Disney alters Baby Einstein website, but not because they were making false claims or anything, or, Babies Loves Us
No matter how much we wish that watching a lot of television was good for kids, it just ain’t.
Especially not for infants.
A short history of Disney’s Baby Einstein brand problems: Researchers at the University of Washington found that the more time infants spent watching DVDs (like Baby Einstein), the fewer words they learned. Disney disputed the findings. CCFC issued a complaint to the FTC about the educational claims made by Disney. Recently, the Baby Einstein website was redesigned; all indications that the products are educational have been removed.
Paul Nyhan has a nice summary of the issues behind the revamped website.
“The right thing is to be explicit that this product is intended clearly for entertainment and has no (documented) educational benefits,” said Dr. Dimitri Christakis . . . .
Still, Christakis welcomed Baby Einstein’s changes, though he added, “the best available scientific answers suggest no benefits, and at least the potential of harm.”
One of the problems is that scientists are not keeping pace with the consumption of these media products, Christakis said, and are just beginning to understand the effect of media on infants and toddlers.
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests no television for children under the age of 2. Baby Einstein said it respects that position but that it doesn’t reflect the realities of modern parenting.
Emphasis mine. Leave it to a mega-corporation to shun academic research, conjour up a ”need,” and convince consumers of the product’s non-existent value to make shareholders and CEOs happy.
Daddy Types spends some time teasing “anti-TV activists,”
From the tree falling in a forest department, we learn that “The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is claiming victory after Baby Einstein quietly changed its website to remove assertions that its eye-catching array of colourful videos can help develop cognitive skills in the very young.”
but goes on to give us a glimpse into what BabyEinstein was pre-Disney. Yikes.
My problem with this, aside from the Disney’s-political-contributions-get-Baby-Einstein-national-recognition-from-the-isn’t-it-ironic-Leave-No-Child-Behind-leader, is that the Disney Corp. makes a ton of money taking advantage of parents’ insecurities, promoting “the easy way” to parent, and builds their brand-recognition empire– all at the expense of children.
Incidentally, watch that you don’t profit from using any of the following phrases — they are all trademarks of The Baby Einstein Company, LLC:
Aquativity,
Discover & Play,
Seek & Discover,
Where Discovery Begins,
Meet the Orchestra,
Boy’s head device (there goes the name I had picked out for my new band), and
Babies Loves Us. Parents Trust Us. [sic!]
We’d trust you more if you hired a proofreader. Or were you just watching too many DVDs?
Illustration courtesy Wry Baby (click now, you won’t be sorry)
March 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests no television for children under the age of 2. Baby Einstein said it respects that position but that it doesn’t reflect the realities of modern parenting.
Emphasis mine. Leave it to a mega-corporation to shun academic research, conjour up a ”need,” and convince consumers of the product’s non-existent value to make shareholders and CEOs happy.
——————
I’m not happy about that reaction either. A year or two ago, in some parenting magazine (how’s that for a great citation?), I saw essentially the same reaction from a rep of children’s advocacy organization Zero to Three. Discouraging.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Karen, it’s as if the Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that all babies wear cloth diapers, which must be washed by hand and hung outside on a clothes line to dry.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:55 am
It seems to me that in order to make a few bucks, large corporations will “find” a study to support what they want the consumer to believe. It’s until a well respected study challenges that information that these corporations get away with their false info. And the people that are affected have no say!
March 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Amber, you’re right, lots of “studies” are funded by the companies themselves who then use the results to push products. That’s not to say, of course, that some of these studies are not accurate — consumers just need to be cautious. Even studies in peer-reviewed journals can have results that can be skewed different ways.
I’m just more likely to believe something published in a peer-reviewed journal than a corporate-sponsored study.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Five years ago, when my daughter was 6 months old, my mother in law tried to convince me to let her watch daily the Baby Einstein videos that she had brought as a gift. She said “but this is good for her”. I didn’t buy into that, so she never watched it regularly. However, once in a while, when I was desperate for a break, I would let her watch a video. The advertising messages were so powerful that when I did, I felt that it was “okay” or at least “better” than other viewing options. This is the marketing genius of Baby Einstein - even if you didn’t believe it was educational, on some level you felt more comfortable with your kids watching that over other shows.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Vered, you are right. I used to turn on PBS when my girls were younger. Same thing, although BE is probably better than PBS with its sponsorship messages.