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.   

(more…)

CARU and MPAA agree to watch out for PG-13 movie ads directed at younger kids. We had asked the MPAA to review their guidelines, as did the FTC. (Advertising Age)

Discussions about the new caffeinated candy at MarketingProfs and Shaping Youth. Note to Mars and Hershey: we better not see any of these products at a kids’-eye level.

Shocking, but true: Reducing kids video time reduces obesity. 

New blog alert: Beyond Mom. Case in point: Build-A-Bear? F-That!

Speaking of blogging: Bob Garfield discusses anonymous e-attackers in light of the recent suicide of advertising executive Paul Tilley.

[Bloggers] should also face a truth that is immutable online and off: Words matter. To write them, to host them, to hit “send” is easy. To take responsibility is hard.

A thoughtful and important post. Guess I’m still stinging.

Ad Campaign Appeals To Young, Hip, Influenced-By-Ad-Campaigns Demographic

. . . a multimillion dollar broadcast, radio, print, billboard, and online viral campaign . . . [is] showing tremendous impact on the cool, media-savvy rebels who distrust authority, prize alternative culture, think outside of the mainstream, and are willing to base their actions entirely on advertising images presented to them on TV.

via AdFreak

I write this as I finish off a box of Tagalongs. 

Patricia Diaz Dennis, chair of the board of directors for the Girl Scouts, was recently here in Minnesota to address the newly merged Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valleys. In a televison interview, Diaz Dennis addresses what girls have to deal with today in the midst of a celebrity culture: the messages of how to dress and how to act in order to be a woman. She says that the Girl Scouts are the antidote to those messages.

Then how can the Girl Scouts accept funding from a corporation that produces this?

The recent Axe print ads featuring Hillary Clinton pushed me over the edge. I sent the following letter to Diaz Dennis and to Kathy Cloninger, the Girl Scouts’ CEO:

I was a Girl Scout in the seventies and my daughter is a Girl Scout now. I am writing to express my deep concern over the Girl Scouts of America’s affiliation with the Dove Self-Esteem Fund.

I am sure you are aware of the controversies surrounding Unilever’s claimed support for girls’ self-esteem (through the Self-Esteem Fund) while continuing to advertise their Axe products using degrading and sexist marketing. And you might be aware of their production of skin-lightening products marketed to women in India and other countries as a means to “gain confidence.”

And you may have even seen their latest ad campaign for Axe products, depicting Hillary Clinton wearing an “Obama” button.

I understand that Unilever is a very large corporation with many different markets. And I understand that any corporation you partner with may have some components which do not align perfectly with the Girls Scouts’ mission.

But for the Girl Scouts to be directly associated with a corporation that continually undermines the very core of what Scouting is today – a woman running for President will still feel silly around boys — is reprehensible.

Turning a blind eye to these marketing messages is one reason we still have a problem.

Can you please explain to me why this relationship with Unilever continues?

Thanks for your time.

I’m not surprised that they didn’t respond to me, even after a second request for comment. What could they say? How can an organization that promotes healthy girls possibly justify a financial relationship with Unilever?

We’ll continue to support the Girl Scouts and their volunteers for taking time to invest in our girls’ futures.

But not Dove, nor their Self-Esteem Fund. You can still let Unilever know that they cannot claim to help in the fight for girls’ self-esteem while producing ads that degrade women.

Related posts from other sites:

The Antidote to Women’s Liberation
Axe and Unilever strike again: Clinton as slavering brainless schoolgirl
Scent of a Woman
Hillary Sexism Watch (Axe edition)
How Sincere is Dove?
Boycott Unilever/Dove
Internet guerrilla attack exposes Unilever ‘hypocrisy’ of Dove girls and dirty dancers

Feministing called out t-shirt maker David and Goliath (no link) for selling a shirt that says:

No means no. Well, maybe if I’m drunk.

David and Goliath pulled the shirt from their website and replaced it with a special discounted shirt for Feministing readers:

Miss Bitch

David and Goliath also has an adult t-shirt section where I found this gem:

Where is this going to end?