Dr. Daniel Wheeler was so kind as to share with me his dissertation from his doctoral program at the University of Central Florida titled The Effectiveness of the Dove Evolution Film as a One Shot Media Literacy Treatment.  The purpose of the study was to “test the effectiveness of the Dove Evolution film as a one-shot media literacy treatment to change sociocultural attitudes toward appearance.”

Many of us were skeptical of the award-winning Evolution ad since it became a viral sensation a few years ago (see Girls, pay no attention to the naked supermodel sitting next to you, or, Dove’s at it again).

And as it turns out it really wasn’t effective. At all. From Wheeler:

A modified version of the Sociocultural Attitudes Towards Appearance Questionnaire (SATAQ-3) was administered as a pretest and posttest, measuring four variables such as awareness and internalization of the media ideal, pressure to achieve the media ideal, and desire to be athletic. It was hypothesized that the treatment would raise awareness but lower internalization, pressure and desire to be athletic. Although none of the hypotheses were supported, there were statistically significant changes. Contrary to expectations, the awareness measure decreased and the pressure score increased.

In other words, viewing the film actually increased scores measuring pressure to obtain the media ideal, and the scores measuring internalization — the extent to which one accepts society’s norms of thinness and beauty and modifies behavior to achieve it — remained the same.

Wheeler also comments on the embarrassing truth that corporate giant Unilever owns both Dove and hyper-sexualized Axe (see Dove’s successful marketing cycle, guaranteed: Advertise products, repair damage to girls’ self-esteem. Repeat.):

However, the recognition that Dove Soap is a company subsidiary of a corporation whose other subsidiary, Axe men’s products, use sexual advertising, leads to the conclusion that the purpose of the Dove Evolution film is to make a profit for the company. By appealing to customers who perceive themselves as ordinary-looking women, Dove can sell beauty products to a wider range of customers.

Media literacy, then, has far-reaching applications, including recognizing commercial advertising disguised as a public service.

Emphasis mine. Which is why the Dove Self-Esteem Workshops still rub me the wrong way. If you argue that at least it’s a step in the right direction, I’d suggest that you read Kate Harding’s Body image revolution postponed at Salon.com and remember that, according to Unilever, when girls with self-esteem become adults they’ll need to lighter their skin, get rid of those wrinkles and lose some weight.

So even though the Evolution film didn’t enlighten us enough about the beauty industry, at least it helped sell more product. Which was Dove’s goal in the first place.

Ran across this webinar sponsored by the National School Public Relations Association:

Commercial Advertising in Schools? Take that Sacred Cow to Market!
Friday Jan. 29, 2010

Summary: Advertising has long been taboo in public education, but severe budget reductions and shortfalls now have districts rethinking their options. Learn how two innovative school systems challenged the status quo and skewered the sacred cow of “no advertising” to tap new sources of funding while promoting student success.

Moderator: Rich Bagin, APR, executive director, NSPRA

Panelists: Ken Blackstone, APR, director, communication services; and Steve Walts, Ed.D., superintendent, Prince William County Public Schools, Manassas, Va.; and Steve Valdez, director, instructional television, Weslaco (Texas) Independent School District

It’s bad enough when companies try to convince administrators that marketing in schools is inevitable — now cash-strapped districts may begin promoting it.

I hope these webinar attendees would also consider reading Click: The Twelfth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends: 2008-2009:

As part of their efforts to create a total advertising environment, companies continue to aggressively market in school to children and youth. Advertisers now routinely blur the boundaries between editorial content and advertising in an effort to thoroughly infuse childhood with marketing messages. . . .

This year‘s report considers how marketing and advertising subtly help shape children‘s socialization into values associated with commercialism. Although commercialism isn‘t explicitly included as part of the curriculum, it is taught subtly in school environments that include marketing and advertising. As marketing messages promote particular products, they simultaneously promote values that validate and support commercialism.

The pink microscopes and telescopes for girls offered in a Toys ‘R Us circular are getting some attention; my favorite discussion was at Pharyngula. From Minnesota’s own PZ Meyers:

There is a message being sent here. Being feminine, being girly, means you belong in a separate category in the science world, and it’s a category that needs less utility and more concern about appearances. I don’t get it, and I don’t understand how these kinds of distinctions persist.

As expected, the more than 250 comments are the typical ones we hear when someone dares to criticize The Product:

1. The author/other commenters are overreacting to The Product;
2. There’s nothing wrong with The Product;
3. The Product wouldn’t be on the market if there wasn’t a demand for it;
4. There wouldn’t be a problem if “boneheaded” parents wouldn’t buy The Product;
5. Someone knows someone who owns/bought/uses The Product and they’re fine so the entire criticism is invalid.

Heavy sigh.

But one enlightening comment:

Anyone claiming that they don’t see differences in gender-based marketing of children’s toys, particularly differences that have a negative impact on girls – how much marketing of children’s toys to girls have you looked at prior to this?

The fact that you don’t notice a phenomenon that is not aimed at you in the first place doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Thank you, brilliant commenter.

I’d like to offer that the issue isn’t about getting girls interested in science (please), nor is it about selling the most toys.

It is simply about developing life-long consumers to ensure that corporations remain in business and continue making profits.

It begins with a pink microscope (or pink Monopoly or pink globes or pink toy pianos or pink wagons).

Soon the indoctrinated girls become the fashion-conscious tweens and the trillion-dollar moms of marketers’ dreams.

I have no problem with advertising and marketing tactics directed toward adults. We understand it and can choose to ignore it.

Kids can’t.

And too often, those marketing messages and products made for kids are detrimental to their health. See, being a good little consumers is not necessarily good for kids.

It’s good to question pink toy microscopes. Keep it up.

photo courtesy Terren in Virginia

Three questions:

Does the Star Tribune really have to reprint the news release write an article every time a new American Girl Doll is shipped from China to the MOA?

Do I need to point out the ridiculousness of claiming that purchasing a $100 doll will help “reverse the consequences of too much time spent indoors . . . ?”

And who would send their daughter portaging in the Boundary Waters looking like this?

I have been carrying around the 2009 Target toy catalog with me since I received it in November, showing it to friends and just delighting in the fact that this post would write itself. Guest blogger Monica at Sociological Images beat me to it, however, with this fantasic critique.

Girl: I am a girl. I love being in love. Barbie, you are so lucky to have a big tough man like optimus prime to keep you safe. Now you can quit your job as a neurosurgeon and start having lots of babies! Yay! I think I’m going to skip dinner tonight so I can be skinny like you.

Boy: Optimus, no!! Don’t do it! She is only trying to trap you! Marriage is for pussies! Man up!!

You may also enjoy the comments, including a variation on my personal favorite: “If you’re analyzing this you’ve got too much time on your hands.”

Somehow I survived my once-a-year trip to a mall and even had the joy of discovering a new Disney Princess product:

Copy reads: Do not apply “ . . . to nails that are thin, damaged or infected. For children ages 5 +.”

Most five-year-olds’ nail are naturally thin. I would not want to be around when those things have to come off, either during normal bath time or by accident, when the little princess tries to actually play (except the sit-on-a-chair-like-a-princess-and-don’t-move-for-hours-game).

Ouch.

The smart parent should take their daughter to this salon in Texas, which recently installed special chairs for children:

For cute! But the French manicure costs extra!

Enough with the gift guides. If you’re looking for a gift — eco-friendly, BPA-free, safe, local, gender neutral, fair-trade, all-natural or small-enough-to-fit-your-budget — the internets are full of guides to help you. You don’t need another from me.

What you may need is some inspiration. Perhaps I’m projecting. But check out:

CCFC Guide to Commercial-Free Holidays 2009
New American Dream’s Simplify the Holidays 
Unplug Your Holidays from Mom Unplugged
“Please Don’t Buy Me Any Stuff” Gift Guide from Annie Fox

Have your own inspiration? Please share in the comments.

Bonus! Three Babysitter Approved gift suggestions:

A book: Actions Speak Loudest delves into the heart of thirty-two issues, ranging from childhood obesity to climate change, that are critical to the well-being of the next generation.  All proceeds go back into the causes and organizations in the book.

A tee shirt: Pigtail Pals redefines girly. 

A cause: Support The Advantage and Disadvantage of Zine: Self-Publishing in Cambodia, a long-term, multifaceted collaboration between PEM friend Anne Elizabeth Moore and a group of young women college students in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

The FTC recently issued Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children:  A Sixth Follow-Up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries.  At the urging of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), this year’s review included a thorough examination of the marketing of violent PG-13 films to young children.  CCFC’s Susan Linn comments:

The FTC’s report is must-read for anyone concerned about the marketing of violent media to children.  The report demonstrates that, when it comes to protecting young children from marketing for violent PG-13 movies, industry self-regulation has been a complete failure. The MPAA continues to turn a blind eye toward studios making an end run around parents in order to target children directly with violent content.

The FTC’s review of ad placements confirms CCFC’s findings that targeting young children for violent PG-13 films is pervasive.  PG-13 movies were regularly advertised on children’s networks such as Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network, even though 2- to 11-year-olds comprise 50% of viewers on these stations regardless of time of day. The FTC’s review of studio marketing plans demonstrates that violent PG-13 movies are deliberately targeted to young children, even when studios are aware that parents object to this practice. In one shocking example, when market research found that many parents of children ages 7 to 12 were concerned that a movie was too violent, the studio did not alter its plan to market the film to young children.  Instead, the studio changed its advertisements to deemphasize the violent content to “convince more parents that [this movie] will be ’safe for their kids to see.’”  Another film was heavily promoted to young children through tie-ins with foods and toys, even though the studio’s market research found that many parents considered the film too disturbing for their children.  

We are pleased that FTC questions the effectiveness of the film industry’s self-regulatory efforts.  The report dismisses the MPAA’s much-hyped referral agreement with the Children’s Advertising Review Unit — an agreement the MPAA claimed would address concerns about PG-13 marketing — as “not a meaningful self-regulatory measure.”  The report also notes that the MPAA does not consider movie cross-promotions or other marketing tie-ins to be within its purview, despite the fact these techniques are often part of a deliberate strategy to target younger children.   In one instance, the FTC found that the target demographic for licensed products was for a violent PG-13 film was boys 3 to 11.

While the FTC does an admirable job of documenting the problem, the Commission’s proposed solution– that the MPAA develop an explicit policy for the marketing of PG-13 to young children — is too little, too late.  For years, parents, advocates for children, and even the FTC’s staff have asked the MPAA to develop such a policy, but the MPAA seems far more concerned with protecting film industry profits than protecting the wellbeing of children.  Since the MPAA is unwilling to enforce marketing standards based its own rating system, the FTC should develop its own set of rules.  If there is any question whether the Commission has that authority, then Congress should explicitly empower the FTC with full rulemaking authority to protect children from harmful advertising.

Read the FTC Report. 

photo courtesy hoyasmeg