Parents for Ethical Marketing is among fifty health, media and child advocacy organizations and professionals (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Common Sense Media, Benton Foundation, Consumer’s Union, Center for Media and Democracy and Free Press) sending a message to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski: Take action on TV product placement.

The coalition letter follows industry reports of increasing proliferation of product placement (branded props) and product integration (scripted ads woven into the plotline) since the FCC conducted a proceeding on the matter last fall. 

“People notice products and brands in TV shows, but they may not realize that advertisers are scripting dialogue, story plot points and even whole episodes to influence consumer attitudes and behavior,” says Josh Golin, Associate Director of Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood (CCFC), a coalition group. Networks and producers are slyly selling off program minutes – in other words, letting sponsors write the script.

“Children who are trying to find their place in the world and have not yet developed the cognitive ability to discern persuasive intent, are particularly vulnerable to these influences and need the protection afforded by FCC disclosure and child protection rules,” says Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston Children’s Hospital, a coalition signatory, and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

The FCC’s proposed rule changes reflect a longstanding legal and ethical principle: People have a right to know when they are being advertised to, and by whom. Urging Chairman Genachowski to take action, the coalition is calling for:

– Clear and effective disclosures.
– Extension of the rules to cable and satellite networks.
– A ban on product placement in shows for children under 12.
– Rigorous enforcement to curb stealth, embedded ads.

Coalition Calls on FCC To Crack Down on Product Placement (Broadcasting and Cable)
Consumer Groups to FCC: Fix Product Placement (The Wrap)

Teen retailer rue21, Inc. does not mince words when it comes to their bottom line:

“Our merchandise is designed to appeal to 11- to 17-year-olds who aspire to be ‘21′ . . . . “

Fifth-graders. Really?

They are preparing for an initial stock offering, so if you’re looking for an investment and have no conscience, have at it.

Screenshot from their delightful website 

As I’ve said before: This isn’t about sex. It’s not about morality or sexual freedom or abstinence or teen pregnancy or any polarizing belief or issue. It’s about kids’ mental and physical health. 

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls

From Change.org: 

The nation’s largest food manufacturers, including Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods, ConAgra and PepsiCo, want you to believe that Froot Loops and other unhealthy foods are “Smart Choices.” And they have somehow convinced representatives from Tufts University, Baylor College of Medicine, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association to back them up.

The new “Smart Choices” program — an industry-backed marketing ploy — puts a green check mark on products that are determined to be “smarter food and beverage choices.”  But the choices selected are anything but healthy.

Dr. Eileen T. Kennedy, president of the Smart Choices board and the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, said in a New York Times article that she supported giving Froot Loops the green check mark because compared to feeding your children doughnuts for breakfast “Froot Loops is a better choice.”

Kellogg’s Froot Loops Cereal is 41% sugar. There is nothing “smart” about Froot Loops or other foods packed with sugar. 

The reality is that the food industry is using the Smart Choices program to deceive parents and other shoppers into buying the very food that has led to a costly epidemic of diabetes and obesity — and researchers like Dr. Kennedy are abetting this deception by associating themselves and their respective institutions with the program.

This is outrageous.

Send a letter today and tell all four doctors supporting the Smart Choices program to stop shilling for Kellogg’s. They, and the leaders of their respective institutions, need to hear that you think it is wrong for them to support any program that gives sugary cereals and other unhealthy foods a stamp of approval as healthy choices.

Sign the petition.

Last week’s FCC report to Congress  (.pdf) on BusRadio, the company that supplies commercial radio content and advertising to a captive audience of children on school buses, found that:

– BusRadio understates the amount of its commercial content (p. 18)

– BusRadio exploits the relationship between its on-air personalities and young listeners by having its DJs pitch products directly to students (p.20).

– BusRadio’s programming and website for students fail to maintain a clear between editorial and commercial content, as required by the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (p.20 & 21).

– BusRadio’s website for parents “fails to enable parents to avoid exposure of their children to undesirable content” (p.13). 

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, who requested the report, says:

The FCC’s report provides an objective source for school districts evaluating BusRadio’s services.  We agree with the FCC that school districts should “elicit early and active involvement by parents and caregivers in any decision relating to BusRadio or similar services” (p.21). . . . We also urge state legislators to use this report to educate themselves about BusRadio, and to join New York and South Carolina in banning advertising on school buses.

CCFC encourages parents to send the FCC report directly to their school board.

Thankfully, I don’t have to worry about this in Minneapolis. Our board already has a policy in place (.pdf) to prevent commercial exploitation of children in schools:

Neither the facilities, the staff, nor the children of the schools shall be employed in any manner for advertising or otherwise promoting the interests of any commercial, political, or other non-school agency . . . .

I would argue, however, that some of the sanctioned antics of corporations like Scholastic, Target, or PepsiCo violate this policy.

One word: Insidious.

They’re not so lucky in Florida, where a school board is considering a proposal that gives a company called School Partnerships “exclusive rights to sell naming rights for school facilities and advertising to appear on district property, uniforms, Web sites or printed materials.”

Volusia County School Board members, who still are studying details of the proposal, said they understand concerns about advertising on campus but most are leaning toward giving it a try.

“We do have to look at alternatives about how we’re going to fund programs in our district,” Chairwoman Diane Smith said.

A classic argument, but I’d say one that shows a general lack of imagination.

I’ll point out this comment on the article, because it reflects my thoughts during the Obama school speech “controversy:”

Excuse me…didn’t we JUST spend an incredible amount of time, energy and airspace debating the perils of indoctrinating our children? I think listening to a motivating speech by the President of the United States is a whole lot less threatening to our kids than having them exposed to constant advertisement of unhealthy products, banks with questionable ethics, and stores that often treat their employees as just another commodity! I have never been a home school advocate, but if this comes into play, I might just have to consider keeping my kids home…not for just a day…but through the 12th grade!

I met Mike Wendorf, who is running for the Park District 3 seat here in Minneapolis, at the King’s Fair yesterday.

(As a 501c3, Parents for Ethical Marketing cannot endorse politicial candidates, but I can let you know how candidates feel about issues important to us.)

After I introduced myself and heard Mike’s “elevator speech” (his words), I asked him: What’s your take on corporate partnerships and advertising in public parks?

Mike said, and I paraphrase: Imagine biking down the parkway, and instead of yellow lines down the middle, you saw small Target logos. . . .

I was a little nervous about where he was going with this. But he continued: It wouldn’t be right. The parks are the only place you are free from it. We have to have that space away from [commercialism].

He and his wife Erin went on to tell my about the recent Target-sponsored fireworks during the Minneapolis Aquatennial. Target distributed 3-D glasses that made the lights of the fireworks ook like little Target bullseyes.

My jaw dropped. I don’t know why this stuff continues to shock me.

Mike went on to say that he didn’t mean to pick on Target and that there were ways to work with corporate donors. We disussed last year’s Lowe’s advertising issue and the Red Bull display along the Stone Arch Bridge. He said he felt the Red Bull display was more art than advertising and did not seem to mind it.

You can read more about Mike and his park platform at the Minneapolis Park Watch blog.

Image courtesy howieluvzus

This is the trailer from the 2006 film, Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom, including some words from Naomi Klein:

A quick memo to parents concerned that their children will be a captive audience to President Obama’s speech to school children today: I understand your worries.

My full-time job is in public education, so I’ve heard from lots of folks concerned about what their children might hear.

In between calls from parents last week, I also found out that a shoe buyer from Minneapolis’ Target Corporation was hoping to make appointments to stop by some Minneapolis schools to check out what the kids are wearing on their feet.

Talk about captive. Don’t parents want to know if their children are going to be used as research subjects?

But such is nature of public schools. Some children will be a captive audience today; most children are a captive audience every day. Corporate capitalists have long had free access to children in schools, teaching them to be loyal to brands without question. That owning more will make you successful and happy. And that good Americans are good consumers.

How? Take the shoe-selling Target brand and its famous red logo. Target awards grants to help schools pay for field trip transportation. But, as part of the deal, kids return from their trips carrying a black Target-logoed backback, essentially making every one of them a walking ad.

Of course it’s not just the Target Corporation. Junior Achievement is allowed free access to your kids, as are companies like Bus Radio (to and from school),  PepsiCo (in the lunchroom), Procter and Gamble (in health class), McDonald’s (on report cards), Piper Jaffray (in high school), and Scholastic (everywhere), among many others. 

So, parents, I understand your concerns. Sanctioned messages that go against my values appear in my children’s classrooms all the time.

Thankfully, it looks like the President’s speech will be pretty innocuous.

My advice? After the speech, which they will probably hear or read at some point, talk to them. Ask them what they heard. Tell them what you think about what President Obama said. Point out any differences in the values you hold for your family and the message that they heard.

Because after all, as I’ve been told many times, you can’t shield your child from the evils of the outside world.

But you can talk to your kids. At least that’s what I do.

From today’s Star Tribune:

When preteen girls as young as 5 get their first manicure, pedicure or updo at birthday parties held in Twin Cities’ beauty schools, it’s all about making them feel special and beautiful.

Because the best way to indoctrinate (yes, I said indoctrinate) girls into our consumer culture is to a) start her young, b) make sure she feels her value is equated with beauty and c) create an image of female beauty that is impossible to attain so that she continues to spend her money on products that promise to help get her there.

And I guess it works.

Fun!