Not all parents think that advertising to children is bad, as I discovered from the recent email and comment onslaught about the Target ad controversy. Many people, proponents of the free market economy, have suggested that if consumers want something, they will buy it, corporations will make money, shareholders will benefit and all is good. Companies have the right to market to kids. That’s the way it is supposed to work. 

What do parents want? asks marketer/mom MC Milker in her comment here.  An end to all marketing directed at children? That’s unrealistic, she says. And I have to – reluctantly — agree.

I would argue, however, that there is a point when more more more becomes too much.

Rob Walker (Murketing) examines logos and spin-off products in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Among 39 different Tide detergent spin-off products, “All that’s missing are sugar free- and menthol.”

Hugh Graham tackles the designer’s place in our consumer culture, noting the volume of toothpaste and related products in the store aisles:

I wonder whether it’s possible that our society in general may have gone just a bit too far, and that the designers and product managers and marketers are spending too much of their creative resources on selling products with limited value and without any real differentiation.

I’m not arguing that there isn’t valuable product innovation going on, but I tend to doubt the big change involves one of the 50 swirly paste/gel combos on every American supermarket aisle.

This is how I feel about the choices we have for children’s products. Fifty different Bratz dolls, fifty different Barbie dolls. Anything left has a Disney Princess painted on it. No differentiation. No innovation.

So, if we can’t stop corporations from trying to sell to our kids, perhaps we can make it worth their while to reconsider how they are doing it. Do their marketing practices and products sustain the health of children and families?

This is what I want from corporations and marketers, and the basis for creating Parents for Ethical Marketing in the first place:

1.  Do not take advantage of my child’s underdeveloped reasoning skills or her insecurities to convince her she must have a product.

2.  Stay out of the public schools. Advertising to kids while they are truly a captive audience is, well, kinda creepy. 

3.  Do not make toys that are lethal. Honest to God, how hard is it to figure out if something you are selling is a choking hazard? And if you insist on producing toys in China, here’s a hint: Buy toys made in the other line.

4.  For every new product that encourages my daughter to express her inner princess, provide something that encourages her inner jock. For every fashion doll with clothing and hair accessories, create a doll with a backpack and some books. For every movie or cartoon or book that focuses on a girl’s search for true love, make one where she pursues a meaningful goal.

5.  Stop encouraging my kids to be crap collectors (I’m talking to you, McDonald’s). Hugh Graham concludes:

It occurs to me that there needs to be a new paradigm of consumption, one that will work for business, community, and environment. I don’t know what form this new paradigm will take, but I believe it has something to do with learning to appreciate the real value of things and their place in our world.

Designers have an opportunity to engage in this paradigm shift. Part of the story lies in creating products that have intrinsic and lasting value, products that I like to call artisinal. And part of the story lies in better communicating the value of the artisinal. I believe that designers have an ethical duty to work toward the end of disposable culture. Of course, this isn’t going to happen overnight, and it’s not going to happen in vacuum. But it is going to happen, whether we choose to be a part of the process or not. Better to engage the future rather than have it thrust upon us.

That’s me. What do YOU want?

Nancy Nord, acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, spoke to the National Press Club today about the CPSC’s “challenging year.”

Nord spent a lot of time letting listeners know that it’s not the CPSC’s job to inspect imports. Congress hasn’t given them the proper authority! Corporations are responsible for their products! I mean retailers! Retailers are responsible! And you should see the mess that Congress has made out of the current product safety legislation! It’s not Nord’s fault, okay?!

Plus someone, it seems, has blown this whole toy safety standards thing way out of proportion:

– it reached “near hysteria levels,”
– politicians “jumped on the bandwagon,” and
– the hazard to children was “distorted.”

Nord called the media concern over lead poisoning “hoopla,” citing that there have been no reported deaths, injuries, or illnesses from ingesting lead.

She must have forgotten about four-year-old Jarnell Brown (but I’m sure his family hasn’t).

Even though it is not the CPSC’s responsibility to inspect imports, Nord announced several exciting initiatives: improved import surveillance, a new cargo tracking system, and increased CPSC authority. But not to inspect imports. 

She’s right, of course — the CPSC isn’t responsible for the problems with toy safety in the United States. But I don’t think that’s what all the hoopla was about. We (press, Congress, parents, and consumers) were concerned that Nord didn’t want additional funding for the CPSC. And that the industries her agency regulates paid for her domestic and international travel. And that she might care a little too much about the how toy manufacturers will react to increased penalties for safety violations.

Maybe Nord should spend a little less time trying to explain away the agency’s PR problems.

She’s got some of her own.