by Tiffany, Nature Moms Blog

Childhood obesity is at an all time high and kids are killing each other over the newest technical gadget or fashion craze. Are these the after effects of too much commercialism? TV is encouraging a sedentary lifestyle that is seeing our kids developing habits that foster obesity.

Not only are TV programs monopolizing our children’s attention and imagination (or what’s left of it) but the commercials are too. Even if a child eventually loses interest in a program he’s watching the commercials keep him glued with boisterous messages and music promoting products and an image of what is hip or cool today.

Commercialism is everywhere making it very hard for parents to control. Visit your nearest theater and you are bombarded by commercials for the first 20 minutes of the show. Large companies “buy” placement in the movies and television shows to make their products look cool. I suspect cigarette companies do this. Commercialism is also in our schools and in “sponsored” educational materials sometimes given to our kids. I recently read about one school system that had McDonald’s coupons on the report cards. But what if you don’t want your children to accept blindly that these institutions and products are beneficial to us? How do we keep these values from infiltrating our households?

While this may seem monumental parents can play a significant and role in keeping commercialism at bay for their kids. Here are some ideas:

Teach by example. If you resist consumerism you will be able to teach with conviction to your kids the merits of resisting consumerism.

Sew your kids clothing and teach them to sew as well. This eliminates the logos and brands issues associated with store bought clothes and it teaches kids a valuable craft. Kids might also find they have a talent for designing. At 16 years old I remember making myself a vintage gown from a 1940s war era pattern. It is gorgeous and people raved over it…there was nothing like it available at stores and I LOVED that. Don’t sew? Take classes…at your local fabric store….its never too late. Your kids could also take classes.

Try turning off the TV for a week. Then try 2 weeks. Then have a discussion about the merits of having a TV when quality news and entertainment can be obtained elsewhere. I follow and unschooling philosophy as far as TV and movies go. I don’t have restrictions or limits but yet we don’t watch that much TV…the key is to provide alternatives that are vastly more fun and entertaining. Try this TV Free Family site for ideas.

Expose kids to other media – like art/surrealist films, art exhibits, public lectures on topics that might interest them. We are BIG on art in my house. We have all the supplies I could need for just about any project. This week my oldest painted a half dozen beautiful landscapes, he made several 3-D pictures, a Mardi Gras style mask for me, and a Pinata for his Dad for father’s day. All I did was supply him with the means. I have had to cover his bedroom floor in cheap scrap carpets because the paint gets EVERYWHERE!

(more…)

And no, I didn’t do it. As much as I love culture jamming, I won’t participate until the kids are grown and out of the house.

The big Red Bull photography exhibit is being set up on the historical Stone Arch Bridge in Minneapolis and will open tomorrow night, July 10, at 8 p.m.

Red Bull Illume began as a quest to find the 50 best raw moments in action and adventure sports. Photography experts and esteemed photo editors from around the world served as contest judges and hand-selected 50 images from the 7,200 submissions received from photographers in over 90 countries worldwide. These astonishing images now comprise the Red Bull Illume Exhibit Tour, which honors the men and women behind the lens who have braved the planet’s harshest terrain in order to capture athletic grit and triumph. (via)

Sounds great, except that the Red Bull representative at the information booth told me that seven of the photos featured “Red Bull athletes.”  I had asked because I thought it was quite a coincidence that one of the athletes I happened to see in a photo was wearing a Red Bull cap.

Translation: There isn’t enough room for a bikes and pedestrians.
Hang on to your kids. Seriously.

I’m no fan of corporate advertising in public parks. You have to wonder who approves these projects. On June 13, Chris Stellar reported:

. . . [F]inding anyone in Minnesota with knowledge of the Red Bull Illume exhibit turned out to be more challenging than a Rubik’s cube: “Red Bull Cube” didn’t mean anything to the first dozen or so locals contacted for this article. Partly, it’s a jurisdictional problem. . . . Minneapolis city government regulates backlit signs, issues permits for events in most public rights-of-way and has an arts commission and a series of summer arts events called Minneapolis Mosaic. Then there’s the semi-autonomous Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, which oversees use of the Stone Arch Bridge, and that appears to be where Red Bull’s arrangement to install “Illume” resides, although the staffer involved wasn’t available for comment.

Park and Rec Board Commissioner Annie Young, however, said on June 14:

I do not know a thing about this action happening (or why) on the Stone Arch Bridge.

Another commissioner, Scott Vreeland, indicates that the Park and Rec Board had approved the project, and for good reason:

. . . [Red Bull exhibit is] a revenue producing art event that will provide revenue to keep the Matthews Park ice rink open next year. . . . I have been told by hundreds of people in Seward that we absolutely need to keep the Matthews ice rink in the Seward neighborhood open next year. Where do you think the money comes from to do that?

I assumed the money comes from the budget, but I guess I was wrong.

A suspicious Minneapolis cyclist makes too many trips across the
public Stone Arch Bridge and is seen here being questioned by
security: “So, you’re just going to keep riding over thie bridge all day?”

I asked the crew setting up the exhibit where the electricity to light up the cubes would come from. A crew member told me that they thought they were connecting to their own generator, but that a “park board guy” had stopped by and was wondering if they could plug into the existing light poles.

Again, I’d assume the cost of the electricity would come from the Red Bull budget, and not from the Minneapolis city budget, but as indicated, I’ve been wrong before.

Red Bull has a history of unorthodox marketing techniques, as chronicled by New York Times Magazine columnist and blogger Rob Walker in Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are:

As Red Bull gained momentum [in the United States], marketing experts jumped on the bandwagon and tried to explain its strategy. . . . [Mark Gobe, author of Emotional Branding] identified a key to Red Bull’s success in its association with exotic and risky physical feats. “Extreme sports deliver on that need to, to . . . vibrate, in a way. Red Bull is one of the first products I’ve seen that delivers on that energy.”

. . . [Al and Laura Ries wrote] “Red Bull became a powerful brand because it is perceived as a drink that improves performance especially during times of increased stress or strain, which some people take to mean sexual performance. . . .”

Others held up Red Bull as an example of a brilliant “stealth” brand, built by “brand evangelists” who stoked a “grassroots” marketing wave — “building an image for next to nothing” . . . .

. . . [However] Red Bull was spending real money. Within a few years of its first appearance in the United States — and right around the time Red Bull was first coming to the attention of marketing watchers who would praise its supposedly low-cost image-building strategy — Brandweek reported that the company was spending $100 million a year for its American “stealth” efforts. [A company spokesperson said] “the perception that these events don’t cost much to produce is good for us. . . . We don’t want to be seen as having lots of money to spend.”

Hopefully they’ve spent enough in Minneapolis so that we can keep our little Matthews Park ice rink open this winter. We all want our kids to have a good place to practice so they may one day fulfill their dreams of becoming professional corporate brand ambassadors.

If x ∈ ♀ then |x| =  total weight 
∴ happiness = current weight - (current year - birth year)

Good news: The FCC will be taking public comments regarding product placement rules on television.

While others throw in their two cents (Nanny state! Thought police! Does the FCC really think we’re stupid?!), we’ll concentrate on children’s television, program-length commericals, embedded advertising and the Children’s Television Act of 1990.

From the FCC:

We also invite comment on whether the Commission’s existing rules and policies governing commercials in children’s programming adequately vindicate the policy goals underlying the Children’s Television Act and Sections 317 and 507 with respect to embedded advertising in children’s programming. If commenters believe that these rules and policies do not do so, we invite comment on what additional steps the Commission should take to regulate embedded advertising in programming directed to children. For example, we note that embedded advertising in children’s programming would run afoul of our separation policy because there would be no bumper between programming content and advertising. Should that prohibition be made explicit in our rules?

Comments from Commissioner Michael Kopps:

. . . [I]t is my strong initial belief that embedded advertising in children’s programming is already prohibited because it would run afoul of our existing requirement that there be adequate separation between programming content and advertising. The Commission’s existing policies in this area—which also include a ban on host-selling and tie-ins on children’s programming—target those practices that unfairly take advantage of the inability of children to distinguish between programming and commercial content. I hope we can move quickly to clarify our rules in this area as necessary and to take any appropriate enforcement action.

Comments from Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein:

After more than three years since I originally called on the Commission to update our sponsorship identification rules and to clarify the application of these rules to children’s programming, I am pleased that we are finally seeking comment on what additional steps the Commission should take. Just this month, I have spoken twice about the urgency to move this item forward and explained the need for the Commission to protect our children from marketers’ efforts to prey upon their unsuspecting minds. Despite longstanding majority support, including Chairman Martin’s commendable leadership, the release of this Notice has suffered from almost unprecedented delays. The Notice takes an important step in addressing the concerns that parents, experts, and I have been voicing for years about the unhealthy messages American media are feeding our kids. Children under the age of eight simply do not recognize that ads are trying to persuade them and tend to accept them as true and unbiased. . . . Because children are ill-equipped to identify advertising, especially when it is embedded in a program with their favorite character, we need to review and update our sponsorship identification rules. Those of us who areconcerned about children need to show leadership, not footdragging, in addressing these practices.

All emphasis mine. We’ll let you know when public comments are being accepted. Should be soon.

The Search for Cool is a British television documentary produced in 2006. This clip shows how a buzz marketing company, Dubit, works with children as young as six to sell Nintendo products:

H/T Autoscopia