Dr. Daniel Wheeler was so kind as to share with me his dissertation from his doctoral program at the University of Central Florida titled The Effectiveness of the Dove Evolution Film as a One Shot Media Literacy Treatment.  The purpose of the study was to “test the effectiveness of the Dove Evolution film as a one-shot media literacy treatment to change sociocultural attitudes toward appearance.”

Many of us were skeptical of the award-winning Evolution ad since it became a viral sensation a few years ago (see Girls, pay no attention to the naked supermodel sitting next to you, or, Dove’s at it again).

And as it turns out it really wasn’t effective. At all. From Wheeler:

A modified version of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ-3) was administered as a pretest and posttest, measuring four variables such as awareness and internalization of the media ideal, pressure to achieve the media ideal, and desire to be athletic. It was hypothesized that the treatment would raise awareness but lower internalization, pressure and desire to be athletic. Although none of the hypotheses were supported, there were statistically significant changes. Contrary to expectations, the awareness measure decreased and the pressure score increased.

In other words, viewing the film actually increased scores measuring pressure to obtain the media ideal, and the scores measuring internalization — the extent to which one accepts society’s norms of thinness and beauty and modifies behavior to achieve it — remained the same.

Wheeler also comments on the embarrassing truth that corporate giant Unilever owns both Dove and hyper-sexualized Axe (see Dove’s successful marketing cycle, guaranteed: Advertise products, repair damage to girls’ self-esteem. Repeat.):

However, the recognition that Dove Soap is a company subsidiary of a corporation whose other subsidiary, Axe men’s products, use sexual advertising, leads to the conclusion that the purpose of the Dove Evolution film is to make a profit for the company. By appealing to customers who perceive themselves as ordinary-looking women, Dove can sell beauty products to a wider range of customers.

Media literacy, then, has far-reaching applications, including recognizing commercial advertising disguised as a public service.

Emphasis mine. Which is why the Dove Self-Esteem Workshops still rub me the wrong way. If you argue that at least it’s a step in the right direction, I’d suggest that you read Kate Harding’s Body image revolution postponed at Salon.com and remember that, according to Unilever, when girls with self-esteem become adults they’ll need to lighter their skin, get rid of those wrinkles and lose some weight.

So even though the Evolution film didn’t enlighten us enough about the beauty industry, at least it helped sell more product. Which was Dove’s goal in the first place.

I would so love to attend this FTC forum in D.C. that I am almost willing to snack on [fill in name of food industry sponsor]’s delicious products all day long. While standing in the front of the room. And passing out coupons.  

FTC Announces Agenda for December 15 Forum to Explore Food Marketing to Children
Will Address Developments in Self-Regulation; Report on Recommended Nutritional Standards

The Federal Trade Commission announced the agenda and speakers for its December 15, 2009 public forum titled “Sizing Up Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity.”

The forum participants will present new research on the impact of various food advertising techniques on children and discuss the statutory and constitutional issues surrounding governmental regulation of food marketing. Panelists also will address the food and entertainment industries’ self-regulatory efforts and implementation of the recommendations in the FTC’s 2008 report, Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation. In addition, the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children – comprised of representatives from the FTC, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Agriculture – will report on the status of recommended nutritional standards for foods marketed to children, followed by a Town Hall discussion.

An agenda for the forum is available. Updated information will be posted as it becomes available.

Read the rest of the press release.

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

There are so many ways to criticize the American Girl doll complex. If you still need convincing, Dr. Michael Rich from the Center on Media and Child Health offers this simple fact:

In short, the less that a doll, or any toy, does on its own—the fewer pre-written stories they come with, and the fewer bells and whistles that determine how a child plays with it—the better the toy is for challenging, stretching, and energizing the growing brain. . . . I encourage you to find [a doll] that isn’t branded at all. Its lack of branding and back story will allow her imagination to go wherever it takes her.*

Think before buying: Who benefits from this purchase? Is it really the child? Is it me (because *I* think it’s cute)? Or is it the multi-million dollar corporation behind it?

More about Dr. Rich, Ask the Mediatrician, and the Center on Media and Child Health.

*Susan Linn has this topic covered in The Case for Make-Believe (now available in paperback).

The Target Corporation is tossing more of their five-percent-of-revenues back to our community in the form of the Target Children’s Book Festival ”to help foster children’s love for reading as a fun and recreational activity.”

“Target understands the importance of cultivating a love of reading in children at an early age,” said Laysha Ward, president, community relations, Target. “By taking advantage of this free, local event, Twin Cities-area families will be able to share a fun and educational experience together.”

Target also understand the importance of using an “educational” event to encourage kids to watch more television. And to want more stuff. From Target.

At a glance, the September 12 event at Three Rivers Park District’s Hyland Lake Park Reserve appears to be a fun afternoon in the park, celebrating books and listenting to live kids’ music.

Upon closer inspection:

Two of the events feature Nickelodeon brands: Characters from Yo Gabba Gabba! and Jade-Lianna Peters, voice of Kai-lan on Ni Hao, Kai-lan. I can only guess that Peters must be a Hannah Montana in the making. There’s no other reason for her to be appearing at events except to promote future Nickelodeon brands. Nickelodeon means, of course, lots of associated brand toys and products — conveniently available at Target — and extensive branded websites for kids, complete with ads for other products and more shows with their own products.

Another event not even remotely connected to books is the title character from Disney Playhouse’s Choo-Choo Soul. Disney: The juggernaut of marketing to kids. Somehow, when I think of Disney, I don’t picture a parent and child quietly reading together.

Most questionable in the lineup may be Hip Hop Harry, a character from Discovery Kids network. If kids want to learn more about Harry online after the event, they’ll find his website features a banner ad with a bouncing pink-wrapped present and the words This mystery gift could be yours! Click here to see what it is! The click leads to an ad offering TWO FREE IPOD NANOS. (Note: Since writing the draft of this post, this banner ad has changed. So you’ll have to take my word for it.)

I know that criticizing a corporation that funds community programs — especially Target — is looking a gifthorse in the mouth.

But if Target wants us to take their community outreach seriously, they probably shouldn’t be encouraging children to watch television at an event meant to get kids to read. Because children who watch more television have lower reading comprehension scores over time than those who watch less. (Source).

An alternative for September 12: Play in a local park. Sing. Go to the library. And read to your kids.

Photo courtesy echoforsberg.

Our friends at Healthy Legacy and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy have just published A Guide to Safer Children’s Products to help parents avoid purchasing products with harmful synthetic chemicals commonly used in children’s products.

The guide provides a list of safer children’s products ranging from baby bottles, utensils, pacifiers, teethers, and more.

And they’ve included a wallet-sized cutout so you’re not stumped at the store.

The IATP has also updated The Smart Plastics Guide to include the latest science and marketplace developments to help consumers make wise choices about the types of plastics they use.

On Mondays I feel like I have all the time in the world to read — not skim — anything and everything.

Even long, complicated articles.

You too? Here’s some recommended reading:

At Sea in a Marketing-Saturated World: The Eleventh Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2007-2008. From the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at Arizona State University. Browse CERU’s other publications.

Monograph 19: The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use. From the National Cancer Institute. Seems that tobacco marketing tactics are mimicked by the food industry.

Consumer Behavior: The Psychology of Marketing. From Dr. Lars Perner at the University of Southern California. This is how it’s done.

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