I discovered that Scholastic corporate communications has a blog after CCFC brought the Scholastic “book” club — complete with toys, videos, and other products — to the attention of New York Times readers.

We’ve seen the Scholastic book club flyers come home in backpacks for several years now. We manage it with two simple rules: No licensed-character books. No books with “accessories.”

And as my daughters have learned, that doesn’t leave a lot of options.

Scholastic defends their book club offerings on their blog:

I have to say, I find [CCFC's] campaign seriously misguided. I’m actually shocked that it continues to get ink.

Scholastic falls back on the argument that reluctant readers need incentives — stuffed animals, stickers, or videos — to engage in reading.

Interesting.

Whenthe Young Adult Library Services Association (a division of the American Library Association) chooses their annual list of the best books for reluctant young readers, they look at the book’s physical appearance, writing style, characters, and plot. No mention of product incentives there.

Ditto for the advice to parents of reluctant readers on Scholastic’s own website, which points to choosing age-appropriate books at the right reading level. It encourages parents to allow kids to read non-book material such as comics, magazines, or newspapers.

But this is not the same as purchasing a necklace or craft kit for your reluctant reader.

This is where, I think, Scholastic got off track. From the Sun Sentinel:

Scholastic calls that a way to “stay relevant” in the battle to engage kids’ interest. But hawking playthings in the name of education isn’t relevance. It’s a sell-out . . . .

Scholastic should be able to sell whatever it wants. But not within the walls of a school.

And if Scholastic is so concerned about reluctant readers, perhaps they should pay a little more attention to what the real experts are saying will help kids.

Only one of the ALA’s 2008 Ten Top Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Readers is available through Scholastic.

And that is why this story continues to get ink.

Take action: contact Scholastic.

Photo courtesy melissann

Gee, I hate to kick Disney when its down, but they’re just asking for it when they start putting the licensed-character gang on my eggs:

Bonus Disney links:

Disney’s contributions toward the sexualization of girls are okay, up to a point: That’s Enough, Disney Girls looks at the inherent problems of being a young female Disney star.

And for even more Disney fun, review the 9 Most Racist Disney Characters (h/t Sociological Images).

I wanted to draw your attention to this comment from Mom Librarian on my post on alternatives to a Scholastic book fair, excerpted here:

For the past 8 years, I’ve been Librarian for our children’s private school, and we’ve done Scholastic fairs every fall. . . . Our entire Library budget comes from our Book Fairs, so it’s not an option not to have them.

Here’s the deal. As for the Scholastic, they have always been really nice and extremely concerned and responsive to our needs as far as their distribution strategy allows. I have explained that we don’t want all the licensed characters and cartoon junk, we are trying to promote literacy with well-written books. . . . They always attempt to send what I ask for, but the truth is their warehouse people are not trained in children’s literature, they are packing widgets. They send 8 cases, I pull everything I don’t like and store it in two of them, show the other 6. Call it censorship, call it whatever you like, but that’s the way we do it. . . . Scholastic knows I do it. It is a matter of letting me sell what the parents at our school are willing to buy, and its not cartoon junk.

The really sad thing, to me, is that Scholastic has an amazing network, great people, a massive system already in place, and nearly unlimited capacity to do great things, but in the past 8 years, they have discontinued carrying nearly every kids series considered wholesome classics by most librarians. . . .

Back to square one. As for Fall, we’ll keep struggling on with Scholastic till something more tailored to our needs comes along. But for the stuff I won’t sell, I just say no.

Thanks, Mom Librarian, for sharing your strategy. Frankly, I didn’t know this was even possible. More importantly, however, this is a call to Scholastic to give customers what they want.

I’ve often written that I’ll quit criticizing the unequal gender standards portrayed in marketing directed at kids when, among other things, women receive equal pay for equal work. Last week, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a step in the right direction.

Talking about the first bill he signed as president, Obama says:

. . . And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.

In the end, that’s why Lilly stayed the course. She knew it was too late for her — that this bill wouldn’t undo the years of injustice she faced or restore the earnings she was denied. But this grandmother from Alabama kept on fighting, because she was thinking about the next generation. It’s what we’ve always done in America — set our sights high for ourselves, but even higher for our children and our grandchildren.

If you can’t take time to watch his full speech (but I think you should), then at least take a look at these visuals illustrating the powerful change that an Obama presidency promises. (via @pfhyper)

Many women and girls still don’t understand that celebrity and model print images are not necessarily real. Here’s a way to drive the point home: Photoshop tools plastered alongside faked images. Adbusting at its finest. (via @schmelzenfreude)

Did mocking McDonald’s Mom-centered advertising strategies on air get Twin Cities AM1500 radio host Tommy Mischke fired? David Brauer interviews Mischke:

I had read a news account at cnn.com having to do with the McDonalds Corporation wooing American moms by taking them to their headquarters and having them examine the nutritional quality of their food.

It was part of an ad campaign whereby McDonald’s personnel would be filmed telling American moms such things as how high in potassium French fries were and how other items, once thought to be unhealthy, were in fact good for children.

Well, I had a field day on the air mocking this entire approach to marketing, and only later learned that McDonalds was in the midst of behind scenes negotiations aimed at sponsoring a KSTP/Minnesota Twins promotion for 2009.

Franchise holders were listening to that particular show and became enraged. Suddenly, this advertising agreement with KSTP was threatened. McDonald’s had never before advertised with us, and our demographic is not normally viewed as their target audience, but, as my boss said to me, I had “unintentionally stepped on a land mine.”

We at Parents for Ethical Marketing would name our first award — for going above and beyond the call of duty — after Mischke. If we had one. (via @dbrauer)