Stories told while shopping with my daughters
April 25, 2011Something for the 13-year-old:
And for the 9-year-old:
This is why we need to keep telling them other stories.
Follow-up: Will corporations only support schools by getting access to kids?
April 20, 2011This is a response to my previous post from Josh Golin at Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.
Lisa: I, too, had a recent visit from Mr. Curious. I’m not sure his curiosity is genuine. I think he’s looking for someone to tell him that all of the reasons you and I and others give why it’s wrong to allow advertising in schools do not apply to his child’s school. I, like you, suggested he look for ways to engage businesses that didn’t involve the quid pro quo of selling his students to advertisers. He didn’t like that suggestion and became very insulting. Isn’t the Internet wonderful?
But leaving aside questions of manners and motive, I doubt very much that Mr. Curious’s daughter’s art class was canceled due to the fact that they couldn’t get any advertising revenue. Advertising in schools simply doesn’t raise very much money. That’s even more true when you eliminate, as Mr. C does, a range of companies and products that you consider inappropriate leaving you with a much smaller number of companies from which to solicit ads. (It’s also not surprising that schools that announce publicly that they are so desperate for funding that they want ads are not exactly negotiating with advertisers from a position of strength.)
And as for Mr. C’s anger and if it’s misplaced, let’s recap: According to him, 40% of the parents in the district work at Corporation X. That suggests that a lot of their future work force will come from the school district as well. In other words, it’s absolutely in Corporation X’s interests to make sure the kids in the district get a decent education. Presumably, Corporation X is also one that sells consumer goods (since they would like to advertise in the school) so it’s also in their interests to make sure the kids’ schools don’t crumble so they get a good education and good paying jobs so they can buy X’s products. And yet: Corporation X has told the school that unless we get something concrete and immediate back — the right to advertise directly to a captive audience of your students — you won’t see a dime from us.
Here is exhibit A of how corporations want all the rights of people but when it comes to responsibilities — like being part of a community — the first question is what’s in it for me? It amazes me that this doesn’t make Mr. Curious angry.
Which leads me to a suggestion for Mr. C. Since Corporation X seems so concerned about public opinion, go back to them and say something like: “We are appalled that your position seems to be that, in a community that has given you so much, you will not offer any kind of support to our schools unless we give you access to our children. If that is really your position, we will letting everyone in the community — and beyond — know what the price of getting your “support” really is. If we’ve misconstrued your position and you are willing to give a no-strings-attached donation, I know of a wonderful arts program that could use your help. Sincerely, Mr. Curious.”
If corporate advertisers don’t help fund schools, who will?
April 18, 2011The New York Times looks at the now-more-common trend toward commercialism in schools (On School Buses, Ad Space for Rent) just as Mr. Curious, an anonymous Corporate Babysitter reader, responds to my posts about advertising in schools with the following question:
We [parents at my child's school] are currently seeking alternative revenue sources for next year and I wanted to reach out to you and a few others to generate opinions on what options are out there for parents who want the world for their school and children.
Mr. Curious agrees that some ads don’t belong in schools (he lists Red Bull, soda, video games, candy, name brand clothing, make-up, and tanning), but asks:
But where is the harm is allowing positive, educational, smart messaged ads that encourage students to make good decisions?”
My first instinct would be to direct the reader to this lengthy post, Minnesota’s in-school advertising controversy moves to national stage, and to this letter to the editor I wrote to our local newspaper as districts here in Minnesota began considered advertising.
But Mr. Curious brings up an interesting point in his quest for answers:
. . . What I’ve found is a whole lot of commercial free advocacy groups that seem to do a lot of complaining but offer no real substantive alternatives.
Seems he has a right to be angry. Without identifying his location, he told me this story:
. . . We live in a community supported by a large corporation who would be happy to support our schools as 40% of the students parents are employed by that corporation. As a result of advocacy groups like yours (may not be you directly) they have decided not to contribute to any advertising relating or pertaining to our schools and those throughout the country.
In a form letter their communications department told us “due to mounting pressure from anti-commercialization groups they no longer contribute to advertising affiliated or related directly or non-directly to children.”
. . . My daughter no longer has a weekly art class as a direct result of this. I ask again what business is it of yours and your organization to tell me, my school, my community, and advertisers what they can and can’t do in my community. If you want to petition, picket, slander, and defame the businesses in your community then go right ahead – but stay out of my backyard.
Mr. Curious says that the parents have tried all sorts of fundraisers, “. . . from food and catalog campaigns, to raffles, bingo, carnivals and auctions. The amount of time and effort needed to incorporate these events is exhausting and does little to combat our budget shortfalls.”
Mr. Curious has a point, although I think his anger is misplaced — directed at groups who want to keep commercialism out of public schools instead of at the local or federal government who, by law, should be funding his school properly.
And I have to admit there are no easy answers to this one. In fact, last week I attended a town hall meeting sponsored by the Minnesota Business Partnership where a panel discussed what’s to be done about Minnesota schools that are failing our students. Even those panel members — heads of corporations, educators, and the state commissioner of education — couldn’t come up with a “silver bullet” solution.
But one thing that they did suggest was partnering businesses with schools in order to help them run more efficiently so that more money goes into the classroom. This is a terrific way for a corporation to help schools without advertising.
That’s a start. I also came up with these ideas for Mr. Curious, which address his specific problem of the eliminated art class in his child’s school:
Arts and Culture with Target: Through partnerships with educators and arts organizations, Target helps students and their families engage in arts and cultural events nationwide.
The Dana Foundation: Supports professional development for teaching artists.
MetLife Foundation Partners in Arts Education Program: Distributes best-practices guides, makes grants and produces training institutes to support high-quality, sustainable arts education partnerships with public schools.
National Endowment for the Arts ARTS EDUCATION: Art Works
Compas School Arts Fund
National Art Education Foundation
And this just happened to come to my email inbox this week: Parenting.com’s Mom Congress School Transformation Contest. They’re offering a $20,000 prize.
Mr. Curious might also want to try his local public library to see if they offer access to the Foundation Directory Online Professional (which I have access to via Hennepin County Libraries). This is a searchable database covering over 76,600 U.S. foundations and corporate giving programs and includes descriptions of more than 324,000 associated grants.
And finally, there’s DonorsChoose.org, which connects donors to classrooms in need. If Mr. Curious puts up a request for funding for his child’s school here — and lets me know about it — I will personally donate $50 and encourage other readers to support it.
And now I’ll ask other advocacy groups who, like me, complain about commercialism in schools: Any ideas for Mr. Curious?
Word Cloud: How Toy Ad Vocabulary Reinforces Gender Stereotypes
April 5, 2011Crystal 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:
No further comment needed.
Mattel scares little girls with Monster High Dolls
March 17, 2011Move over Bratz dolls. Childhood sexualization has new spokesmodels.
Here, the Twin Cities’ Jenny Ginther and Krista Carpenter, co-leaders of the body image group at Water’s Edge Counseling, talk about the Mattel’s controversial Monster High Doll Clawdeen Wolf, which is being marketed to girls age 6 and up.
Amy Jussel covers it all in this post at Shaping Youth.
Thanks to Trevor for the tip.
State of the Blog: Another break for Corporate Babysitter
March 15, 2011Life circumstances (new day job, new house, and a recent health scare) have encouraged me to do a lot of reflecting lately.
I began blogging more than four years ago; my first post criticized Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty. Raising two daughters, I was inspired to write about corporations who were shaping my girls’ views of themselves in order to make lots and lots of money. A sampling:
Less is more, or, may your daughters’ dream be to drive a Disney Princess car someday
Bratz girls are not sexy and you’re sick for thinking so
Time to scream about girls’ Halloween costumes — again
Girls, pay no attention to the naked supermodel sitting next to you, or, Dove’s at it again
PTA is a voice for multinational corporate interests, vows to fight frizzy hair
I didn’t know it at the time, but I was researching what would become the foundation of Parents for Ethical Marketing. I’m very proud of the writing and advocacy work I’ve done. But I’ve found I’m not feeling as pressed to pursue these issues anymore. I’d like to think that it’s because my daughters, now 9 and 13, are over the hump — that I’ve ushered them through those years where they were most susceptible, and have come out on the other side successfully.
That may be overly optimistic — I don’t know. But I do know that the world of blogging and social media has changed so much just over the past few years: When I looked for resources to help me parent the way I felt was right, they were few and far between. Amy Jussel’s Shaping Youth was the first blog I read religiously and I found comfort in the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s website. I also learned much from Nancy Gruver (New Moon Girls) and Joe Kelly (then Dads and Daughters).
Now we have Twitter and Facebook and so many great resources out there:
Marketing, Media and Childhood
See Jane/Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
And some places that even include PEM as a resource:
Jean Kilbourne (*squee!*)
Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth about Guilty Pleasure TV
Redefine Girly A blog for Pigtail Pals
All this is to say that I’ve found myself at another crossroads in life, and with a burgeoning teenager in the house, I’ll be stepping back from the keyboard. Not completely, but I won’t be around so much. I am confident that I am leaving my concerns in the hands of many capable advocates.
Thank you for all that you do.
Peggy Orenstein on avoiding the Disney Princess culture
January 27, 2011Cross-posted from A Magical Year without Disney:
Here’s a clip of Peggy Orenstein, author of Cinderella Ate My Daughter, talking about the four-billion-dollar Disney Princess complex and the difficulty and rewards of not choosing Disney.
Remember, Orenstein will be reading at the Barnes and Noble at the Galleria in Edina at 7 p.m. tomorrow, Friday, January 28.
What if ad agencies made sure kids’ cereal boxes told the truth?
January 25, 2011In the great debate over who’s responsible for kids’ unhealthy diets and related illnesses, here’s one that points to corporate marketing: Products that are labeled healthy for kids really aren’t:
Parents shouldn’t look to the labels on the front of food package for guidance on picking the healthiest products for their kids. Claiming Health: Front-of-Package Labeling of Children’s Food looked at packages with front of package labeling–symbols that identify healthier products–and found that 84% of products studied didn’t meet basic nutritional standards.
Consider parents who are in a rush at the grocery store — can we really blame them for choosing a product that their kids clamor for and is good for them to boot?
It’s not the first time front-of-packaging labels and health claims have come under fire. Meant to inform consumers, most nutritional marketing does just the opposite. There’s a slew of competing symbols, labels and check marks that have been developed by food manufacturers to sell their goods, without little to no oversight.
Babysitter Approved: A Minneapolis firm, Haberman, is asking consumers to identify marketing campaigns “that truly ADD value to our world.” ADD or DELETE also asks companies and agencies to take a look at what they’re producing:
We think the advertising and communications industry needs to redirect some of its creative firepower towards creating positive change instead of more distasteful or wasteful advertisements. Take the 5% challenge – devote some of your business time, marketing expertise and resources to ADDing.
The campaign’s focus on Super Bowl advertising reminds me of this slide — now slightly outdated — I’ve used in parent education presentations showing the yearly increases in public education spending, Super Bowl ad revenue, and the amount spent marketing to children:
