Disney never claimed Baby Einstein had educational value; stupid parents believed it anyway
Kudos to all the smart parents who knew that Baby Einstein videos would not make their babies smarter:
If anyone believed Disney had cued into a magic, painless way to create babies guaranteed to test into the Gifted and Talented Education program by third grade, their children’s bigger problem wasn’t in how many videos they watched, it was in their parents’ DNA.
Moms and Dads who fell for Disney’s marketing must be really stupid, boy, because even Disney knows they never claimed Baby Einstein was educational. I mean, just because something is providing learning opportunities doesn’t mean it’s educational:
Our videos — we call them ‘Video Board Books¨ — combine age-appropriate visual stimulation with developmentally important sounds, such as foreign language, poetry and classical music. Unlike traditional entertainment programming, our Video Board Books are designed to provide both quality learning opportunities based on sound teaching practices and unique viewing enjoyment.
That doesn’t mean they’re educational! Duh!
Or who would possibly believe silly marketing copy that claims Baby Einstein products are backed up by research?
Research has shown that humans acquire knowledge through three channels of learning — seeing, hearing and doing. We develop products in various media, such as video, audio, print and toys that offer a range of visual, auditory and tactile experiences.
And what dummies would fall for statements such as Baby Einstein contributes to increased brain capacity – especially if they appeared in a company press release. Sheesh!
And since the FTC brought no action against Baby Einstein, intelligent parents can clearly see that Disney was never making false claims and therefore, their marketing wouldn’t change at all.
Upon careful review of the matter, including non-public information submitted to the staff, [the FTC] determined not to recommend enforcement action at this time. Among the factors we considered are changes made recently to the Baby Einstein website — the removal of numerous testimonials that had previously appeard on the website and changes in the descriptions of certain videos marketed for this age group — as well as Baby Einstein’s representations that the company will take appropriate steps to ensure that any future advertising claims of educational and/or developmental benefit for children are adequately substantiated.
Who exactly are these bozo parents who thought that Baby Einstein videos would be educational, even though, of course, no one ever suggested that they might be?
Many, it turns out, were the parents surveyed by Andrew Meltzoff, when he was trying to find out if parents really did use the television “as a babysitter.” According to Bronson and Merryman’s NurtureShock:
In that study, parents did confirm that some babysitting was going on, but the main reason infants were watching television — especially videos such as those in the Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby series — was because parents believed the programs would give their children a cognitive advantage.
“We had parents with kids in front of the TV for as many as twenty house a week ‘for their brain development,’” recalled Dr. Andrew Meltzoff . . . . ”Parents told us that they couldn’t provide much for their children, and that troubled them, so they had saved up and bought the videos hoping that would make up for everything else. . . . They said they thought that was the best thing they could do for their babies.” (p. 200)
Morons.
Read also: Let’s stop being babies about Disney’s Einstein videos and Baby Einstein controversy: What parents need to know
Image via daddytypes
October 29th, 2009 at 10:03 am
You mean…parents should actually think about marketing claims rather than swallowing them whole?! Thank you for this. So far, I had only read one article that wasn’t just lauding the CCFC’s “victory” (Paula Slade’s Examiner article that you cited above). What a relief that there are other sane people out there.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Amy, oops, guess I wasn’t clear enough.
What I meant to convey with this post was that it would be pretty easy for a parent to think that by buying a B.E. video that they honestly thought they were doing the right thing. Or at least, that buying a B.E. video was better than buying another kind of video. I tried to point out times when B.E. did make claims that were not true. Even though many of us wouldn’t “fall” for the marketing claims, there are plenty of parents who did (many, I guess, who aren’t blogging or twittering). I’m not going to blame anyone, but I do think a company shouldn’t make claims that aren’t true. Just because some people buy into it — does that make it okay? I appreciate CCFC’s advocating for parent comsumers.