On day four of The Horrible Virus that Attacked Our House and All the Adults Inside, I dragged myself and my six-year-old to the local SuperAmerica for two gallons of milk, soup, crackers, and a big Gatorade.

It took pretty much all my strength to bring those items up to the checkout, and I had to take three trips since there were no shopping baskets. Once in line, of course, it took a while for our turn, so I concentrated on remaining vertical while my daughter stared eye-to-eye with the candy rack.

Mommy, can I get something?

No, honey, you can have a cookie when we get home.

But I want something!

I know you do, but you’re not going to get it.

But Mommy . . . !

Mommy’s NOT IN THE MOOD, honey!

But, but . . . it’s all right HERE!

If I had the strength, I would have explained to her about product placement in retail stores but instead I mumbled, bastards.

I bring this up because it is sort of related to Amy’s post on the marketing trend she calls “outrage baiting.” Among other things, she cites the newest thing in candy bars, caffeine, and a new additive to make any drink an “energy” drink, Blow. It’s a white powder that comes in a vial. Of course.

“Blow” and caffeinated candy bars would never be marketed to children, according to their manufacturers.

PHEW. Now all I have to worry about on the candy rack is the Bratz “perfume” bottle with powdered candy, “wand,” and matching pink mirror. Those edgy Bratz products!

Photo courtesy dosenation.com

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.

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.

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

Does the Target Corporation really think that no one cares about this?

Shaping Youth’s founder Amy Jussel found the image that Target was using for advertising just a *tad* disturbing:

After seeing a photo of the Times Square Billboard, Amy wrote about it on her blog. She also called the media people at Target Corporation, left her concern, her contact information, and a request for a call back. This is what she got: 

Good Morning Amy,

Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets.  This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.

Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.

Emphasis mine. Needless to say, Amy doesn’t take this response very well. 

My, my . . . how terribly, terribly naive from a corporate marketing standpoint.

. . . their arrogance and naivete is REALLY making me consider this ‘dismissal of citizen journalism’ . . .

Would Target have responded if the “non-traditional media outlet” was something closer to home? The Twin Cities Daily Planet? Minnesota Monitor? The Blotter?

And does Target really think that their “core guests” don’t read blogs? A quick Google blog search of the words “went to Target” came up with almost 120,000 hits. I guess that’s blog writers.    

At least she received a response. I sent an email (a version of this blog post) to Target Corporate via their online form (there wasn’t an option for “Report Offensive Advertising Images”). I let them know where they could find the complete blog post.

I got nothing.

I was ready to let the whole thing go and move on. But then this morning, with my morning cup of coffee and the Sunday Star Tribune, there she was again. In my Weekly Target Ad. On the screen of a portable DVD player.

The Target Corporation needs to acknowledge that this image is offensive and discontinue using it immediately. Is this so much to ask?

I’m done. Now I can get back to the concerns that drive Parents for Ethical Marketing: Target Corporation’s ability to monitor lead content in the toys they sell. And why Target continues to promote Bratz dolls. And Target’s choice of gendered t-shirts (also from today’s Weekly Ad):

And have a nice day.

Target billboard image courtesy Bennett4Senate

Comments are closed.

Mr. Bob Ulrich, CEO
Mr. Michael Francis, EVP, Marketing
Target Corporation

Mr. Ulrich and Mr. Francis:

As a proponent of ethical advertising for children, I never thought I’d have an issue with the Target Corporation.

Sure, you had that little problem with the Target Rounders. But that was an agency’s fault, not yours.

But now: I can hardly believe that you, the Target Corporation, my Minneapolis-hometown Target Corporation, the Target Corporation that gives back $3 million each week to communities, the Target Corporation that supports safe homes and families and family violence prevention – would promote itself by this?

courtesy Bennett4Senate

You see, Mr. Ulrich and Mr. Francis, it’s hard enough to raise girls to become healthy adults these days. And you’re not helping.

I know you are busy keeping stockholders happy, but if you have time, you might want to read: 

Using Media Education to Raise Awareness about Domestic Violence (from the Media Education Foundation);
Dads & Daughters: A Safe and Fair World for Girls;
Media’s Effect On Girls: Body Image And Gender Identity (from the National Institute on Media and the Family); or
Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!).

If I could, I would return the check for seven thousand-odd dollars that you gave to my daughter’s school last year, and give up all future donations, just to ensure that we’d never see an ad like this again.

Sincerely yours,

Lisa Ray
Former Customer, East Lake Street Target
Minneapolis

via Shaping Youth

UPDATE: Bob Ulrich is retiring. So I’ll cc: Mr. Gregg Steinhafel.

Comments are closed.

Toddler Size, via Feministe

 See also:
Dear Washington Post, children cannot be oversexualized
In which I make my daughter cry, or, hey Beyonce, you’re not helping me here
A sexualized Miley Cyrus? One word: Disney.

Front page story in today’s steadily-going-downhill Star Tribune: Bloggers seeing red over Target’s little secret. Above the fold. Wow. Plus an article on the expected snowstorm today. That’s front page stuff, all right.

The article missed a major point in the blogosphere debate: why does Target get a free pass when Wal-Mart is raked over the coals?