The FTC released the results of its research on food marketing to kids, Marketing Food To Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation: A Federal Trade Commission Report To Congress (pdf).

The report recommends more of the same food industry self-regulation; critics maintain that self-regulation just doesn’t work.

Michele Simon writes:

Most importantly, the FTC should be calling on the food industry to stop marketing to children, period. If a child under the age of 8 does not have the cognitive capacity to understand that she is being targeted commercially, then how can any marketing to young children be ethical? Even older kids, while they can understand “persuasive intent,” are still unable to resist the power of marketing. It’s entirely possible that the FTC recommendations, if followed, could result in more, not less food marketing to kids. The agency is essentially encouraging the nation’s most aggressive food marketers to keep it up, as long as it’s for the “right” foods, however that gets defined.

Kids should not be taught to eat carrots and oranges because SpongeBob or even Elmo says so. Rather, they should eat when they are hungry, just as adults should. We cannot depend on marketers to make kids eat right. If the food industry just stopped targeting kids with billions of dollars worth of sophisticated unhealthy food messages, parents’ jobs would get a whole lot easier.

I recommend reading Michele Simon’s entire diary entry at Daily Kos.

CCFC co-founder Diane Levin and Jean Kilbourne (of Killing Us Softly fame) talked about their new book, So Sexy So Soon, on the Today Show:

I had the pleasure of seeing both women (as well as Michele Simon) at the last CCFC Summit. I was even able to tell Jean Kilbourne (while she was trapped in line with me waiting for the bathroom) how her book Can’t Buy My Love was instrumental in motivating me to finally quit smoking.

And on that note, the House voted to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco. And by “regulate,” we mean crack down on tobacco marketing and sales to kids. The Senate has not yet voted; President Bush may veto:

The reasoning is positively Orwellian. “FDA regulates drugs and devices by approving products after weighing the benefits against the risks of a product,” the White House policy statement on the bill says. “In contrast, there is no such thing as a cigarette in which the benefits outweigh the risks. The use of tobacco products is inherently unsafe.”

Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that the government should ban cigarettes, not stop at merely regulating them. The only other translation possible is that the White House has concluded cigarettes are so dangerous the government should do nothing about them.

Which reminds me: I’ve got tickets to the Daily Show when it’s in town for the RNC. Can’t wait. 

Read also: Big Tobacco’s Guinea Pigs: How an Unregulated Industry Experiments on America’s Kids and Consumers

No matter how much we wish that watching a lot of television was good for kids, it just ain’t.

Especially not for infants. 

A short history of Disney’s Baby Einstein brand problems: Researchers at the University of Washington found that the more time infants spent watching DVDs (like Baby Einstein), the fewer words they learned. Disney disputed the findings. CCFC issued a complaint to the FTC about the educational claims made by Disney. Recently, the Baby Einstein website was redesigned; all indications that the products are educational have been removed.

Paul Nyhan has a nice summary of the issues behind the revamped website.

“The right thing is to be explicit that this product is intended clearly for entertainment and has no (documented) educational benefits,” said Dr. Dimitri Christakis . . . .

Still, Christakis welcomed Baby Einstein’s changes, though he added, “the best available scientific answers suggest no benefits, and at least the potential of harm.”

One of the problems is that scientists are not keeping pace with the consumption of these media products, Christakis said, and are just beginning to understand the effect of media on infants and toddlers.

The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests no television for children under the age of 2. Baby Einstein said it respects that position but that it doesn’t reflect the realities of modern parenting.

Emphasis mine. Leave it to a mega-corporation to shun academic research, conjour up a ”need,” and convince consumers of the product’s non-existent value to make shareholders and CEOs happy.   

(more…)

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.

A student in the U.K. contacted PEM via our Facebook page with a request to respond to a survey. Danilen Nursigadoo is conducting a survey for a research paper on advertsing aimed at children.

I warned him that the results from Corporate Babysitter readers wouldn’t be a proper representative sample of parents, but he’d like our input anyway.

I’m all for encouraging any education about marketing to children. Survey is here.

Danilen, please do let us see the results of your research!

Working with corporations to ensure their marketing practices sustain healthy kids and families is a vital component of PEM. When I started on this venture last November, I didn’t think we’d have the opportunity to engage companies — or have our voices heard — quite so soon.

Shari Aaron from Vision Conscious Brands has contacted us for some feedback. She wants to take our opinions to her client corporations to help them see why and how they need to “address environmental, social, and economic (ESE) impact issues.” 

Vision Conscious Brands works with clients who are interested in having a positive social impact. Currently, Ms. Aaron wants to show her clients that consumers do care about corporate social impacts and to prioritize our concerns. She can’t do that — and no company will make the move to change — unless we let them know what we want.

Ms. Aaron has provided some questions to get us going. Please respond in the comments, or if you’d rather, send me an email — lisa (at) parentsforethicalmarketing.org.

Chili, blue milk, MC, Amy, Mom, Neena, Jane, Helen, Jason, Solo Mother, Mrs. Flipphead, alimum, Mom Unplugged, Don Mays, Lisa, Robin, Jeff, Katy, Ariah — I bet you all have something to say.

Questions from Vision Conscious Brands: 

1.  Do you spend time learning about how products are made and pay attention to the social and environmental impacts of how companies produce, market, and sell their products? If yes, how do you evaluate this? Where do you get your information? How do you make your decisions? 

2.  Do you provide your feedback to companies? For example, on how you’d like them to perform on environmental and social measures?

3.  If you are concerned about the environmental and social impacts of toy manufacturers:

Have you noticed the latest news about Mattel toy recalls and their safety concerns of the toys they produce?

Has this lead you to changing your buying habits over the past few months?

Do you think this news has impacted sales in a positive or negative way?

The latest financial reports on Hasbro and Mattel do not reflect that consumers are concerned with issues of the environment or safety. So where can I see how this news impacts parents?

Please take a moment to pass this link along to anyone else — parents, aunts, uncles, friends — who may want to add to the conversation.

And thank you.

Marketing consultant MC Milker blogs at The Not Quite Crunchy Parent. Before blogging, and before becoming not quite crunchy, she spent 20 years in the corporate world, marketing products like toys, food, and school supplies to kids and parents.

She reports here on the Consumer Electronics Show. Also see The Sandbox Summit - A Not-Quite-Crunchy Look at a Major Trade Show Event, D is for Digital – A Report from the Sandbox, and Toys in the Sandbox – New Digital Toys at CES. 

D is for Digital, a report released at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, confirms parents’ worst fears about video games marketed as educational. The study by the respected Joan Ganz Cooney Center found less than 3 percent of the games studied were based on educational curriculum.

Educational toys (including video games) is a $1.1 billion segment of the $22 billion toy industry and the fastest growing one, according to Playthings magazine.

Sadly, it is an unregulated one. Manufacturers must abide by “truth in advertising” laws but as no standards exist for educational claims and those made by electronic toy manufacturer remain largely unsubstantiated. 

Though some companies such as LeapFrog, Hooked On Phonics and Knowledge Adventure do devote sections of their Web sites to describing research and impact studies, such research is not widely available or documented.

And the voice of reason is often drowned out. Though child development experts and prestigious organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend no screen time for children under two, the infant and preschool market for electronics has exploded in the past few years. Despite an alarming rate of attention issues noted by teachers and rising childhood obesity, American children still sit in front of a screen, TV, computer, and increasingly the myriad of handhelds and game consoles, an average of 5 hours per day — well more than the amount recommended by experts.

And still the category of products keeps growing.

The Joan Ganz Cooney Foundation recognizes that parents have no way of knowing whether or not a game or toy marketed as “educational’ really is:

Without firm and independently verified standards of educational value, how is a typical parent or educator able to discern if the multitude of products in the marketplace live up to their claims?

And has these recommendations:

Federal regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission, voluntary industry groups such as The Better Business Bureau, and parent advocates such as Common Sense Media should collaborate on a consumer protection initiative to better describe educational effectiveness in interactive media products for children.

Until then — caveat emptor.

More from other attendees at the Sandbox Summit:

The Daily Mom
YPulse
Media Minds
 

A better shopping experience is coming to a store near you via the exciting, reliable, and safe TV Kart.

The shopping cart, developed by Cabco in New Zealand, has a special child’s seat with a “steering wheel, interactive buttons on the dashboard, and a 7-inch TV monitor on which children watch selected TV programs.”

(Cool 3-D presentation of the TV Kart here.)

The purpose of the TV Kart is, of course, to keep your children entertained while you are trudging through your weekly shopping. 

The cart caught my eye because I think it is a great example of a common question I hear: What’s so wrong with having a little peace and quiet while shopping? (Variation A: What’s wrong with buying Disney Princess toothpaste? Now my daughter loves to brush her teeth! Variation B: What’s wrong with watching a Bob the Builder video? It teaches cooperation!) 

And the answer is: Nothing. There is nothing wrong with any one of these things. Individually.

But unfortunately, marketers make sure that kids are not just targeted a single time. Or twice. Or eight hundred times. A day. 

So your child is sitting in their TV Kart, watching Dora the Explorer, which, by itself, is a fine show for kids. But what happens when you hit the ice cream aisle and your child glances over and sees the Dora ice cream?

Nickelodeon, who owns Dora, has a $3 billion consumer products division and 150 licensing partners. Nickelodeon characters are sold through “every channel of retails distribution.” And Nickelodeon Recreation reaches 22 million consumers annually through theme parks and hotels.

And what about the research on children and screen time?

– Early exposure to television (at ages one and three) is related to attention problems at age seven;
– Television viewing affects sleep efficiency in school-age children;
– Excessive television viewing is associated with overweight preschoolers; and
– Excessive television viewing has an adverse affect on long-term educational achievement.

Wouldn’t stores who really care about the well-being of families use carts that, say, have puzzles built into them? Or perhaps offer a stack of books when you walk in?

Of course, it’s not just the kids that the advertisers are after:

New technology in TV Kart will allow powerful mobile advertising and promotional messages to be presented directly to shoppers as they make their product selection. These messages will be played to them from a new 7 inch monitor while their children are still happily entertained, on the inside of the TV Kart, watching their favorite programs from the monitor inside the TV Kart.

Here’s something to do with your young child next time you are shopping: Count the number of times you spot Dora on a product. Or Shrek. Or Scooby-Doo. Explain to your child that corporations do that so little kids like them will want to buy something that they really don’t need (and is, more than likely, bad for them). Tell them that they are smarter than the corporations.

And you are, too.

It’s not just lead: fifteen hundred popular children’s toys tested for toxic chemicals are ranked in a new searchable online database, thanks in part to Minnesota’s own Healthy Legacy.

HealthyToys.org includes information on how the tests were conducted, chemicals to be concerned about, and lists of best and worst toys.

From the press release:

While some toys had high levels of dangerous chemicals such as PVC, lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury, others were free of these harmful additives. [Consumers] can now easily search by product name, brand, or toy type . . . to learn how the products tested rank from highest to lowest in terms of harmful chemical content.

Forty percent of the toys tested contained no toxins. It is possible to make safe toys. Even in China. We just have to ask for them and choose them over chemical-laden cheaper toys.

Here in Minnesota, Parents for Ethical Marketing will support the healthy children’s products bill (and other legislation) which will be introduced during the 2008 session. The bill calls for phasing out phthalates and bisphenol-A, two hormone disrupting chemicals from children’s products.