One sure way to gage the progress in the fight against marketing to children is to see what articles and blog posts come across our RSS feed. Here’s what we’ve seen in just the last couple weeks:
Spurlock was in town promoting the documentary during the Minneapolis St. Paul International Film Festival in April. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed Spurlock’s work (Super Size Me, of course, and he also produced What Would Jesus Buy?), and there’s no doubt that a film about product placement was right up my alley, but what I ABSOLUTELY LOVED was that he tackled advertising and children.
PEM: I was pleasantly surprised to see that PWPTGMES addressed the issue of advertising to children, especially in-school advertising, like Channel One. I’ll ask you the same question that I get: What’s the harm? Kids see ads everywhere anyway. If advertising revenue helps educate kids, what’s the big deal?
Morgan Spurlock: I understand that schools and districts need money, but I believe it starts to set a precedent that you will never be able to end. Once they’re in, they’re in and once it starts, it will only lead to more pointed, larger-scale advertising. In my new film, a girl in a classroom (in response to being asked what she thinks about [Channel One] advertising being in her school) says that “Schools should teach you how to think, not what to think. And I believe advertising tells you what to think, and that doesn’t belong in a school environment.” I couldn’t agree more.
PEM: The students you interviewed about Channel One seemed pretty advertising literate, stating that they simply ignore or talk through the commercials while in class. Do you buy it? Are today’s teenagers unaffected by marketing directed at them?
MS: I think we are inundated with advertising and marketing on a daily basis, but the argument that “kids are literate” or that they’re “unaffected” by it doesn’t hold water to me. Everyone is affected by it, that’s why it exists. The question is, on what level and to what degree are they affected by it? I think schools are the one place where we should find a better way to bridge budget gaps than by opening the doors to advertisers.
PEM: Do you think corporations have a responsibility to limit advertising to children? Does our government?
MS: A corporation’s job is to make money, but if part of your consumer demographic is children, then I do believe you have an ethical responsibility to curb how you market to kids. Now, many folks will say ethical corporation is an oxymoron, and that’s where the government needs to intervene. It can’t solely be left up to the parents (another argument that I don’t 100% agree with) to police how their children are marketed to. Parents can provide them the tools to understand what the marketing means, but the government needs to outline the parameters within which that advertising can take place.
PEM: In 2008 you received the Fred Rogers Integrity Award from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. Has what you’ve learned about advertising/marketing to kids while making your films informed how you now parent? How?
MS: I really try to limit the amount of TV my child watches by engaging him in what Susan Linn calls “creative play.” We have battles with knights and dragons and fly through space in our cardboard spaceships (we just moved so cardboard forts and spaceships abound!). The day he was watching cartoons and came running into the kitchen to tell me, “Daddy, I want that wrestler set I just saw on TV.”
“OK,” I said.
“But all the pieces are sold separately.” That was the day I turned the TV off.
Don’t you love him? I mean, really?
So I’m a tad star-struck. So shoot me.
During the Q and A at the Film Festival showing, a teacher thanked Spurlock for basically putting himself out there as a social experiment and said she uses his television series, 30 Days, in the classroom all the time.
I think what it comes down to is that I am so damned thrilled to see this being talked about on the giant screen in front of hundreds of thousands of people. It just may open up some eyes to the effects of advertising on kids.
And for that, I say, thank you, Mr. Spurlock.
PWPTGMES opened last Friday in Minneapolis and is playing at the Uptown Theatre.
Image: Morgan Spurlock (Director) and Joshua Wanatik (Stunt son), Jet Blue; photo by Daniel Marracino, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
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.
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.
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!
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)
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.
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:
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.”
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:
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.
