About PEMBlogNewsResourcesContact Us
News & Events

Parents for Ethical Marketing
is a young, grassroots organization of people concerned about the effects of corporate marketing practices directed at young children.

Learn how to become involved.

 
Find on FacebookFollow on TwitterConnect at Change.org
Donate

Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category

FTC confirms violent PG-13 movies intentionally marketed to young children, or, industry self-regulation fails again

Friday, December 4th, 2009

The FTC recently issued Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children:  A Sixth Follow-Up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries.  At the urging of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), this year’s review included a thorough examination of the marketing of violent PG-13 films to young children.  CCFC’s Susan Linn comments:

The FTC’s report is must-read for anyone concerned about the marketing of violent media to children.  The report demonstrates that, when it comes to protecting young children from marketing for violent PG-13 movies, industry self-regulation has been a complete failure. The MPAA continues to turn a blind eye toward studios making an end run around parents in order to target children directly with violent content.

screen time

The FTC’s review of ad placements confirms CCFC’s findings that targeting young children for violent PG-13 films is pervasive.  PG-13 movies were regularly advertised on children’s networks such as Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network, even though 2- to 11-year-olds comprise 50% of viewers on these stations regardless of time of day. The FTC’s review of studio marketing plans demonstrates that violent PG-13 movies are deliberately targeted to young children, even when studios are aware that parents object to this practice. In one shocking example, when market research found that many parents of children ages 7 to 12 were concerned that a movie was too violent, the studio did not alter its plan to market the film to young children.  Instead, the studio changed its advertisements to deemphasize the violent content to “convince more parents that [this movie] will be ’safe for their kids to see.’”  Another film was heavily promoted to young children through tie-ins with foods and toys, even though the studio’s market research found that many parents considered the film too disturbing for their children.  

We are pleased that FTC questions the effectiveness of the film industry’s self-regulatory efforts.  The report dismisses the MPAA’s much-hyped referral agreement with the Children’s Advertising Review Unit — an agreement the MPAA claimed would address concerns about PG-13 marketing — as “not a meaningful self-regulatory measure.”  The report also notes that the MPAA does not consider movie cross-promotions or other marketing tie-ins to be within its purview, despite the fact these techniques are often part of a deliberate strategy to target younger children.   In one instance, the FTC found that the target demographic for licensed products was for a violent PG-13 film was boys 3 to 11.

While the FTC does an admirable job of documenting the problem, the Commission’s proposed solution– that the MPAA develop an explicit policy for the marketing of PG-13 to young children — is too little, too late.  For years, parents, advocates for children, and even the FTC’s staff have asked the MPAA to develop such a policy, but the MPAA seems far more concerned with protecting film industry profits than protecting the wellbeing of children.  Since the MPAA is unwilling to enforce marketing standards based its own rating system, the FTC should develop its own set of rules.  If there is any question whether the Commission has that authority, then Congress should explicitly empower the FTC with full rulemaking authority to protect children from harmful advertising.

Read the FTC Report. 

photo courtesy hoyasmeg

Sitter’s Checklist: Super Marketing Edition

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Does NASA really have to team up with Disney to get kids interested in science and engineering? Of course not. But a partnership will sure help get Disney’s name in more places. Watch for it on a Moon near you!

Speaking of Disney, Sara at Gamine Expedition says that Disney’s new ad lab sends shivers down [her] spine. This is just about as creepy as it gets:

The effort is part of a companywide campaign to bring Disney’s advertising sales strategy into the 21st century as behavioral research is more plentiful in the digital age . . . . television networks have second-by-second viewing data available . . . .

The Writer’s Guild of America thinks that product placements on television shows should be disclosed as they appear. Children’s programming would be a great place to start. (via Murketing)

Even the most vigilant media-aware parents can’t detect it all: Indiana Jones Marketing Defeats JediMom Radar.

Yes, we want corporations to do what they can to make eco-friendly products — but slapping a word on the package (or a phrase on the press release) does not make it so.

Here, the Rainforest Action Network looks at Mattel’s Barbie B-Cause in their Greenwash of the Week (via Feministing):

I guess Mom was right, no one likes a complainer

Tuesday, March 25th, 2008

Receiving an actual response from Procter & Gamble reminds me of the all the organizations I haven’t heard back from. Here’s an update of recent past efforts:

Nationwide Children’s Hospital (re: Abercrombie & Fitch naming rights): nothin’
Girl Scouts of America (re: affiliation with Unilever/Axe): nada
HarperCollins (re: publishing Mackenzie Blue): zero
Target (re: snow angel): zilch
Motion Picture Association of America (on ads for PG-13 movies): *crickets*

Commerical Alert offers us another chance to contact HarperCollins and let them know we’re not so thrilled with their new product-placement/advertising-filled books for tween girls by Tina “parents are tweenabees” Wells.

Unrelated: I did hear back from Northwest Airlines after I filed a complaint on their website. They gave me 5,000 miles, too. Now if they can just get me to Boston on time.

Sitter’s Checklist: Just don’t eat the caffeinated candy before the movie, kids

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

CARU and MPAA agree to watch out for PG-13 movie ads directed at younger kids. We had asked the MPAA to review their guidelines, as did the FTC. (Advertising Age)

Discussions about the new caffeinated candy at MarketingProfs and Shaping Youth. Note to Mars and Hershey: we better not see any of these products at a kids’-eye level.

Shocking, but true: Reducing kids video time reduces obesity. 

New blog alert: Beyond Mom. Case in point: Build-A-Bear? F-That!

Speaking of blogging: Bob Garfield discusses anonymous e-attackers in light of the recent suicide of advertising executive Paul Tilley.

[Bloggers] should also face a truth that is immutable online and off: Words matter. To write them, to host them, to hit “send” is easy. To take responsibility is hard.

A thoughtful and important post. Guess I’m still stinging.

Gift ideas for kids: Best to avoid Amazon’s suggestions

Friday, February 8th, 2008

The FTC and a coaltion of advocacy organizations have asked the MPAA to revamp their guidelines in order to stop PG-13 movies (and movie accessories) from being marketed to young children. Young kids should not be watching PG-13 movies — that’s why they’re rated PG-13:

A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements . . . .

Of course, parents know their kids best and should be able to determine if any particular move is suitable for their kids.

But if no PG-13 movie is acceptable for, say, a 3-year-old, then why are those same movie-related toys being promoted to them?

Amazon.com seems to be listing toys in age categories even below the manufacturer’s suggested age restriction. Not good, especially for friends and aunts and uncles who rely on Amazon to help them find an appropriate gift.

poc.jpg

As always, let’s ask: What’s wrong with selling a Pirates of the Caribbean coloring book to two- and three-year-olds (listed on Amazon.com for 2- to 4-year-olds)?

pg13.gif

Because it’s irresponsible to entice kids into wanting something (in this case, to see a movie) that is not appropriate for their age.

Disney and Mattel should know better. They have plenty of other ways to infilitrate our kids’ psyches using age-appropriate toys and movies.

And in this new climate of retailers-are-responsible-too? Amazon better get its act together.

What do parents want, anyway?

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

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.

zbrat.jpg

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?

MPAA lacks guidelines on marketing PG-13 movies, should probably get some

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

A coalition of advocacy organizations, led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, is asking the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) to stop advertising movies rated PG-13 to young children.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission urged the MPAA to reconsider their guidelines on where and how PG-13 movies are advertised and marketed.

Trouble is, the MPAA doesn’t have any guidelines.

The advocacy organizations, including Parents for Ethical Marketing, would like to restrict advertising PG-13 movies during children’s TV shows, prohibit fast-food toy giveaways aimed at young children for PG-13 movies, and insure that any toys based on a movie are sold with an age recommendation consistent with the film’s rating.

Cheryl Lanza, a rep from the United Church of Christ, Inc., who also signed the request, says:

It is distressing that the industry response to parental concerns about media content is almost always to place the full burden on parents. These industry members essentially offer parents a Hobson’s choice: either expose your children to content that you find unacceptable, or withdraw your children from popular culture.  This serves no one. We all benefit with more mutual communication and understanding, not less.

Agree? Contact Dan Glickman, MPAA Chair and CEO, by calling (202) 293-1966 or faxing (202) 296-7410.

The letter to the MPAA was also signed by:

Action Coalition for Media Education
Alliance for Childhood
Benton Foundation
Center for a New American Dream
Center for SCREEN-TIME Awareness

Commercial Alert
Concerned Educators Allied for a Safe Environment (CEASE)
Dads and Daughters
Hardy Girls Healthy Women
Industry Ears

Kids Can Make a Difference
The Motherhood Project

National Institute on Media and the Family
Obligation, Inc.
Parents Television Council
Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment (TRUCE)

“The Golden Compass” uses stealth marketing, kids turned on to atheism

Monday, December 3rd, 2007

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.