What do parents want, anyway?
Not all parents think that advertising to children is bad, as I discovered from the recent email and comment onslaught about the Target ad controversy. Many people, proponents of the free market economy, have suggested that if consumers want something, they will buy it, corporations will make money, shareholders will benefit and all is good. Companies have the right to market to kids. That’s the way it is supposed to work.
What do parents want? asks marketer/mom MC Milker in her comment here. An end to all marketing directed at children? That’s unrealistic, she says. And I have to – reluctantly — agree.
I would argue, however, that there is a point when more more more becomes too much.
Rob Walker (Murketing) examines logos and spin-off products in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Among 39 different Tide detergent spin-off products, “All that’s missing are sugar free- and menthol.”
Hugh Graham tackles the designer’s place in our consumer culture, noting the volume of toothpaste and related products in the store aisles:
I wonder whether it’s possible that our society in general may have gone just a bit too far, and that the designers and product managers and marketers are spending too much of their creative resources on selling products with limited value and without any real differentiation.
I’m not arguing that there isn’t valuable product innovation going on, but I tend to doubt the big change involves one of the 50 swirly paste/gel combos on every American supermarket aisle.
This is how I feel about the choices we have for children’s products. Fifty different Bratz dolls, fifty different Barbie dolls. Anything left has a Disney Princess painted on it. No differentiation. No innovation.
So, if we can’t stop corporations from trying to sell to our kids, perhaps we can make it worth their while to reconsider how they are doing it. Do their marketing practices and products sustain the health of children and families?
This is what I want from corporations and marketers, and the basis for creating Parents for Ethical Marketing in the first place:
1. Do not take advantage of my child’s underdeveloped reasoning skills or her insecurities to convince her she must have a product.
2. Stay out of the public schools. Advertising to kids while they are truly a captive audience is, well, kinda creepy.
3. Do not make toys that are lethal. Honest to God, how hard is it to figure out if something you are selling is a choking hazard? And if you insist on producing toys in China, here’s a hint: Buy toys made in the other line.
4. For every new product that encourages my daughter to express her inner princess, provide something that encourages her inner jock. For every fashion doll with clothing and hair accessories, create a doll with a backpack and some books. For every movie or cartoon or book that focuses on a girl’s search for true love, make one where she pursues a meaningful goal.
5. Stop encouraging my kids to be crap collectors (I’m talking to you, McDonald’s). Hugh Graham concludes:
It occurs to me that there needs to be a new paradigm of consumption, one that will work for business, community, and environment. I don’t know what form this new paradigm will take, but I believe it has something to do with learning to appreciate the real value of things and their place in our world.
Designers have an opportunity to engage in this paradigm shift. Part of the story lies in creating products that have intrinsic and lasting value, products that I like to call artisinal. And part of the story lies in better communicating the value of the artisinal. I believe that designers have an ethical duty to work toward the end of disposable culture. Of course, this isn’t going to happen overnight, and it’s not going to happen in vacuum. But it is going to happen, whether we choose to be a part of the process or not. Better to engage the future rather than have it thrust upon us.
That’s me. What do YOU want?
February 5th, 2008 at 8:29 am
These are great guidelines! I want to add the following, though: for every toy that encourages my son to be aggressive and physical, I want one that encourages him to be compassionate and reflective. Now THAT may take some real innovation. Peace Corps Joe, anyone?
February 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Thanks for commenting! I was hoping to hear from parents of boys. I’d also like to see an end to commericals that make dads/husbands (who were once boys) look like bufffoons.
Or, I should say, for every commercial that makes a dad look like a buffoon . . . .
February 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I want an end to commercials were the mom’s are the people who are taking care of the house, cooking “healthy meals” and running all the errands.
If we can’t end commercials to kids, let’s not push gender roles. Tonka’s “boys are built different” PLEASE? Pink little houses for girls? I’m sure there are girls who want to drive monster trucks and boys who want to play house!
And I want those stupid Brand Facts and Values commercials off the air all together. Their tag line is “Brand power helping you buy better” when in fact they are just shoving another crappy, overpackaged, no-value product at me that costs way too much money. Beleive me there are real food meals you can cook in 30 minutes or less, you don’t need the lastest 8 minute heat and go meal. That’s just gross.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
@asrai: The gendered toys and clothes and the ads that promote them — good one.
Oh! And I forgot to caption the Bratz coloring book cover in the post. Here goes:
“With lips like these, who needs a nose?”
February 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
What do parents want, anyway?…
Instead of worrying about excessive marketing to kids, let’s tell corporations what parents really want. From Parents for Ethical Marketing….
February 6th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Great discussion.
Here’s where I see the problem. In order to rise through the clutter to attract kids and parents, toy companies think they need to aggressively advertise to kids. The ones that can do this effectively are the big boys - Mattel, Hasbro, etc.
Now, Melissa and Doug and a few other growing toy companies have avoided this trap and are slowly growing and gaining distribution but nothing like Mattel. interestingly, and I just wrote about this on my site, this attraction to licensed, cheaply made, heavily advertised toys is an English speaking country thing - in Europe, the most popular toys are…not licensed, not cheapy, and open ended.
Is this due to regulation or is it due to culture? Perhaps both. What we as parents can do is to continue to grow this grassroots movement toward “good for you” toys until one of the larger companies notices and starts to try a different business model - higher priced/better made/higher margin toys with less advertising. Not to get into the nitty-gritty of a toy marketing business plan but, this strategy can work.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:11 am
[…] now a word from our sponsors There is an interesting discussion over at Corporate Babysitter at the moment which is formulating a wish list for children’s marketing. What would ethical […]
February 8th, 2008 at 10:59 am
@MC, well, that’s hopeful.
When is it enough for a company? Must they always grow? And how is that even possible, for every company to always grow? Does Mattel really want world toy domination? I don’t get it.
@Blue Milk, thanks for the link. I see in South Australia, at least, there’s a threat to legislate junk food advertising. Is that you and if so, what do you think of that?