Sarah Haskins does it again with Target Women: Lady Friends. Watch through to the end for an example of how girls are indoctrinated into the beautiful women-mindless consumers culture:

My daughter has a passion for fashion.

You may recall that my bespeckled seven-year-old once told me that she would have a Bratz-themed party when I died.

She’s always been a bit more, well, girly than my older daughter. She wants to paint her fingernails. She wants to wear makeup. She wants her clothes to be “cute.”

I thought that a few more years with me as her mother would knock some sense into her. But recently I’ve realized that I’ve got a real problem on my hands.

First, she announced that she wanted to be a fashion designer when she grew up. And she began designing. Matching girl and pet outfits. And accessories.

A darling outfit! With lips everywhere! Titled — in case you can’t read it – “Boy Attraction Fashion!”

Blink. Blink. 

Look what the universe did to you, a friend of mine commented.

She’s always drawn strict distinctions between what boys are like and what girls are like. Recently she told me that she isn’t “100 percent girl” because she likes to be active.

Instead of exploding, I calmly asked her to clarify. We ended up having a long discussion about gender traits. To illustrate, I drew a line along a sheet of paper with “boy” on one end and “girl” on the other. Then I gave her some words and asked her to write them in the appropriate spot on the spectrum.

In the center — halfway between boy and girl, she placed smart, responsible, and funny.

Phew.

By boy she wrote fast, strong and active.

And by girl she wrote fashion and beauty. Beauty, she said, meant that you are beautiful.

Then she mentioned that there was one other characteristic you had if you were “100 percent” girl:

One-hundred percent girls are mean.

She has also told me, while looking in the mirror, that she thinks she is fat.

WHOSE DAUGHTER IS THIS?

Pretty strong evidence, I’d say, for a wider cultural influence than what is provided in the home. She very rarely sees commercial television. We don’t have cable. There are no women’s magazines — and affiliated ads — in our house.

Some of these tendencies are, of course, hard wired. It’s part of who she is. And these certainly aren’t the only thoughts that define her. But how, in this day and age, can she really believe these things?

And how can I help her see that these media-driven female stereotypes are, well, bullshit?

Before it’s too late?

You have some extra time to let the FCC know how you feel about embedded advertising in children’s television – the reply comment period has been extended until November 17.

A recent reply comment sums up the issue pretty well:

both as a parent (of a 6 year-old and a 1 week-old) and as a professional psychologist and neuroscientist, it’s obvious that commercial content is not separated from program content in the minds of young children. Please act to confirm, enforce and require the mandated separation of commercials from any programming whose audience is likely to include children under 8, as a minimum.

In other FCC news, Commissioner Adelstein has called for a ban on interactive advertising targeting children.

Image courtesy johnb2008

This is our last chance to speak up about embedded advertising is children’s television.

As part of the larger issue of new rules for embedded advertising (or product placement) in television programs, the FCC is considering what to do about children’s programming. (Background here and here.)

The FCC accepted inital public comments and is now accepting reply comments. Reply comments are due this Wednesday, October 22.

Here’s the deal: The Children’s Television Act of 1990 states that during children’s programming, there must a separation between the commercials and the program (important because, as we know, children “below the ages of 4–5 years do not consistently distinguish program from commercial content, even when program/commercial separation devices . . . are used.” And even then, “most children younger than 7–8 years of age do not recognize the persuasive intent of commercial appeals.”)

Therefore embedded advertising by its nature violates the Children’s Television Act.

So all the FCC needs to do is clarify that embedded advertising in children’s programming violates existing laws and then enforce those laws.

Ask the FCC to enforce the Children’s Television Act of 1990 by sending a Reply to Comments. Instructions are at the end of this post.

In the comments submitted by the Campaign for a Commerical-Free Childhood (full, summary), they also recommend:

that the FCC prohibit embedded advertising in primetime broadcast programming during those hours when children are likely to be in the audience.

We’re looking at you, American Idol.

I reviewed the comments — all 166 of them. More than eighty-five percent supported changes to current product placement disclosure rules (for adult programming). Most of those comments (ninety-four percent) came from individuals. Of the comments that supported leaving the rules alone, eight out of the ten came from groups, not individuals, including the American Advertising Federation, CBS, Fox Entertainment, the MPAA, NBC, Viacom, and of course, Disney.

Commenters that supported changes to the rules included the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Children’s Media Policy Coalition, the Writer’s Guild of America-West, the Screen Actors Guild, and N.E. Marsden.

I was especially interested in the comment from Korby Siamis:

. . . I was fortunate to have a career as a writer and producer for over 25 years. I am proud of the shows I worked on, shows that left a significant imprint on American culture. I was one of the original four writers on The Cosby Show. I was a writer and producer for Murphy Brown for eight years, ultimately serving as Executive Producer. . . .

During my career, there was a clear distinction between art and advertising. On occasions that we used a product name, we would receive notices from the network Standards and Practices department. If the reference were necessary for the joke, it would stay. Otherwise we would take it out.

. . . The concept that we would ever have been expected to include product names or usage in our writing would have been beyond ludicrous, and would have been strongly fought as the worst kind of assault on our creative process. There is no quicker way to strip writers of their integrity than to make them answer to the dollar instead of their muse.

Now my television experience is that of a mother, concerned with what her children watch. I can (and do) determine which series are appropriate for my children. But the use of product placement is a more insidious force that challenges my parenting. The distinction between entertainment and endorsement is lost on my children. Short of watching every show they watch and talking to them whenever the unexpected product placement occurs, my ability to monitor this unwanted input is undercut.

How did this change take place? Why is such devolution allowed to occur? I strongly urge the FCC to use its power to reverse this trend.

Hers was one of only a handful of comments that directly addressed the issue of children’s programming. Add your voice.

It’s easy to file a comment. It doesn’t have to be formal or lengthy or especially eloquent. Go to the FCC website, type in Proceeding number 08-90, and select Reply to Comments for number 12, Document Type.

On the upcoming makeover of Dora the Explorer, to make her appear older and more feminine: 

Nancy Zwiers, chief executive of Funosophy, a children-focused marketing firm, said the challenge for Nickelodeon and similar networks was that children were migrating to more mature programming earlier.

“The younger kids enter into a franchise, the younger they leave it,” she said. Hannah Montana, originally aimed at children aged eight to 12, was increasingly popular among viewers half that age, Ms. Zwiers said. 

On why Disney is making mobile phone applications for preschoolers:

Disney hopes some of its customers will literally cut their teeth on its mobile products: Inspired by the success of multimedia toys from companies like Baby Einstein, Disney is considering making mobile applications for preschoolers. [Executive vice president of business development and operations for the Walt Disney Internet Group Larry] Shapiro notes that young children love to play with cell phones and busy parents may want a mobile “digital pacifier” to entertain them while on the go. (via)

On why Sears is selling virtual clothing online:

Teens and tweens are making more and more of the purchase decisions, or at least influencing that decision. Mom already knows that Sears provides trusted value and quality, but we need to prove to the teens and tweens that we have the apparel and styles to help them “arrive” at school this year with confidence. . . . And as we continue to expand our outreach to the tween demographic it is increasingly important to expand our marketing strategy to include the mediums where tweens are spending most of their time.

Related posts:
Marketers would like a branch on your family tree
Your heard it here first . . . uh, second: Parents, are you Tweenabees?
A sexualized Miley Cyrus? One word: Disney.

Good news: The FCC will be taking public comments regarding product placement rules on television.

While others throw in their two cents (Nanny state! Thought police! Does the FCC really think we’re stupid?!), we’ll concentrate on children’s television, program-length commericals, embedded advertising and the Children’s Television Act of 1990.

From the FCC:

We also invite comment on whether the Commission’s existing rules and policies governing commercials in children’s programming adequately vindicate the policy goals underlying the Children’s Television Act and Sections 317 and 507 with respect to embedded advertising in children’s programming. If commenters believe that these rules and policies do not do so, we invite comment on what additional steps the Commission should take to regulate embedded advertising in programming directed to children. For example, we note that embedded advertising in children’s programming would run afoul of our separation policy because there would be no bumper between programming content and advertising. Should that prohibition be made explicit in our rules?

Comments from Commissioner Michael Kopps:

. . . [I]t is my strong initial belief that embedded advertising in children’s programming is already prohibited because it would run afoul of our existing requirement that there be adequate separation between programming content and advertising. The Commission’s existing policies in this area—which also include a ban on host-selling and tie-ins on children’s programming—target those practices that unfairly take advantage of the inability of children to distinguish between programming and commercial content. I hope we can move quickly to clarify our rules in this area as necessary and to take any appropriate enforcement action.

Comments from Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein:

After more than three years since I originally called on the Commission to update our sponsorship identification rules and to clarify the application of these rules to children’s programming, I am pleased that we are finally seeking comment on what additional steps the Commission should take. Just this month, I have spoken twice about the urgency to move this item forward and explained the need for the Commission to protect our children from marketers’ efforts to prey upon their unsuspecting minds. Despite longstanding majority support, including Chairman Martin’s commendable leadership, the release of this Notice has suffered from almost unprecedented delays. The Notice takes an important step in addressing the concerns that parents, experts, and I have been voicing for years about the unhealthy messages American media are feeding our kids. Children under the age of eight simply do not recognize that ads are trying to persuade them and tend to accept them as true and unbiased. . . . Because children are ill-equipped to identify advertising, especially when it is embedded in a program with their favorite character, we need to review and update our sponsorship identification rules. Those of us who areconcerned about children need to show leadership, not footdragging, in addressing these practices.

All emphasis mine. We’ll let you know when public comments are being accepted. Should be soon.

Sick and tired of the product placements seeping into everything your child watches on television?

So is the Campaign for a Commerical-Free Childhood, who got together other concerned organizations — children’s media watchdogs, public health advocates, consumer groups, and child advocacy groups, including Parents for Ethical Marketing — and wrote to the FCC asking the commission to adopt a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding product placement and integrated marketing on television.

“The diversity and breadth of this coalition reflects the growing concern that marketers are hijacking television content and foisting branded propaganda on an unsuspecting public,” said [CCFC Director] Dr. [Susan] Linn.  “The rise of embedded advertising deprives parents of the ability to protect their children from unwanted marketing influences, threatens public health, and undermines democracy.” – Press release

Some facts from the letter:

– 69 percent of parents are concerned that their children were exposed to too many ads in TV programming;

– TV product placement revenue grew 33.7 percent to $2.9 billion and product placement occurrences rose 13 percent in 2007, with 25,950 placements in the top ten shows;

– Cable programming is even more saturated, with 163,737 occurrences in the top ten shows;

– On American Idol alone, there were 4,151 product placements in the first 38 episodes this year, and branded content jumped 19 percent to a total of 545 minutes, or 14 minutes per episode. 

By adopting the NPRM, parents, caregivers, and advocates will have the opportunity to let the FCC know what they think of integrated marketing; the FCC is required to take those comments into account when they consider new regulations.

Of course, some people think that, while it’s okay to look into the problem, nothing should really be done about it. They would like to see the FCC issue a Notice of Inquiry, which would only require an investigation. Nothing else. Let’s see, who would want to continue turning television shows into infomercials? I guess that would be the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), the American Advertising Federation (AAF) and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA).

But not to worry. Remember, one of the FCC commissioners just stated publicly that the FCC should issue the NPRM.

And when the FCC adopts the NPRM and it becomes open for public comment, I’ll let you know.

See also: Timeline: FCC and Integrated Marketing

UPDATE: FCC Is Urged To Clamp Down On Product Placement at Marketing Daily

Photo courtesy AndrewEich

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, fresh from a terrific speech at the National Conference on Media Reform, criticized the FCC’s inaction to safeguard children and asked for industry cooperation when he addressed the Media Institute on June 11.

While many of the steps Adelstein proposed concerned television programming, the V-chip and other blocking technologies, and ratings, he also addressed advertising directed at children. Two of his proposals:

Launch Embedded Advertising in Children’s Programming Proceeding. The Commission should release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on sponsorship identification and embedded advertising. Specifically, it needs to solicit public comment on whether our existing rules governing commercials in children’s programming adequately promote the policy goals underlying the Children’s Television Act and the sponsorship ID rules. This is especially important with respect to embedded advertising in children’s programming.

Finalize Interactive Advertisement Targeting Children Proceeding. The Commission should quickly move on the 2004 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on how to implement sensible restrictions on interactive ads targeting children. The Commission tentatively concluded that interactive ads targeting children should be banned. With the growing convergence of television and the Internet, we need to promulgate rules before interactive advertising becomes an established business model.

Emphasis mine. Adelstein also suggested that the FCC host a Summit on Protecting America’s Children to “encourage all stakeholders to bring their best ideas forward and develop best practices.”

In his speech, Adelstein acknowleged what Parents for Ethical Marketing and other organizations have been trying to get in front of the media-makers: that parents are tired of the fight.

In case you don’t know it already, many parents are feeling inundated by an array of media that are flooding their children’s minds with inappropriate material. Too many parents feel like they are losing control, and they’re frustrated by a seemingly relentless march of coarse material that is too violent, too sexual, too commercial or too unhealthy for their children. Messages or images their children are not ready to hear pop up in too many places for parents to easily control, from insensitively timed commercials during otherwise family-friendly programming to Internet ads and spam coming over the computer.

There is growing concern about unhealthful messages and images as well. . . . Many studies show the damaging effects of advertising on children’s food choices. Some of your companies have taken important steps, but there is far more to be done.

For parents, it’s like a game of whack-a-mole, with an increasing number of moles jumping up faster and faster. Too many parents suffer from a sense of exhaustion or futility. I suspect many of you share these concerns on a personal level, but many of you also work for powerful media companies that are helping this mole population to proliferate. . . .

I believe I speak for millions of parents when I say we’re overwhelmed, fed up and looking for help from the government and the industry alike.  

I would have been skeptical if I hadn’t heard Adelstein speak with such passion and conviction myself. We’ll be contacting his office to see how PEM members can participate in the rulemaking process.

Here’s to a little hopeful optimism!