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!

Like Taking Candy From a Baby: How Young Children Interact with Online Environments (pdf), a study released today from Consumer Reports Webwatch and the Mediatech Foundation, found that childrens’ websites are not doing a good enough job disclosing their advertising and marketing tactics to parents.

Parents involved in the study kept video journals which documented families’ frustrations with game websites and virtual worlds that draw kids into games and require a purchase to continue playing, among other things. Watch a few of the videos. I’d be surprised if some of those scenarios haven’t already been played out in your home.

Many online games and virtual worlds violate at least two of PEM’s standards of ethical marketing:

1. They interfere with the parent-child relationship by enticing young children to hand over an email address (and other personal information) without parental permission.

2. They take advantage of a child’s inability to understand that advertisers want their money by making the ads indistinguishable from the game itself.

Aaron Delwiche identifies one of the major problems with kids’ virtual games:

For the most part, so-called “virtual worlds” aimed at youth are little more than paper-doll worlds in which players are encouraged to spend virtual money on their on-line avatars. In almost all of these spaces, the pattern is mind-numbingly familiar: Create avatar. Play games. Earn money. Shop for your avatar. Earn money. Shop for your avatar’s house. Earn money. Shop for your avatar. Earn money. Shop. Work. Shop. Work. Shop. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. The only thing that really differentiates each of these worlds from one another is the quality of the art direction and the intellectual property rights secured by the world’s creators.

The developmental benefits of childhood creative play are lost when the play becomes scripted. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to participate.

Katie L. at the New Media Research Studio at NYU hits on my biggest gripe with virtual worlds:

Although I felt that I had a firm grasp on the way things worked in the WebKinz World, I spent some more time throughout this past week exploring the site in hopes of uncovering more redeeming qualities that could potentially counteract its overwhelming focus on promoting consumer culture. Unfortunately however, all I could find was more evidence that the virtual component of Webkinz functions as a mini-capitalist economy, priming children to think first and foremost about getting more money in order to buy more things.

It feeds into ‘you can never have enough, and the more you have the better it is.’

The game creators have no incentive to make the games better — they want to encourage early consumer habits in order to maintain customers for their advertisers — unless we stop playing. And buying.

To help wean away from the virtual world and game habit, try WolfQuest, created by the Minnesota Zoo and eduweb. No ads, no cost. And no mini-capitalist economy.

photo courtesy Spigoo

Thanks to all those who thought of Parents for Ethical Marketing when you heard about Miss Bimbo. For those of you who haven’t been introduced to the online game, you can get a great overview at Hoyden About Town.

Miss Bimbo is, to say the least, horrifying.

All the recent press about Miss Bimbo has led to some pretty sad online discussions — and has made me realize we have so far to go to educate parents and the public about what’s healthy kids.

Some of the comments I’ve read online, which are pretty representative of prevailing attitudes:

Brilliant! By making their website over-the-top ridiculous, they are teaching girls that the behavior required by the game is ridiculous. They are clearly poking fun at “bimbo” behavior, not encouraging it. (via)

Nice theory, but the website really isn’t over-the-top ridiculous. Not when four-year-olds play with Bratz dolls. Not when ten-year-olds wear thong underwear. Not with the amount of money parents and young girls spend on clothing.

I am going to go against the tide here and say that I could see a lot of older girls, in their early to mid-teens, who would play this ironically and for fun. The kinds of girls who hate Paris Hilton and her ilk, and loved watching her go to jail, and there are a lot of those girls. They are the silent majority. At least in my world, they are. (via)

A game based on hating other girls and targeting them for ridicule? Not so noble. And not a trait I’d like to instill in my kids.

Parents who don’t want thier kids to participate in this can do thier job as parents and not let the kid go to the site. Sadly, parents don’t want to take responsibility to raise thier children. (via)

and

Of course its terrible . But people should try being parents instead of blaming web sites or wanting the Gov. or other bodies to raise their children for them,And Yes I sucessfully raised 3 Girls (via)

A child who visits the site does not necessarily have parents who don’t take responsibility. Ever heard of a friend’s house? Or the library?

And it still amazes me that people think vocal parents are bad parents. Doesn’t it make more sense that someone who speaks out about problems in their children’s world is a good parent? 

But you know, I’ve never seen an ad for Miss Bimbo. There are no Miss Bimbo dolls. Or Miss Bimbo stickers, or movies, or fruit snacks. No one’s promoting the Miss Bimbo website in schools. There are no Miss Bimbo coloring books. And no Miss Bimbo theme parks.

Guess there are lots of bimbos to worry about.

Related: Watchdog investigates website that lures girls with plastic surgery and diet

The story on Procter & Gamble’s Beinggirl.com just keeps getting worse.

First of all, I found out the reason the story about the article that promotes eating-disordered behavior to young girls got to Kate Harding in the first place was because a reader’s daughter had received the P & G-sponsored pamphlet in school. The pamplet directs the girls to the website.

So not only does P & G get the luxury of a captive audience, they can then guide the girls to more advertising — and to destructive misinformation.

The discussions that the girls are having in the comment sections are just heartbreaking. Many talk of wanting to lose weight (even in discussions on other topics) or about how they have tried purging or stopped eating altogether. They ask each other questions and give each other advice.

Shouldn’t there be an adult or health professional monitoring these discussions to offer help or to direct the girls to resources?

And why are the girls allowed to post their email addresses? 

The rest of the site is not unlike the fourth-grade pamphlet we received in school from the makers of Kotex: parts seem to be written thirty years ago. From Shaving 101:

Shaving isn’t what it used to be. You have things your mom never did, like multi-blade razors that help prevent nicks and cuts. And shave gels that leave you silky smooth and soft.

And from Cosmetically yours:

It wasn’t long ago that being blond was brassy, only a certain kind of woman would dare to paint her fingernails, and your mom would spit into her cake mascara.

I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t have to spit into my mascara, and I never saw my mother do it, either. 

There’s also a hair care product selector. See how easy it is to choose a product based on, um, what you need?

Long Term Relationship Collection
Body Envy Collection
Drama Clean Collection
Set Me Up Collection

Beinggirl.com may be a source of some good information for young girls, but how do you know where your daughter will end up on the site? 

And the fact that the offending article is still on the site today is just plain irresponsible.

Pass this information along to every single teacher and parent you know. P & G should not be allowed to promote eating-disordered behaviors to a captive group of girls in our public schools.

And contact P & G through beinggirl.com and ask them to take the article down. It’s the very least they can do.

Anastasia at YPulse has an interview with Michael Levine, executive director of the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, about digital media and kids. It’s not all bad, he says, and for now, I am inclined to believe him. Can’t wait to see the results of their research.  

Taking a short break from blogging — be back next week.

Evidently our beloved Webkinz were not making quite enough money for Ganz executives.

According to Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Ganz has “quietly” decided to accept advertisements in the virtual Webkinz World. The site has included ads for Bee Movie and Alvin and the Chipmunks.

This is A Sad Day in our home.

I had welcomed Ganz’s buy-the-stuffed-toy scheme because Webkinz World was such a welcome relief from the creepy ad-ridden virtual world of, say, Neopets. (The Golden Arches in Neopia? I don’t think so.)

Webkinz were easy save an allowance for and and a simple solution for relatives looking for a gift. And my girls LOVED them.

Today’s New York Times says reports that Webkinz World had been quite successful:

Other companies, like Mattel and Russ Berrie, have copied the approach. Traffic on Webkinz’s site grew by more than 800 percent over the last year, totaling 7.29 million unique visitors in October, according to Nielsen Online. Its closest competitor, Club Penguin from Disney, had 3.88 million visitors in that period. 

The Times also said that after trying to contact Ganz for comment “on Wednesday, the “Chipmunks” movie ad disappeared from the page.” 

Weird, because as you can see from my screenshot (or maybe you can’t, trust me on this one) the ads were still appearing around 9:45 p.m. (Central) last night.

In any case, we’ll be having a Webkinz-free Christmas here. But I won’t be the heavy. My girls will have to take their whining directly to Ganz.

You can too.