Most people who disagree with me and my quest for more regulation on marketing to kids invoke the nanny state argument: Parents, not the state or federal government, are responsible for what their children see/do/buy.
To me, it’s not so much nanny state v. marketing to kids, but more, who is allowed to reach my kids? To teach them? As many would not like the government interfering in our family’s life, I don’t want corporations interfering. And make no mistake, that is exactly what corporate advertising directed at kids is meant to do: Interfere with parenting.
It cites several new media strategies, such as a McDonalds text messaging campaign, Mountain Dew and Lucky Charms campaigns that ask fans to create their own promotional videos, thus turning marketees into unpaid marketers. My favorite example is of the KFC campaign that embedded a high-pitched sound into advertisements which most adults cannot hear.
If you don’t want the government texting your children, or convincing them to create pro-liberal/conservative videos, or embedding sounds that parents cannot hear into messaging to reach your kids without your consent — why is it okay for corporations to do so?
Spurlock was in town promoting the documentary during the Minneapolis St. Paul International Film Festival in April. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed Spurlock’s work (Super Size Me, of course, and he also produced What Would Jesus Buy?), and there’s no doubt that a film about product placement was right up my alley, but what I ABSOLUTELY LOVED was that he tackled advertising and children.
PEM: I was pleasantly surprised to see that PWPTGMES addressed the issue of advertising to children, especially in-school advertising, like Channel One. I’ll ask you the same question that I get: What’s the harm? Kids see ads everywhere anyway. If advertising revenue helps educate kids, what’s the big deal?
Morgan Spurlock: I understand that schools and districts need money, but I believe it starts to set a precedent that you will never be able to end. Once they’re in, they’re in and once it starts, it will only lead to more pointed, larger-scale advertising. In my new film, a girl in a classroom (in response to being asked what she thinks about [Channel One] advertising being in her school) says that “Schools should teach you how to think, not what to think. And I believe advertising tells you what to think, and that doesn’t belong in a school environment.” I couldn’t agree more.
PEM: The students you interviewed about Channel One seemed pretty advertising literate, stating that they simply ignore or talk through the commercials while in class. Do you buy it? Are today’s teenagers unaffected by marketing directed at them?
MS: I think we are inundated with advertising and marketing on a daily basis, but the argument that “kids are literate” or that they’re “unaffected” by it doesn’t hold water to me. Everyone is affected by it, that’s why it exists. The question is, on what level and to what degree are they affected by it? I think schools are the one place where we should find a better way to bridge budget gaps than by opening the doors to advertisers.
PEM: Do you think corporations have a responsibility to limit advertising to children? Does our government?
MS: A corporation’s job is to make money, but if part of your consumer demographic is children, then I do believe you have an ethical responsibility to curb how you market to kids. Now, many folks will say ethical corporation is an oxymoron, and that’s where the government needs to intervene. It can’t solely be left up to the parents (another argument that I don’t 100% agree with) to police how their children are marketed to. Parents can provide them the tools to understand what the marketing means, but the government needs to outline the parameters within which that advertising can take place.
PEM: In 2008 you received the Fred Rogers Integrity Award from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. Has what you’ve learned about advertising/marketing to kids while making your films informed how you now parent? How?
MS: I really try to limit the amount of TV my child watches by engaging him in what Susan Linn calls “creative play.” We have battles with knights and dragons and fly through space in our cardboard spaceships (we just moved so cardboard forts and spaceships abound!). The day he was watching cartoons and came running into the kitchen to tell me, “Daddy, I want that wrestler set I just saw on TV.”
“OK,” I said.
“But all the pieces are sold separately.” That was the day I turned the TV off.
Don’t you love him? I mean, really?
So I’m a tad star-struck. So shoot me.
During the Q and A at the Film Festival showing, a teacher thanked Spurlock for basically putting himself out there as a social experiment and said she uses his television series, 30 Days, in the classroom all the time.
I think what it comes down to is that I am so damned thrilled to see this being talked about on the giant screen in front of hundreds of thousands of people. It just may open up some eyes to the effects of advertising on kids.
And for that, I say, thank you, Mr. Spurlock.
PWPTGMES opened last Friday in Minneapolis and is playing at the Uptown Theatre.
Image: Morgan Spurlock (Director) and Joshua Wanatik (Stunt son), Jet Blue; photo by Daniel Marracino, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
Crystal Smith, author of The Achilles Effect, graciously allowed me to reprint this mind-blowing post. Be sure to read her follow-up.
I’ve always wanted to do a “mash-up” of the words used in commercials for so-called boys’ toys. I did a little bit of this in my book, but now, thanks to Wordle, I can present my findings in graphic form. This is not an exhaustive record; it’s really just a starting point, but the results certainly are interesting.
A few caveats:
I focused on television commercials alone (not web videos or website toy descriptions).
The companies represented here are the big ones who can afford TV advertising. I looked most closely at the kinds of toys I have seen advertised during prime cartoon blocks on TV. (For example, Teletoon in Canada runs an Action Force block of shows in the after-school time slot and a Superfan Friday on Friday evenings.)
I included toys targeted to boys aged 6 to 8.
If a word was repeated multiple times in one commercial, I included it multiple times to show how heavily these words are used.
I hyphenated words that were meant to stay together, like “special forces” and “killer boots.”
For the record, my boys’ list included 658 words from 27 commercials from the following toy lines: Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Kung Zhu, Nerf, Transformers, Beyblades, and Bakugan.
By way of comparison, I also looked at girls’ toys. The girls’ list had 432 words from 32 commercials. Toy lines on this list include: Zhu Zhu Pets, Zhu Zhu Babies, Bratz Dolls, Barbie, Moxie Girls, Easy Bake Ovens, Monster High Dolls, My Little Pony, Littlest Pet Shop, Polly Pocket, and FURREAL Friends. (I have a full list of references for both list, with links, if anyone would like to see it.)
The results, while not at all surprising, put the gender bias in toy advertising in stark relief. First, the boys’ list, available in full size at Wordle:
Now the girls’ list, also available in full size at Wordle:
Parents for Ethical Marketing is among fifty health, media and child advocacy organizations and professionals (including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Common Sense Media, Benton Foundation, Consumer’s Union, Center for Media and Democracy and Free Press) sending a message to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski: Take action on TV product placement.
The coalition letter follows industry reports of increasing proliferation of product placement (branded props) and product integration (scripted ads woven into the plotline) since the FCC conducted a proceeding on the matter last fall.
“People notice products and brands in TV shows, but they may not realize that advertisers are scripting dialogue, story plot points and even whole episodes to influence consumer attitudes and behavior,” says Josh Golin, Associate Director of Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood (CCFC), a coalition group. Networks and producers are slyly selling off program minutes – in other words, letting sponsors write the script.
“Children who are trying to find their place in the world and have not yet developed the cognitive ability to discern persuasive intent, are particularly vulnerable to these influences and need the protection afforded by FCC disclosure and child protection rules,” says Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston Children’s Hospital, a coalition signatory, and associate professor at Harvard Medical School.
The FCC’s proposed rule changes reflect a longstanding legal and ethical principle: People have a right to know when they are being advertised to, and by whom. Urging Chairman Genachowski to take action, the coalition is calling for:
– Clear and effective disclosures.
– Extension of the rules to cable and satellite networks.
– A ban on product placement in shows for children under 12.
– Rigorous enforcement to curb stealth, embedded ads.
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.
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:
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?
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.
