as socially responsible. I do think that some are less harmful than others: Melissa and Doug, for example, or the National Geographic toys. This has less to do with the companies and more to do with the products themselves. Since I don’t buy licensed-character toys, I don’t buy from most major toy companies.

I would like toy companies to produce toys that have one purpose — to encourage developmentally appropriate play. If toys encourage other purchases (like “collect the set” or accessories, or, “be sure to see the movie”), I won’t buy it. If the company’s marketing preys on a child’s natural developmental insecurities (”buy this because everyone has one and you don’t want to be the only one without, do you?”), I won’t buy it either.

And you?

Someday when I make it big doing this nonprofit advocacy thing and I have an extra $4,000 to throw away, I’m going to buy me a market research report, like the recently published Marketing to Kids and Tweens — U.S.

From the press release:

With $51 billion in spending power, children and tweens represent an important and lucrative demographic, offering companies an opportunity to build life-long brand loyalty. . . . Some of the topics covered in this report include:

– Categorization and analysis of children and tweens by three mutually exclusive personality types: Leaders, Followers, and Rebels . . .

– An examination of how these three personality types affect the purchase of MP3 players, music downloads, computers, video games, cell phones, and other electronic products . . .

Readers of this report will gain insight into the values and attitudes of leaders, followers and rebels towards a host of topics, and be empowered to create marketing campaigns that speak to these influential cohorts.

The research company, Mintel International, classifies ”children” as between the ages of six and eight. So now I’m wondering if my own six-year-old is a Leader, a Follower, or a Rebel. I’m not sure how her personality affects her purchase of electronic products, I guess because SHE DOESN’T HAVE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS. Come to think of it, neither does her “tween” sister.

Do reports like this affect the way companies market to children? Would Disney, for example, read a report like this and decide that they best start making Disney Princess cell phones for six-year-olds?

I can’t see the actual report, of course, without dropping the $4,000, but they do let us peek at the table of content [sic]:

Future Trends

Virtual worlds, advergames, and the Internet
What obesity epidemic
Keep away from my kids!

Looks like we’re on their radar.

I gave myself whiplash reading this New York Times headline: In Books for Young, Two Views on Product Placement.

Product placement? In books? Two views?

Seems Tina Wells (of “Tweenabee“/Buzz Marketing fame) will be writing a new series of books for young girls with a corporate sponsorship component:

In “Mackenzie Blue” . . . a new series aimed at 8- to 12-year-old girls from HarperCollins Children’s Books, product placement is very much a part of the plan. Tina Wells, chief executive of Buzz Marketing Group, which advises consumer product companies on how to sell to teenagers and preteenagers, will herself be the author of titles in the series filled with references to brands. She plans to offer the companies that make them the chance to sponsor the books.

The editors at Jezebel gagged when reading that Susan Katz, publisher of HarperCollins Children’s Books, wasn’t concerned about a “possible backlash against corporate sponsorship in books aimed at such a young audience.”

If you look at Web sites, general media or television, corporate sponsorship or some sort of advertising is totally embedded in the world that tweens live in, Ms. Katz said. It gives us another opportunity for authenticity.

Emphasis mine. In the words of Inigo Montoya, I do not think [that word] means what you think it means.

Alli at Ypulse calls for transparency:

I’ve always advocated for media literacy in schools, but to take it to the next level, publishers of “product-lit” could partner with readers and tell them exactly what they’re doing. Transparency and full-disclosure would empower teens to decide how much they’re willing to participate.

Now there’s an idea.

Okay, product placement aside, what will make these books different from the loads of crappy tween pulp out there now? According to CNNMoney:

Tina Wells . . . was inspired to write the series because she felt it was important for girls to have positive books to read and to encourage them to make good choices. In “Mackenzie Blue,” tweens will discover more about going “green,” learn about the “global” landscape, and be motivated to achieve their goals. Fun and eco-conscious, Mackenzie Blue is an upbeat break from mean-girl culture . . . .

Plus, she’s fashionable. God forbid a girl not be fashionable. There’s no making good life choices without being properly accessorized.

Did I mention that these books aren’t even written yet?

Call to action: Ms. Katz at HarperCollins should know that some people don’t accept that product placement as part of the landscape and will, in fact, not purchase the books or any related products: feedback@harpercollins.com.

And instead of purchasing corporate-sponsored, “product-lit” pulp, choose something from the Amelia Bloomer Project List, which honors the authors, illustrators, editors, and publishers of books that encourage readers to challenge what it means to be a woman, regardless of ethnicity or social-economic background. (via blue milk, via commenter Rachel at Feministe) 

photo courtesy shaycam

Call to action: Tell your senators to vote “yes” on the CPSC Reform Act. (via Consumer’s Union)

Stepped-up safety guidelines from Toys R Us. Authentic? We’ll see.

Chicago Tribune wins George Polk Award for consumer reporting on toy safety. We linked to these articles in a previous Sitter’s Checklist. (via Daddy Types)

“Disney Princess” and RECALL in the same sentence: and it’s not even my birthday! Bonus: “Made in China” and “sold at Wal-Mart.” Fire and burn hazard.

Working with corporations to ensure their marketing practices sustain healthy kids and families is a vital component of PEM. When I started on this venture last November, I didn’t think we’d have the opportunity to engage companies — or have our voices heard — quite so soon.

Shari Aaron from Vision Conscious Brands has contacted us for some feedback. She wants to take our opinions to her client corporations to help them see why and how they need to “address environmental, social, and economic (ESE) impact issues.” 

Vision Conscious Brands works with clients who are interested in having a positive social impact. Currently, Ms. Aaron wants to show her clients that consumers do care about corporate social impacts and to prioritize our concerns. She can’t do that — and no company will make the move to change — unless we let them know what we want.

Ms. Aaron has provided some questions to get us going. Please respond in the comments, or if you’d rather, send me an email — lisa (at) parentsforethicalmarketing.org.

Chili, blue milk, MC, Amy, Mom, Neena, Jane, Helen, Jason, Solo Mother, Mrs. Flipphead, alimum, Mom Unplugged, Don Mays, Lisa, Robin, Jeff, Katy, Ariah — I bet you all have something to say.

Questions from Vision Conscious Brands: 

1.  Do you spend time learning about how products are made and pay attention to the social and environmental impacts of how companies produce, market, and sell their products? If yes, how do you evaluate this? Where do you get your information? How do you make your decisions? 

2.  Do you provide your feedback to companies? For example, on how you’d like them to perform on environmental and social measures?

3.  If you are concerned about the environmental and social impacts of toy manufacturers:

Have you noticed the latest news about Mattel toy recalls and their safety concerns of the toys they produce?

Has this lead you to changing your buying habits over the past few months?

Do you think this news has impacted sales in a positive or negative way?

The latest financial reports on Hasbro and Mattel do not reflect that consumers are concerned with issues of the environment or safety. So where can I see how this news impacts parents?

Please take a moment to pass this link along to anyone else — parents, aunts, uncles, friends — who may want to add to the conversation.

And thank you.

Congrats to parent advocate Susan Pagan, Susan Linn, and CCFC — you’ve inspired us all to continue the fight to obliterate America’s happiness!