Call to action: Tell your senators to vote “yes” on the CPSC Reform Act. (via Consumer’s Union)

Stepped-up safety guidelines from Toys R Us. Authentic? We’ll see.

Chicago Tribune wins George Polk Award for consumer reporting on toy safety. We linked to these articles in a previous Sitter’s Checklist. (via Daddy Types)

“Disney Princess” and RECALL in the same sentence: and it’s not even my birthday! Bonus: “Made in China” and “sold at Wal-Mart.” Fire and burn hazard.

Not all parents think that advertising to children is bad, as I discovered from the recent email and comment onslaught about the Target ad controversy. Many people, proponents of the free market economy, have suggested that if consumers want something, they will buy it, corporations will make money, shareholders will benefit and all is good. Companies have the right to market to kids. That’s the way it is supposed to work. 

What do parents want? asks marketer/mom MC Milker in her comment here.  An end to all marketing directed at children? That’s unrealistic, she says. And I have to – reluctantly — agree.

I would argue, however, that there is a point when more more more becomes too much.

Rob Walker (Murketing) examines logos and spin-off products in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Among 39 different Tide detergent spin-off products, “All that’s missing are sugar free- and menthol.”

Hugh Graham tackles the designer’s place in our consumer culture, noting the volume of toothpaste and related products in the store aisles:

I wonder whether it’s possible that our society in general may have gone just a bit too far, and that the designers and product managers and marketers are spending too much of their creative resources on selling products with limited value and without any real differentiation.

I’m not arguing that there isn’t valuable product innovation going on, but I tend to doubt the big change involves one of the 50 swirly paste/gel combos on every American supermarket aisle.

This is how I feel about the choices we have for children’s products. Fifty different Bratz dolls, fifty different Barbie dolls. Anything left has a Disney Princess painted on it. No differentiation. No innovation.

So, if we can’t stop corporations from trying to sell to our kids, perhaps we can make it worth their while to reconsider how they are doing it. Do their marketing practices and products sustain the health of children and families?

This is what I want from corporations and marketers, and the basis for creating Parents for Ethical Marketing in the first place:

1.  Do not take advantage of my child’s underdeveloped reasoning skills or her insecurities to convince her she must have a product.

2.  Stay out of the public schools. Advertising to kids while they are truly a captive audience is, well, kinda creepy. 

3.  Do not make toys that are lethal. Honest to God, how hard is it to figure out if something you are selling is a choking hazard? And if you insist on producing toys in China, here’s a hint: Buy toys made in the other line.

4.  For every new product that encourages my daughter to express her inner princess, provide something that encourages her inner jock. For every fashion doll with clothing and hair accessories, create a doll with a backpack and some books. For every movie or cartoon or book that focuses on a girl’s search for true love, make one where she pursues a meaningful goal.

5.  Stop encouraging my kids to be crap collectors (I’m talking to you, McDonald’s). Hugh Graham concludes:

It occurs to me that there needs to be a new paradigm of consumption, one that will work for business, community, and environment. I don’t know what form this new paradigm will take, but I believe it has something to do with learning to appreciate the real value of things and their place in our world.

Designers have an opportunity to engage in this paradigm shift. Part of the story lies in creating products that have intrinsic and lasting value, products that I like to call artisinal. And part of the story lies in better communicating the value of the artisinal. I believe that designers have an ethical duty to work toward the end of disposable culture. Of course, this isn’t going to happen overnight, and it’s not going to happen in vacuum. But it is going to happen, whether we choose to be a part of the process or not. Better to engage the future rather than have it thrust upon us.

That’s me. What do YOU want?

Speaking of unethical marketing to children, looks like New Line Cinema is using the evil powers of marketing to promote the atheist agenda in ”The Golden Compass.”

Based on the first book in Philip Pullmans’ trilogy, His Dark Materials, “The Golden Compass” is the story of a young, orphaned girl who sets out on an epic journey to find her best friend who has been kidnapped. If you want the whole story, you can find the movie synopsis here.

The trilogy has been compared to the Harry Potter series, but as the New York Times pointed out, Pullman’s books are “actually brainier and better written.”

The trilogy was recommended to us by a friend while I was lamenting my then-eight-year-old’s reading “problem:” finding suitable books for her developmental age that are written at a higher-than-her-age reading level. (I found that Fantasy books have been the best solution.)

I read the books first, in preparation discuss any questions she might have about the content.

I fell in love with them. And so did she.

That’s why I find it so difficult to accept the criticism that the story is promoting atheism to children. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has gone so far to publish a response, “The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked” (electronic copies available for $5).

The Catholic League isn’t so concerned about the movie itself, as it is not the most offensive in the trilogy, but according to William Donohue, president of The Catholic League:

It’s a deceitful, stealth campaign . . . the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may feel impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present.

Kind of odd for atheist-loving folks to buy Christmas presents, but whatever.

I can safely tell you that reading the books will not cause your children to embrace the atheist lifestyle. The books are not about atheism, they are about the dangers associated with power in organized religion. (I can see why this makes Catholics nervous.) And my daughter saw no religious symbolism whatsoever; rather, she saw it as the struggle between good and evil, “like most books are.”

Pullman says:

I think the qualities that the books celebrate are those such as kindness, love, courage and courtesy, too. And intellectual curiosity. All these good things. And the qualities that the books attack are cold-heartedness, tyranny, close-mindedness, cruelty, the things that we all agree are bad things. 

What bothers me is that there will be parents and children who will not be exposed to this wonderful story, because they are taking advice from people who haven’t even read the books. 

And I don’t think parents can be “tricked” into buying anything. It’s children who are tricked. And I have to say, I’d rather have my kids tricked into buying well-written, imaginative books, than, say, a “Bee Movie” Xbox game, a “Bee Movie” rolling luggage case, ”Bee Movie” Fruit by the Foot value pack, ”Bee Movie” Happy Meals, a “Bee Movie” digital watch set, a “Bee Movie” pencil bag, or a ”Bee Movie” 2008 wall calendar.

Now that’s some stealth marketing I can get angry about.

Friday night my daughters’ school held their annual book fair, and it was not sponsored by Scholastic.

Many schools take advantage of the book-fair-in-a-box sponsored by Scholastic. We don’t.

What’s wrong with the Scholastic Book Fair? For some background, The Not Quite Crunchy Parent reviews Scholastic’s business model. 

Blogger Julie thinks that the event has become a Gadget Fair, not a book fair. And H at the Letter of the Day says that children do not need to own so many books and should spend more time at the library. Excellent points.

I’m against it because it gives corporations a captive audience and another way to market to kids. Through their book fairs and their school flyers, Scholastic has become nothing more that an advertising venue for brand extensions: Barbie, Disney Princess, Littlest Pet Shop, Pokemon, Zack and Cody.

Read Mom’s post on why this is harmful and what she is trying to do about it at her child’s school.

Scholastic does provide a way to get low-cost books into the hands of kids (and teachers) who may not otherwise have access (outside of a library, of course).

Here’s another way to do it.

Families donate books to the school. Our volunteers spent Thursday evening sorting all the donated books. On Friday the books were set up by category — kids’ books in one room and adult books in another. Books were priced fifty cents for a child’s book or a paperback, one dollar for an adult hardcover, and ten cents for “waggy” books (you know, the really thin kind of kid’s paperback you get at a Scholastic Book Fair).

Dinner was served. A bluegrass band played. Local children’s author John Coy spoke to the kids about the process of publishing a book.

This is one of the best events at our school. It’s crowded. Families eat together surrounded by books. Everyone comes home with a sackful of new things to read. The school makes a little money. The books that don’t sell are donated.

It’s recycling. And it’s a simple way to stop putting more money into the children’s marketing machine.