World governments are being asked to monitor advertising directed at children in an effort to curb non-communicable diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart and lung disease — a growing cause of premature death in poor countries.

From the World Health Organization:

21 January, 2011 | Geneva — Children throughout the world are exposed to marketing of foods high in fat, sugar or salt, which increases the potential of younger generations developing noncommunicable diseases during their lives. The World Health Organization is urging countries to take action to reduce the exposure of such marketing to children by implementing a set of internationally-endorsed measures.

Television advertising is responsible for a large share of the marketing of unhealthy foods and, according to systematic reviews of evidence, advertisements influence children’s food preferences, purchase requests and consumption patterns.

In May 2010, WHO Member States endorsed a new set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children. The recommendations call for national and international action to reduce the exposure of children to marketing messages that promote foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars, or salt, and to reduce the use of powerful techniques to market these foods to children. . . .

WHO data shows that 43 million pre-school children worldwide are obese or overweight. Scientific reviews have also shown that a significant portion of television advertising that children are exposed to promotes “noncore” food products which are low in nutritional value. . . .

Preparations are ongoing for the first United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on the Prevention and Control of NCDs, which will be held on 19-20 September 2011 in New York. Heads of state and government are being invited to the High-level Meeting, which will focus on the health, development and socioeconomic impacts of NCDs, particularly in the developing world.

Image courtesy {N}Duran

Taking a restful sabbatical. No worries.

Forget about creativity and imagination! Instead of homemade, Moms, Target suggests your teenage (or tween!) daughter dresses as a Sexy Native American. Or a Sexy Honey Bear. Or a Sexy Angel (Angelicious!).

I’m hoping to score some points with my in-laws after being quoted in Advocates Debate Using Advertising in Schools to Raise Funds in Budget Crisis on FOX.com.

Lisa Ray, founder of the Minnesota-based group Parents for Ethical Marketing, says the biggest problem with in-school advertising is that it undermines parents’ ability to protect their children from commercial messages.

I’m really more concerned about the creation of yet another space where kids can’t get away from consumerism than I am about “protecting” them from ads.

But School Media, a company that specializes in school advertising, says ads can serve the needs of the advertiser and the education of the students. The company is working with St. Francis school district and currently awaiting nine additional pending contracts.

“All of our advertisers are under the understanding that everything has to be nutrition, education or health and wellness based. Anything outside of those parameters won’t be allowed within the school,” company spokesman Paul Miller told FoxNews.com.

Certainly sounds good. Can’t wait to see the list of advertisers who qualify.

Does it bother anyone else that public tax dollars are promoting private companies in a public space? Or that we’re selling our kids’ attention to the highest bidder?

From this weekend’s AP story Schools seek extra cash through campus ads:

The marketing push is spawning a new industry of school advertising consultants, who line up advertisers for a slice of the revenue.

“We want to bring Fortune 500 clients into school districts,” said Mickey Freeman, president and chief executive of Education Funding Partners, a Denver startup, who charges a 15 percent commission.

Advertisers are eager for a new way to reach students, consultants said. “It’s all about timing,” said Greg Meyer, president of recently formed School Media, which is pitching the locker-wrapping concept to Minnesota districts. “Five years ago, this wouldn’t be an option.”

In other words, the timing is perfect to take full advantage of the lousy state of education funding in the U.S.

These entrepreneurs will argue that advertising in schools is a win-win proposition. Sure, the ad broker wins, and the advertiser wins, and the school may get some sorely needed extra revenue.

All by taking advantage of the children — or “impressions,” in marketing-speak — who have no choice but to be there.

Who wins? Any way you look at it, it’s the kids who lose.

Are these the values of education? And is this really the kind of economy we want to embrace?

As long as public schools continue to have financial problems, there will be marketers ready to take advantage of them. The San Diego school board recently voted against allowing advertisers into their schools while here in Minnesota, the St. Francis board voted to let the locker-wrapping begin.

This story isn’t going away. I was interviewed for an Associated Press story this week and for a news story on WCCO AM radio today. I understand why districts are tempted, but allowing advertising in schools is simply not the solution. Everything taking place within the walls of a school should benefit students. Advertising benefits only the advertiser and the company selling them the space.

A new study verifies that while very young children are adept at using the internet, many do not recognize ads while others are unable to distinguish them from website content. According to MediaPost,

. . . children — especially those under the age of six — were unaware of the concept of advertising, while older kids may know about ads but couldn’t always distinguish them. “Even when words such as ‘ad’ or ‘advertisement’ marked the ads, some of the children still clicked on them, thinking they were legitimate content,” states the report.

The report recommends:

– ads be more prominent and large enough for children to see in display ads and explicitly state when an ad appears at the start of a video;

– ads aimed at children avoid calls to action (like “Click Here!”) because they draw kids’ attention away from content without knowing they are clicking on an ad;

– that ads have consistent placement on the right side of a page to help kids distinguish between ads and content; and

– when kids click on ads, they are warned that they are leaving the site with options to continue or go back.

The study also made recommendations on how advertisers could make better use of their ad dollars on kids’ websites, which shall not be reported on this blog.

The report was issued by the Nielsen Norman Group.

We had an instructive back-to-school event at my daughters’ K-8 public school here in Minneapolis, where we visited classrooms, talked to teachers, dropped off supplies, signed up to volunteer, and turned in a ridiculous number of filled-out forms.

Our local public library, part of the Hennepin County Library system, participated by providing a table of materials, including information on library hours and programs, recommended readings for specific age groups, tips for parents to encourage reading at  home, and these:

1) packages of Disney tattoos, and

2) packs of Disney “painting” sheets.

Both are ads for a new DVD release of Disney’s Pinocchio. Not ads for books. Not ads for something that will be coming to the library.

And both are specifically designed to be appealing to children.

The materials weren’t displayed on the public library’s table for long — I removed them as soon as I got permission from the school staff. Later, I contacted the library and received a long and sincere apology (accepted). The librarian there told me that they often get mailings of materials like this from publishers. (Disney Publishing Worldwide includes Disney Global Book Group, Global Children’s Magazines, and Disney Family Fun Group.)

I spoke with another librarian from a different Hennepin County library and asked her why a publisher would even think that distributing advertising via a public library would be appropriate. She responded, “They’re marketers. They’ll try anything once.”

She told me that when she receives those mailings, they are immediately dumped into the recycling.

This made me wonder if the Hennepin County Library system had a policy addressing corporate advertising. Answer? No. When I explained the incident to their communications manager, she let me know that they do “employ the best practice of refraining from promoting this kind of corporate advertising” and “While we do not currently have a policy, this is a guideline that staff are encouraged to follow.”

I work in a public organization and I know there are zillions of rules around promoting private interests with public funds. So I’m surprised the libraries don’t have a more solid policy in place.

Perhaps they should.

Cross-posted at A Magical Year Without Disney.