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

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.