Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood

Where do you draw the line?

2012-01-24T10:11:00.000-08:00

This post was written by guest blogger Brandy King of Knowledge Linking. After spending the last eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in our media-saturated and commercialized world.

When I was interviewing other parents about how they handle holiday gifts, I had two mothers say the same thing to me: I let my kids have licensed characters on pajamas, but not on any other clothes. Their rationale was that they didn’t want their children to be walking advertisements.

I had never thought of commercialization in terms of items used in the home vs. out of the home. So this got me thinking: How is it that I draw the line? What are the determining factors I use to make decisions around commercialized items? And what criteria do other parents use?

I realized that my determining factor essentially comes down to the intent behind the gift. For example, I’ve let a few Mickey Mouse shirts slip into my kids’ wardrobe because they were brought home as gifts from Disney World by close relatives. And I let a Cars racetrack toy through because my son’s Godfather excitedly picked it out as a Christmas gift and couldn’t wait to put it together with him. But when acquaintances pick up a quick gift to bring with them with they visit, they seem to automatically go for whatever they can find with the latest “boy-oriented” Disney character on it. Since my kids don’t really know Disney characters, and don’t usually become attached to the gift, off to charity it goes.

Since this “intent criteria” is not hard and fast, I often wonder if I’m being hypocritical. But in the end, I always come back to my real goal being “commercialization in moderation”, so I feel OK about the very few commercialized items we do have in the house. And just like decisions around what to feed a baby or how to put them to sleep, I believe that what ultimately matters is that it’s the most comfortable decision for that individual family.

Other parents, like the friends I interviewed, had certain delineations, certain rules, that they could more easily apply; characters were either allowed (pajamas), or not allowed (school clothes). (I’m assuming this is more useful criteria than mine when it comes to helping kids understand why decisions are made). And some parents feel like they ultimately want no part of supporting certain companies, so just make a blanket rule not to allow anything even questionably commercialized into the house.

I’m really curious to hear from other parents about how they make decisions. In fact, I’m so interested to hear and learn from others that I am co-hosting a Twitter chat with CCFC on this very topic! I hope you’ll join us, here are the details:

Parenting in a Commercialized World: Where Do You Draw the Line?
February 2nd, 2012 at 9pm EST at hashtag #CCFCchat
Hosted by:
Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood Twitter: @commercialfree
Brandy King of Knowledge Linking Information Services Twitter: @knowldgelinking
Melissa Wardy of Pigtail Pals – Redefine Girly Twitter: @pigtailpals

Where Do Parents Find Support in their Communities?

2012-01-24T08:40:00.000-08:00

This post was written by guest Mary Rothschild, facilitator of Witness for Childhood in collaboration with CCFC. Mary, who is the mother of 2 daughters and has worked with pre-school age children and served parents and teachers of children birth to age 8 for fifteen years through Healthy Media Choices.

A friend of mine, mother of two small children, calls this the “cuddling in” time of year. The holidays are over and life settles into a regular pattern and (in our part of the country, at least) the short days and cold weather keep family closer to home. It’s a good time for reflection.

If the bill has yet to come due for the gifts given a mere month ago (where are they now?) this is a good time to make strategies for more intentional getting and giving for the coming birthdays and, eventually, for those holidays again.

That’s not so easy; how do families get the local support they need for that intentionality?

What I hear is that parents talk to each other about concerns that the ways they’re spending their time and money don’t adequately reflect their values. Those friendships form bedrock for many. Then, there are the occasional workshops at school or house of worship around violence or representation of sexuality in screen media.

I’d like to reflect here on another resource: faith and humanist communities, by which I don’t just mean the major religions and humanist organizations, but whatever group gathers specifically for a connection with values and beliefs. There are groups of parents that align around specific parenting issues: breastfeeding or natural parenting, for instance, that might be included. It is difficult to find a term to cover them all.

Don’t such groups afford an ideal situation for focusing on these issues? Here are some questions, for each to ponder about their own circumstance, to start off our conversation:

• Is there recognition of the fact, in religious education curricula or parent workshops, that exposure to screen media can impact the spiritual development of young children, not just because of violence and representations of sexuality, but because it cuts into quiet time and free play, which area essential for children’s development?

• Do families have a venue for sharing strategies about situations that arise about play dates as well a birthday and holiday gifts?

• Stories from family and culture are great alternatives to the popular culture story. Do your children hear those stories of strength, sacrifice, and fulfillment without material wealth?

• Are any community resources for parents usually framed as being for mothers? Including all the adults who live with the child makes changes easier and more effective.

• Does the community take advantage of opportunities such as Screen-Free Week and/or encourage families to establish less formal and more consistent “Media Sabbaths” where all electronics are turned off, even for a couple of hours a week? Is that discussion happening?

• Do you feel supported by your community in your attempts to give your child a commercial-free childhood? If not, what could you do to elicit that support (and find others who are feeling the same way)?

• Faith and humanist communities have long been effective agents for change on a national and global level. Is activism around the commercialization of childhood on the agenda in your community?

• If your community does provide this kind of support, how is it going and what resources might your share?

The essential question is this: Is the impact of screen media on young children’s spiritual development a burning issue for your community? If not, why not?

Thanks, please share below.

Congress to Kids: Drop Dead

2011-12-20T12:39:00.000-08:00

Last month, when Congress declared pizza a vegetable, it was hard to believe things could get much worse. But never underestimate politicians’ ability to put corporate interests ahead of children’s health. In the massive budget bill just passed, Congress stuck in language to require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a cost/benefit analysis before finalizing a report that would provide the food industry with science-based nutrition guidelines for marketing to children. Experts from four federal agencies put heads together, and for the past two years have tried to complete its charge (which ironically, came from Congress in the first place) amidst powerful industry push-back.

An objective approach is badly needed because Big Food’s own lame voluntary rules allow such sugar atrocities as Reese’s Puffs cereal and Kool-Aid to be marketed to kids. But this latest political delay tactic makes no sense because it’s entirely voluntary for industry to adopt any final guidelines. As Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, noted:

Doing a cost-benefit analysis makes sense for regulations that require companies to actually do something. But there is no cost associated with something that is totally voluntary.

Where then, is this idea coming from? Specifically, before its report is made final, FTC must now attempt to comply with Executive Order 13563. What’s that? Bear with me, as some history is in order.

The order derives from a nasty right-wing deregulation policy that dates back (surprise!) to the Reagan administration. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) may sound innocuous, but over the past 30 years, it has become the best tool Corporate America has to kill proposed rules it doesn’t like. It acts as a gigantic hoop an agency must jump through to prove societal benefits outweigh economic costs, tacked on to an already stringent regulatory rule-making process. Here’s how Huffington Post Washington correspondent Dan Froomkin explains it:

OIRA analysts are supposed to rigorously examine proposed regulations and reject or revise them as necessary, based on interagency concerns and whether the costs of policy proposals outweigh their benefits.

This “regulatory bottleneck by design” has been a huge success for business interests over the years:

Since Ronald Reagan opened the OIRA office in 1981, Republicans have used it to particular advantage to pursue an anti-regulatory agenda, defanging environmental rules on things like water runoff and climate change — even blocking attempts to collect information that might lead to regulations.

Despite promises by President Obama to develop a new approach and some positive efforts early on to reverse Bush-era oppressive policies, this past January the White House, as Froomkin explains: “finally issued a limp executive order that basically reaffirmed the principles that had been guiding the office for years.” So much for change. The effect has been that all “significant executive-branch regulations” must get approval from OIRA before being proposed or finalized. That’s some bottleneck. (For more on deregulation and its impacts on health and safety under the Obama administration see OMB Watch.)

Which brings us back to junk food marketing to children. Remember, any final federal recommendations on nutrition guidelines would be voluntary. The entire process was never to result in regulations. This summer, FTC’s David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, wrote a frankly worded and humorous blog post in response to a massive industry freak-out led by the advertising lobby warning of “suppression of unprecedented amounts of advertising” to children. (Wasn’t that the idea?)

Vladeck tried to calm industry fears by explaining the FTC is just reporting to Congress, which “provides no basis for law enforcement action.” He repeated: “This is a report to Congress, not a rulemaking proceeding, so there’s no proposed government regulation.” And he added, just in case industry still didn’t get it: “A report is not a law, a regulation, or an order, and it can’t be enforced.” (my emphasis)

If you’re still with me, even if you didn’t attend law school, you may be wondering by now, how could Congress require that an executive order intended for proposed agency regulations apply to a report that “provides no basis for law enforcement action?”

Good question. I’ve been asking a few of my lawyer colleagues the same thing and they agree it makes no legal sense. Public health attorney Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, which also fights the tobacco industry, told me he thinks the executive order only applies to formal rule-making and “does not seem to apply to promulgation of voluntary guidelines that go to great pains to avoid regulating industry.”

In other words, FTC is likely on solid legal ground to go ahead and release its final report to Congress without conducting any cost/benefit analysis. But I doubt we will ever see the final report. (We do have the proposed version, which can still be used to stick it to industry, as the Environmental Working Group recently did in its damning report on sugary cereals.)

This wouldn’t be the first time Congress overstepped its legal boundaries. As I argued with the pizza-as-vegetable debacle, Congress hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry’s bidding. Here, it’s not exactly the regulatory process that’s been superseded, because the report FTC is trying to release is voluntary, but Congress is just as wrong.

Apparently, it wasn’t enough for the food, advertising, and media industries to spend $37 million lobbying this year to get its way. Nor has the multi-year delay of this entire process thanks to ongoing corporate bullying sufficed. How about making bogus “job loss” claims or (for the top Chutzpah Award) warning that we’d have to import more produce if kids actually ate their fruits and vegetables? Still not enough.

Industry keeps right on lobbying, it’s what they do best. And for Congress, it’s just business as usual. But the very real consequence of maintaining the status quo is that children will continue to be exploited for their emotional vulnerability, while getting lured into bad eating habits that can last a lifetime.

Cost/benefit analysis? Industry benefits, while children pay the cost.

Postscript: Thanks to CSPI’s Margo Wootan for sharing this take action link – tell the Obama administration, don’t let Congress and the food industry win this fight.

Sorry Mrs. O, but jumping jacks aren’t enough

2011-12-20T12:31:00.000-08:00

At a recent summit on childhood obesity, the first lady announced a shift in her well-known Let's Move campaign -- away from food reform and toward an increased focus on exercise. Instead of "forcing [children] to eat their vegetables," she told her audience, "it's getting them to go out there and have fun."

Yes, you heard that right. The first lady actually said that eating vegetables is a chore. And that playing is a preferable focus for her campaign because it's easier.

In February 2010, when the first lady announced a campaign to "end childhood obesity within a generation," I was immediately skeptical. I worried that "Let's Move" signaled an over-emphasis on physical activity, a much safer political issue than eating habits, and one that Big Food gladly embraces.

But when I took a closer look, I was pleasantly surprised to see that three of the four issues areas initially identified by the campaign were food-related. (A fifth issue has since been added.) The goals or "pillars" of the campaign are: 1) improving access to healthy, affordable food; 2) providing healthy food in schools; 3) empowering parents and caregivers; 4) increasing physical activity; and 5) creating a healthy start for children.

It's hard to argue with any of those worthy causes, and it's important to have the first lady bring attention to issues such as food deserts, and to serve as a national spokesperson in a way we've not seen before. I have also given praise where praise was due, such as when the first lady recommended -- as part of a checklist for daycare centers to follow -- significant limits on screen time for children.

And while the White House insists that food is very much still on the agenda, it's hard to ignore the potential for politics going into an election year. (When New York University professor Marion Nestle recently dared to question the first lady's renewed emphasis on exercise, she got set straight by White House chef and Let's Move advisor Sam Kass; that's how touchy this subject is.)

Exercise is fun, but it doesn't match the science

Putting politics aside for a moment, let's talk research, which can often get lost in the shuffle or, worse, distorted by corporate interests.

Obesity expert Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, says the first lady's focus on physical activity to help "end childhood obesity in a generation" is misguided. More importantly, he says, it's not evidence-based.

He pointed me to many scientific studies showing that physical activity, while important for other reasons, has not been shown to be effective in preventing childhood obesity. (See here, here, here, and here.) On the contrary, data shows that an increase in food intake alone explains the rise in obesity in children.

Children's diets have changed so drastically in the last few decades, with the increase in calories, for example, due to soda and fast food so large, that moderate increases in exercise are not likely to make a difference.

As Freedhoff explains, it's a "testament to the simple fact that it's far more difficult to burn calories than it is to consume them."

To be clear, exercise does have many health benefits; it just shouldn't be used to distract us from overconsumption and marketing of junk food. Also, lots of skinny kids suffer from diet-related health problems, including allergies.

So if science isn't driving the exercise bandwagon, what is?

Playing it safe

After nearly two years, it's clear that Let's Move is steering away from anything that challenges the food industry. In fact, the campaign organizers appear eager to form corporate partnerships. For example, the first lady hailed Walmart's so-called "healthy food initiative" as a new "nutrition charter." Of course, Walmart hasn't exactly kept its promises when it comes to the environment, so we have little reason to trust the company when it comes to nutrition.

Moreover, the first lady's deafening silence over the past few months during extremely heated public battles over children's diets gives us more proof than we ever needed that she is either unwilling or unable to take on the hard political issues.

While Mrs. Obama certainly showed leadership last year to help pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to improve school food, she hasn't followed through. The recent hostile takeover of the USDA's school food regulations by Congress on behalf of the frozen food lobby was one such example.

From the beginning, Let's Move has also been mostly MIA on the extremely contentious and intractable problem of junk food marketing to children.

In one exception, the first lady gave a strong speech in March 2010 to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (Big Food lobbyists) imploring food companies to clean up their act. At the time, she asked: "What does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids?"

But her admonishments had little impact. Instead, the food industry has launched a no-holds-barred attack on an attempt by the federal government to place reasonable, science-based, voluntary restrictions on food marketing to children.

To make its case to the feds, kids' cereal giant General Mills went so far as to argue that getting kids to eat more fruits and vegetables would hurt the nation's economy because food costs "would increase by a staggering amount."

The argument was based on a bogus economic study, which warned that demand for fruits and vegetables would skyrocket, resulting in almost $500 billion more spent on imported food and $30 billion less on domestically grown grain. As Donald Cohen, who recently uncovered this absurd claim, noted:

Even if the voluntary guidelines were that effective and their study was accurate, it's audacious marketing spin to turn an overwhelmingly positive victory for public health into a big government, job killing attack on freedom.

This one-two punch comes from the very industry players with whom Mrs. Obama claimed she could "find common ground." And it has left many advocates feeling defeated.

So when, instead of speaking out on behalf of the millions of children who will continue to be served french fries and pizza in school and get bombarded daily with Happy Meal ads, the first lady announces (as she did this week) that Let's Move has broken a record for jumping jacks, it's disappointing to say the least.

Here's what Freedhoff had to say to the first lady:

I'd tell her that we should be striving to change the environment so as to make lower-calorie, less-processed food choices the default. Let's Move may be politically palatable, but "Let's Cook" would likely have a far greater impact on health.

Let's Cook? Uh-oh, sounds like a job killer.

Toying with the Happy Meal: Is McDonald’s evading the law?

2011-12-05T13:57:00.000-08:00

While most media outlets dubbed it the "Happy Meal toy ban," the ordinance passed in San Francisco last year didn't ban anything. The law just placed a few reasonable nutrition guidelines (a maximum of 600 calories per meal and limits on fat and salt, for example) for restaurants using free toy incentives to lure kids into a lifetime of bad eating habits. In a rare victory for children's health, the bill passed despite heavy lobbying by McDonald's.

The law is scheduled to go into effect today, but the fast food giant -- who didn't want to change the nutritional makeup of its Happy Meals -- has devised a clever gimmick to maintain the status quo. Instead of giving the toys away for free, parents will now pay 10 cents for the latest plastic action figure. And for bonus PR, the dime will be donated to the city's Ronald McDonald House.

Some media outlets have claimed that McDonald's has successfully found a loophole, or has dodged or skirted the law. And it may look that way on the surface, but I'm not so sure.

It's not clear to this lawyer that the clown trick is in full compliance with the law. What has really changed and how exactly will this new 10-cent rule play out at the cash register? Is McDonald's HQ requiring its San Francisco franchises to ask if a parent would like to pay 10 cents extra for the toy? Even if they are, the reality is that the Happy Meal business model depends on toys being automatically included.

Fast food outlets manipulate so-called "default options" on the menu to ensure maximum sales. For example, when you order a "combo meal" it's likely to automatically come with a soda -- not, say, juice or milk -- because soda has higher profit margins.

McDonald's is determined to keep Happy Meals tied to toys, because a new toy every week ensures repeat business (and repeated nagging). The easiest way to do this is to include the toy as the default option. If parents started refusing the toys, it would defeat the entire purpose of the Happy Meal: to fulfill the company's (likely very lucrative) contractual agreements with media companies that require them to cross-promote the latest movie, kids' TV show, etc.

It's no wonder then, that McDonald's is so desperate to retain the toys. But is this true compliance with a law that was meant to disassociate toys from unhealthy food? I don't think so.

McDonald's has a history of acting irresponsibly, despite its claims to the contrary. For example, the company proudly touts its membership in the Children's Food and Beverage Initiative. Through this voluntary, self-regulatory trade group, the company makes numerous claims about how responsible its child marketing policy is, including:

McDonald's is proud of our long heritage of responsible communication with our customers, especially children, and continues to play a leadership role in the development of standards that govern advertising for children and adults.

However, an in-depth investigation by the Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University found that McDonald's has failed to live up to its voluntary pledge -- in numerous ways. For example, the study found that McDonald's increased its TV advertising from 2007 to 2009, with preschoolers seeing 21 percent more ads for McDonald's and older children viewing 26 percent more.
The Rudd Center study also found:

McDonald's web-based marketing (on Ronald.com) is aimed at children as young as 2.
McDonald's 13 websites attracted 365,000 unique child visitors and 294,000 unique teen visitors on average each month in 2009.
African American teens viewed 75 percent more TV ads for McDonald's compared to white teens.

All this is despite McDonald's "commitment to responsible marketing to children."

The Rudd Center also found that this type of marketing works. Forty percent of parents reported their child asks to go to McDonald's at least once a week, with 15 percent of preschoolers asking to go every day. Wonder why? Toys play a huge part in that incessant asking. The fact that McDonald's is so determined to keep toys shows just how huge.

Can't parents just say no? Of course they can, but both ideas can be true: Parents need to set limits and McDonald's needs to stop marketing to children. As ample science tells us, marketing to young children is inherently deceptive because they do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that they are being targeted. Therefore, under both federal and state law, marketing to young children is already illegal. (Read my previous article for the full legal explanation.)

As I see it, voluntary pledges are a dismal failure. Only better laws enforced over time will change the behavior of companies like McDonald's. And when advocates do get laws passed to protect kids, McDonald's will keep trying to avoid them. But we don't have to let them get away with it. Here's how you can get involved:

If you live in San Francisco, contact San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar's office (the author of the bill) and tell him not to allow the City to accept this move by McDonald's. San Francisco may still be able to fix the law with new language or change how it is enforced.
Contact the San Francisco city attorney's office to tell them the same thing.
If you live elsewhere in California, contact the state attorney general's office, which has authority to enforce consumer deception laws. If you live outside of California, you can find your state attorney general listed here.
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency responsible for regulating advertising at the federal level. Deceptive marketing is already illegal, and marketing to young children is inherently deceptive.
File a complaint with the industry-sponsored Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative about McDonald's irresponsible marketing practices.
Just for fun, contact McDonald's to tell them what you think.
Finally, support nonprofits that are working to hold companies like McDonald's accountable. The two I recommend are The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Corporate Accountability International.

It's clear this company won't improve on its own. Maybe it's time to Occupy McDonald's?

Why I’m (Pre)Occupied by Miley Cyrus: Does Hannah Montana Still Matter?

2011-12-02T09:07:00.000-08:00

I don’t know how you feel about the Occupy Movement or about Miley Cyrus. As for me, having spent the past decade speaking out against the corporate takeover of childhood, I tend to be sympathetic to the 99% message and beyond unsympathetic to the contribution Cyrus-as-Disney-star-Hannah-Montana has made to the commercialized sexualization of very young girls.

So how am I supposed to feel now that she produced a rather moving music video in support of Occupy protests all over the world? It does a great job of using its genre to celebrate the democratic right to protest and bear witness to its (sometimes brutal) repression. If Cyrus is still popular among young people, it probably has a shot at awakening interest in organized dissent. For a certain (young) age group it might make civic activism cool.

I emailed my Occupy/Miley dilemma to some of my wiser colleagues. Actually, my email read, “Does this mean we have to start liking her or stop liking the Occupy Movement?” One immediate response was, “I never disliked her. Blame the handlers, not the kid.” Here’s another, “It's great she did this video. It will draw in a lot of young people, I hope. Miley is used and exploited too.”

And of course they’re right. We can expect that the suits at Disney knew exactly what they were doing to little girls by marketing Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana. We might expect that the other adults in her life knew, too. But we can’t expect a girl in her early teens to know.

Cyrus was only 12 when she auditioned for Hannah Montana—and 13 when it became one of Disney’s biggest hits, with the attendant toys, clothing, accessories, video games, jewelry, and so on. She was just 15 when she posed apparently covered only by a sheet for Annie Leibowitz. My colleagues would say that she was objectified by adults who profited obscenely from her objectification. And because celebrity culture carries so much weight, even with the very young, the glorification and amplification of her image has vast consequences. We only have to search as far as YouTube to see girls as young as 2 playing at being Miley Cyrus playing at being a teenage rock star playing at being an adult playing at being a certain kind of sexy.

But does making a video that promotes civic action transform Cyrus into a positive role model for girls? Well. . .maybe, depending on age. I can just about imagine having a nuanced conversation with my 9-year-old granddaughter about the pros and cons. But I doubt that her 5-year-old sister could old grasp the nuance of someone being a great role model in some ways but not in others.

So where does this leave me, Miley, and Occupy Wall Street? For the first time, ever, I find myself wondering about her. I wonder what she thinks, or will think in the future, of how Hannah Montana was marketed to children. I wonder why she made this video. I wonder what her managers/agents/handlers think about it. I wonder if they weighed the cost/benefit to her career before it was posted. I wonder if she even tries to reconcile her ties to Disney, one of the biggest entertainment conglomerates in the world, in light of the Occupy Movement’s spotlight on greed and the abuse of corporate power.

The Yiddish word “farkakte” means simultaneously “crazy, screwed up, and gone bad”; Sometimes it’s the only word that will do. It’s a farkakte world where 1% of the population gets richer at the expense of everyone else; where corporations purposely sell four year olds on fake sexuality; where thousands of unknown viewers can watch repeatedly the parent-posted videos of tiny daughters as Hannah Montana imitators shaking whatever booty they have; where kids are indoctrinated to celebrity culture before they even enter preschool; and where a 19 year old’s celebrity means that her political opinions matter.

But I have to say—I like the video. I’m glad she made it. Thanks for this one, Miley Cyrus.

Handling the Holidays

2011-11-21T19:25:00.001-08:00

Yet another holiday season has arrived with its doorbuster sales, cyber deals, and mile-long wish lists. What does a commercial-free family do when faced with the consumerism and commercialism that rule the season?

The wide variety of answers I received from some like-minded parents demonstrates just how many different ways there are to handle all the holiday hoopla. How does your family respond to these situations? Tell us in the comments!

Do you say anything specific to gift-givers about your preference for commercial-free gifts?

“Instead, we’ve expressed a preference for good quality toys that have an educational component, that encourage free, imaginative play and that aren't too noisy. Since both our moms were teachers, they appreciate this line of thinking!”
“No, I’m afraid to sound ungrateful by limiting people’s generosity.”
“The conversation about WHY we feel this way can get involved, especially in a large Italian family where everyone has an opinion. Sometimes it's easier to just let it slide and hide the toys at my mom’s house until I can figure out what to do with them.”

If your kids receive commercialized gifts, do you keep them?

“We have donated or consigned several items we thought were not for us.”
“It depends on the gift. I let the kids wear pajamas with characters on them, but do not allow characters on any other clothes since I don’t want my children to walk around like an advertisement.”
“We’ve given some items away, but there are some exceptions, of course. My sister made a pillow case for my daughter with Kermit fabric. We kept it and refer to it as "Auntie’s frog pillow." I think the difference with this gift versus others lies with intention and marketing (or, at least, that's what my gut tells me). The pillow case wasn't created to pad the coffers of a company, it was lovingly sewn by my daughter's aunt. “

What do you do if your children ask for an item you don’t particularly want them to have (commercial or not)?

“When my 5 year old daughter asked for a Hannah Montana backpack, I talked to her about what she liked about it. We figured out that she liked the “rock-star vibe” and found a neat black backpack with a microphone and guitar on it. Now she loves that she has something unique!”
“When my daughter saw dolls she liked in a catalog, I asked her why she liked them (rather than telling her that she shouldn't like them) and she told me it was because they all had pets. I was able to use this to move the conversation to pets in general, and specifically animal toys. It was both a conversation about marketing (at a two-year-old's level) as well as redirection to something more appropriate in my book.”
“With my fourth grader, I’m apt to ask questions and consider his answers. “Why do you want this product? How did you learn about it? What makes it appealing to you? Do you think it would still be fun in a month? A season? A year? How much money is reasonable to spend on something you’re not sure you’ll play with six months from now?” Also, I remind him that he is old enough to save up his own money to purchase items I may not be inclined to get him.”

As you can see in these answers, there are a lot of different strategies parents use to combat commercialism, and they draw the line differently depending on the situation. What's your advice for making it through the holidays as a commercial-free family? Weigh in below!

School food politics: What’s missing from the pizza-as-vegetable reporting

2011-11-18T10:38:00.000-08:00

Over the last couple of days, news outlets have been having a field day with a proposal from Congress that pizza sauce be considered a vegetable to qualify for the National School Lunch program. Headlines like this one were typical: “Is Pizza Sauce a Vegetable? Congress says Yes.” (The blogs were a tad more childish; for example LA Weekly: Congress to USDA: Pizza is So a Vegetable, Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah.)

Most reporters, pressed for time and resources, tend to simplify complex stories and this was no exception. In one camp, so the stories went, are nutrition advocates who want healthier school meals, while Republicans are saying the feds shouldn’t be making such decisions. Here is one example of this framing of the story:

Conservatives in Congress say the federal government shouldn’t be telling children what to eat. They say requirements proposed by the President went too far, costing budget strapped schools too much. Local schools are caught in the middle.

Meanwhile, a few other reports did a better job of explaining the massive industry lobbying at play. (See, for example, Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott and Ed Bruske aka The Slow Cook, a hero in school food reporting.)

And while it was easy to compare this current craziness to the Reagan-era infamous “ketchup-is-a-vegetable” school lunch proposal (which did not pass), a bit more history, common sense, and political context is needed.

History: As much as the GOP would like to hang this on Obama, the effort to improve the quality of school meals dates back decades. In the mid 1990′s a huge battle was finally won to bring school nutrition in line with federal government’s own dietary advice. Since that time, science evolved and the standards needed updating. We also had the increasing problem of school vending loaded with soft drinks and candy. Then in 2004, (yes, during Bush) Congress authorized USDA to improve nutrition standards for school food. Finally at the request of USDA, the Institute of Medicine released a report in 2009 with very specific recommendations for USDA to follow – based on science. So this process has been going on long before the current budget crisis and before Obama could get blamed for everything since the dawn of time.

Common sense: If you stop and think about it, shouldn’t all food assistance programs (i.e., paid for with taxpayer dollars), at the very least, comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is supposed to be based on the latest nutrition science? Recall the feds’ new MyPlate, released to much fanfare earlier this year, which recommends half the meal be comprised of fresh fruits and vegetables, not tater tots and pizza.

Politics: As I said, a few reports did mention the lobbying by, for example, the American Frozen Food Institute. (Yes, there’s a trade group for frozen pizza, fries, and other school food abominations; and surprise, they are thrilled with this outcome.) But almost everyone missed the industry front group,”The Coalition for Sustainable Meal Programs.” (I could not make that one up.) And once again, we need more context.

This issue isn’t just that the processed food industry is upset with proposed improvements to school meals, it’s how they are flexing their political muscle to get their way. The critical (and most under-reported) part of this story is how Congress has hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry’s bidding.

Congress is putting language to undercut the USDA rules into its agriculture appropriations bill, a sneaky move used when you want something to pass outside of the usual legislative (and in this case regulatory) process.

You know things are bad politically when even USDA (seeming a tad shell-shocked) defended its proposed rules, telling the Washington Post that keeping pizza in schools won’t save any money, as the GOP claimed.

Let’s recap: Congress authorized USDA to improve the nutritional quality of school meals seven years ago. USDA commissioned a report from the IOM to help the agency do exactly that, based on the best available science. USDA subsequently proposed regulations, has taken public comment, and should then come out with final regulations. Civics 101 folks: Congress makes the laws and the executive branch carries them out. Agencies such as USDA are the experts, not Congress. That is why the legislature delegates authority to the agency in charge. But here, the food industry didn’t get what it wanted through the normal channels, so it went to Congress, which usurped the entire process. I’d love to see reporters asking: how the hell did that happen?

And let’s not forget this is supposed to be about our nation’s kids. Which raises one more interesting question: Where exactly is Michelle Obama and her Let’s Move campaign now? The First Lady has been a champion for improving school meals but of course she has no real power. The food industry has plenty. And while politicians curry favor with lobbyists, schoolchildren will pay the ultimate price, with their health.

PepsiCo wants to “scare the crap” out of your kids

2011-10-19T10:55:00.000-07:00

The "chainsaw-wielding maniac" from Frito-Lay's online game.

PepsiCo has long been my poster child for food corporations whose actions speak louder than words when to comes to responsible marketing. CEO Indra Nooyi loves to tout the company's "Performance with Purpose" and show off the company's "good-for-you" foods that it gets to define. Most don't realize that PepsiCo is the nation's largest food company, with five divisions spanning from soda to salty snacks to breakfast cereals. With annual revenues of $60 billion and 285,000 employees, PepsiCo is an multinational corporate behemoth.

Now the company's true colors are revealed in all their twisted marketing glory. A legal complaint filed today with the Federal Trade Commission by the Center for Digital Democracy and several other groups called upon the agency to investigate PepsiCo and its subsidiary Frito-Lay for “engaging in deceptive and unfair digital marketing practices" in violation of federal law.

Even if you thought you already knew that teenagers were being targeted online by junk food brands, I can guarantee that the marketing strategies revealed in this complaint and accompanying report will freak you out, either as a parent or just a human being.

Among the clever techniques PepsiCo has deployed are horror video games called Hotel 626 and its even scarier successor, Asylum 626, which, the company's ad agency (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners) explained, were designed to “scare the crap out of teenagers,” in the hopes of selling more Doritos.

The websites for these games were only available from 6pm to 6am (626 - get it?) because the agency explains: "We wanted people to visit the site at night, after hours, when guards are down and they are the most immersed in what could happen."

The purpose, according to the complaint, is to engage youth in a multi-dimensional, interactive environment, using a variety of under-the-radar techniques, each with increasing levels of creepiness. Teens registering on the site are asked to provide name, email, and date of birth, and to enable their webcam and microphone.

Then the game encourages teens to post and share photos of themselves as they participate; prompts them to “send a scare” to friends in their social networks and even required them to use their webcams, microphones, and mobile phones to “escape” the nightmarish experience.

These techniques are not just gross, they also happen to violate the law. As the press release explains, by "disguising its marketing efforts as entertaining video games," it's more difficult for teens to recognize such content as advertising (which of course is the whole idea). Also, PepsiCo claims "to protect teen privacy while collecting a wide range of personal information, without meaningful notice and consent."

As I was writing this (at 11pm) I decided to visit Asylum 626 myself. The music is the sound of a heartbeat, which I have to admit is already scary. The first screen warns the site is for "mature audiences only" and those "under age 18 must not view without an adult guardian" -- what a great marketing device for teens. The next screen helpfully explains that the experience is best viewed with my lights out and headphones on. Then, after showing off the brand with, "Doritos Presents," the site suggests that I log into Facebook or Twitter for the "full treatment experience." OK, now my heart is pounding along with the music and all I want to do is close the page. I can't even enter the damn thing I am so scared.

Obviously, this site is not intended for me. But by all accounts this campaign is a raging success with its target market, with the site getting millions of visitors. As noted by the ad agency: "The campaign was immensely successful. The two resurrected flavors sold out within three weeks." Bringing Doritos brands "back from from the dead" was the goal of the game. Nice marketing strategy: Scare kids, revive profits.

Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and long-time expert in digital marketing explains the problem: “PepsiCo has used an arsenal of powerful online marketing tactics in these campaigns, including interactive games with storylines designed to heighten arousal and instill fear and anxiety in teens."

As if teens don't have enough fears and anxiety as it is. “PepsiCo’s covert ad campaigns take advantage of teens’ vulnerabilities and encourage them to buy and consume a product that is harmful to their health,” added Angela Campbell, director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation, which drafted the complaint. She urged the FTC to begin its own investigation and act to prevent similarly deceptive advertising campaigns in the future.

Given the Obama Administration's reluctance to take on the food industry and its reliance instead on voluntary self-regulation, severe action doesn't seem too likely. Ironically, the feds recently announced it was backing off the idea to include teens in its own food marketing guidelines. Bad timing. Because if this case doesn't convince government regulators to protect our kids from predatory marketing, nothing will.

Kudos to the groups bringing PepsiCo's disgusting marketing tactics to light. I highly recommend reading the documents they worked so hard on and watching the videos, if you can stomach it. (The most revealing details are in the complaint appendixes.) They should should be required reading / viewing for anyone who says we don't need government oversight, that self-regulation is working just fine, and we can leave it all up to parents.

Why do you "bother" living commercial-free?

2011-10-18T10:23:00.000-07:00

"Kids can now act out their favorite scenes from the movie" (instead of using their imagination to create entirely different adventures for the cars)
"Shake up your car, place it on the track, and watch it go" (instead of encouraging kinetic learning by zooming the cars around with their hands on road they made out of blocks)
"Vehicles will have their own specific engine sounds and phrases from the movie" (instead of actively using new vocabulary and learning how to engage in conversation by creating their own dialogue)

Creativity now trumps integrity and global thinking in being considered the most important leadership quality. And the recent death of visionary Steve Jobs brought to light how integral creativity was to his success in revolutionizing modern communication.

I want my children to have constant practice creating amazing stories and environments from scratch. I want them to learn for themselves that necessity is the mother of invention. I want them to rely on their own ambition to navigate through life rather than waiting for someone else to tell them what to do. And I believe that limiting the pre-defined personalities and scripts inherent in licensed characters helps them toward these ends.

Why do I bother writing about this experience?

Resisting commercial culture is a constant battle, and in fact, I think "commercial-free" is too generous a term for what I'm doing. My reality is more like "commercialism in moderation". Yes, I resisted that Thomas backpack, but I caved on the Thomas toothbrush to try to bring more motivation to dental hygiene. And while I have not purchased any toys with media tie-ins, I have let him keep some of the toys he has received as gifts. Is this hypocritical? Some may say yes. But in my mind, I can only do so much, and I feel that the effort I've put forth has already made a difference. For example, after getting his hands on a toy catalog, I was sure my 3 year old would start asking for things. Boy was I thrilled when he excitedly pointed to a toy and said "Mama, I bet we could make something like this!"

Parenting is not easy and most people do not want to add the additional challenge of living commercial-free in a media-saturated world. But you and I think it's a challenge worth the effort. I write about these experiences because it helps me identify where I've succeeded and where I am still being challenged.

I write about these experiences because I want to hear from other parents who've stayed the course: What strategies have worked? Where have you given in? Did it make a difference? Was it worth the effort? I invite you to comment below -- Let's keep the discussion going so that the sum of our ideas benefits all of our children.

Channel One Promotes "Not Safe For School" Pics in Schools

2011-10-07T10:58:00.000-07:00

If you're one of the 5.5 million students in a school with Channel One News, you have to watch ads every day as part of your taxpayer-funded class time. And one thing you'll see is ads for websites operated by Channel One's parent company, Alloy Media and Marketing. One of those websites is Teen.com. Despite the name, Channel One advertises Teen.com to both its junior high and high school students. So I stopped by Teen.com today to see what was being promoted to a captive audience of children as young as 11. Here's what's on the homepage:

Click on the link and it gets worse.There are the promised pics of Glee star Naya Rivera in various stages of undress, accompanied by some pathetic text designed to titillate while feigning shock:

Glee bad girl Santana Lopez wasn't lying when she said "Everyone knows my role here is to look hot." But in a recent spread for men's mag, FHM, Naya Rivera trumps her gleeky character's sexy outfits (remember the nurse costume?) by wearing, well... basically nothing! The girl's 24 years-old, so we'd say it's fine. But, is anyone else reminded of the controversial GQ photoshoot with Lea Michele, Dianna Agron and Cory Monteith? If it wasn't okay for them, then these pics definitely are pushin' it, too. Are Naya's pics too sexy for a Glee star? [Warning: They're all hot, but you probs shouldn't look at them at school and/or work!].

Huh? I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm thinking if the pictures are not safe for school, then Channel One "probs" shouldn't be promoting Teen.com in schools, either.

And if pictures of Ms. Rivera posing in her skimpy underwear isn't enough, Teen.com tells kids where to head for more:

"Wanna see more scandalous Naya pics? Pick up the November issue of FHM today!"

Now some might argue that today's culture is so pornified that teenagers see images like these all the time, but that misses the point. Shouldn't the standard be higher for what is shown and promoted to children in classrooms? Remember, we're not talking about sex education designed by educators, but sex being used to sell kids to Teen.com's advertisers (in this case K-Mart). Research links this type of sexualization to some of the most pressing and common mental health problems for girls including eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression and poor sexual health.

There is simply no justification for school districts forcing their students to watch ads for Teen.com...or anything else on Channel One. Remember, schools with Channel One lose a full week of instructional time to the broadcasts and a day just to the ads! That's why so many schools are waking up to the fact that Channel One is a bad deal for students. Since 2005, the network's student audience has shrunk by more than 25%.

That's good news, but we shouldn't celebrate until every child's classroom is free of compulsory commercial viewing. So if you're the parent (or grandparent or sibling) of a middle or high school student, ask if his or her school has Channel One. If they do, share this post with that school's administrators and urge them to spend a few minutes on Teen.com. That alone should be enough to get the plug pulled on Channel One.

Commercialism Corner

2011-09-28T06:45:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

The Next Great American Consumer--Infants to 3-year-olds: They're a new demographic marketers are hell-bent on reaching - Marketers talk about "beginning a relationship with the child" from birth by getting their brands in front of babies earlier than ever. Adweek covers this new trend of marketers targeting infants. http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/next-great-american-consumer-135207?page=1

Little girls or little women? The Disney princess effect – As described in this article, the commercialized sexualization of girls through media and marketing has startling effects. Learn what CCFC, SPARK Summit, Hardy Girls Healthy Women and other advocacy groups are doing to make childhood better for girls. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0924/Little-girls-or-little-women-The-Disney-princess-effect

Regulators propose tougher online privacy protections for kids – The FTC has proposed important changes to the implementation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The proposed rules would prevent companies from tracking children online for behavioral advertising and empower parents to control how and whether their children's private information is used across digital platforms. Read the L.A. Times article here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/regulators-propose-tougher-online-privacy-protections-for-kids.html and CCFC’s statement in support of the proposed changes here: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/ftcnewcopparules.html

Ads for PG-13 Movies in Kids' Media? Motion Picture Association Says for These Films, It's Fine – The Children’s Advertising Review Unit, or CARU, the ad industry’s self-regulatory group, finds PG-13 movies marketed to younger kids. But when they bring it to the attention of the Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA says it’s fine because they approved the ads. This has been the pattern for CARU’s work on PG-13 movie marketing. http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/caru-finds-pg-13-movies-advertised-kids-13/229993/

Battle of commercial interests confound fight against noncommunicable diseases – The UN talks on global efforts to reduce noncommunicable diseases, including obesity, present serious tensions between commercial and public health interests. Public health advocates want rules to protect children from junk food advertising, but junk food marketers fiercely oppose the idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/battle-of-commercial-interests-loom-over-fight-against-noncommunicable-diseases/2011/09/20/gIQAy0rZjK_story.html

Viacom spent $600,000 lobbying government in 2Q – Viacom, Nickelodeon’s parent company, spent $600,000 in the second quarter to lobby the federal government on advertising to children. Add this to the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter, and that’s a whole lot of money from a single corporation influencing congress to let marketers keep on targeting children. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9PROMEG1.htm

Karen Heller: Offer of soda-industry funds fell flat, as it should have – In a fantastic show of leadership, Philadelphia’s Nutter administration turns down an offer of a soda-industry sponsored anti-obesity campaign. He says, “"It seems to me that accepting money from the beverage industry to fight obesity would be like taking money from the NRA to fight gun violence or from the tobacco industry for smoking cessations…I mean, it's ludicrous." http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-14/news/30154569_1_beverage-tax-obesity-health-centers

Nickelodeon Admits SpongeBob Not Fit For Preschoolers

2011-09-12T13:28:00.000-07:00

A new study from researchers at the University of Virginia finds that watching SpongeBob SquarePants has a negative influence on preschoolers' executive functioning. Children who watched 9 minutes of the show scored significantly worse on assessments designed to measure memory and problem solving skills than children who watched a slower-paced cartoon or kids who spent 9 minutes drawing.

The findings are important, but perhaps not as important as Nickelodeon’s startling announcement when asked about the study. The children’s network told CNN that SpongeBob is intended for 6-11-year-olds, not preschoolers, which is a bit surprising considering that SpongeBob is consistently among the highest rated shows for young children. What could possibly have led parents to think that SpongeBob is meant for preschoolers?

It couldn't be these, could it?

Or this?
Or these?
There are thousands for SpongeBob products for children under six on the market. But in light of this study and Nick's earth-shattering announcement, I'm sure it's just a matter of time* before SpongeBob gets out of the potty seat, sippy cup, and footie pajama business.

*When Bikini Bottom freezes over.

"But Mama, just buy one at the store"

2011-09-08T06:41:00.000-07:00

The following post was written by guest blogger Brandy King. After spending the last eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in a media-saturated and commercialized world. This is the first in a series of posts about attempting to maintain a commercial-free childhood for her sons. If you've faced similar challenges, we invite you to comment below about your struggles and successes.

"Cameron, look! This is the backpack you're going to take to preschool!" I said with genuine excitement as I pointed to the catalog picture. The primary-colored backpack with the embroidered dumptruck was just perfect for my little guy.

"No!" he yelled in that charming way two-year-olds have. "I want to take my Thomas backpack!"

I was puzzled. "Cameron, you don't have a Thomas backpack..."

"But Mama, just buy one at the store."

This was Cameron's first "consumer moment;" the first time he had asked me to purchase anything. I wasn't quite sure what to say, so I responded with the classic "We'll see" and surprisingly, he let it go.

I never ordered that dumptruck backpack. And when his grandmother heard this story and immediately purchased a Thomas backpack for him, I kept it hidden in the basement. I needed time to think about this. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to set a precedent for how I would respond to this kind of request. How did he know it was an option to have Thomas on a backpack? When did he start to understand that I could purchase things? I needed to think back to why my immediate reaction was "No" and I needed to consider why I hadn't just responded that way in the first place.

When Cameron was born, I was in my fifth year of work as a research librarian at The Center on Media and Child Health. After everything I had read about marketing to children, I had decided to make a conscious effort to limit his exposure to media in general and to licensed characters in particular. (Brand new research confirms my instinct: The more familiar kids are with commercial characters, the more they nag their parents for purchases).

Cameron first learned about Thomas from a puzzle at someone's house. He had not watched the TV show and did not own any items with Thomas on them. I really have no idea what prompted him to proclaim his need for Thomas to be on his backpack that particular day, but my first thought was "Half the kids in his class will probably have a Thomas backpack" and I didn't want him to be one of them.

So why hadn't I said no right there? I realize now that my line of thought was "I want him to be excited about preschool and if a Thomas backpack stirs up excitement, then maybe I should get him one." But after some serious thinking, I came to the conclusion that what I want him to be excited about is learning, playing, and meeting other kids. And those have nothing to do with Thomas.

So I have spent the last two months psyching him up for all the new friends he'll make and for all the painting, building, and dress-up he'll be able to do. All the descriptions have worked; he is eager for the first day of school. And when he arrives, he'll be wearing an adorable backpack patterned with regular old run-of-the-mill trains, trucks and cars.

Do you remember you child's first "consumer moment"? What did they ask for? How did you respond? Comment below!

Commercialized Sexualization and the Choice to Opt Out

2011-08-25T07:15:00.000-07:00

My initial thoughts about the Canadian couple refusing to make public the sex of their baby were not kind. It seemed like just another media circus fomented by parents exploiting their children for celebrity—like Jon and Kate, or the balloon boy. But two things made me change my mind. I listened to an actual interview with the couple on the CBC. And someone sent me pictures of a new French lingerie line for four year olds.

Despite important gains made by the LBGT community, 2011 is a lousy time to be trying to raise children of any gender with a healthy, nuanced sense of what it means to be male or female. The unprecedented convergence of unfettered commercialism and ubiquitous screen media means that we are inundated with what the advertising industry calls “shockvertising,” ads or products designed to get our attention by being ever so much more outrageous than their competitors. The pornification of little girlhood is just one example—but it’s particularly troubling.

Marketers claim that parents don’t have to buy these products—and that they don’t even have to look at the ads. What they don’t mention is the power of advertising to normalize both the aberrant and the abhorrent. As we gaze upon photos of Thylane Loubry Blondeau, the prepubescent sex pot and new darling of the fashion world, it seems positively quaint that we were so worked up years ago when nothing came between a teenage Brooke Shields and her Calvins. And, compared to the provocatively posed preschoolers now selling sex and lingerie, a ten-year-old nymphette seems—well, not so bad.

But actually, it’s all bad. The commercialized sexualization that normalizes turning toddlers into teenagers harms children’s health and well-being. It teaches them to play consciously at sexuality without having any cognitive understanding of the meaning and consequences of their behavior. And the sexuality they posture about has nothing to do with relationships—it has to do with sex as object, sex as power, and sex to sell. Sexualizing little girls deprives them of middle girlhood—traditionally a time of great intellectual and creative exploration for girls who have all their basic skills down, but aren’t worrying about how they look.

Which brings me back to the Canadian couple so excoriated in the media for their counter cultural decision to shield their new baby from societal mores about sex and gender. It’s not a choice I would make for an infant in my life. But when I look at what a mess we are making of how children learn about the similarities and differences between boys and girls, opting out seems suddenly more appealing.

Let’s tell Big Food to stop acting like spoiled kids—and stop inciting real kids to nag for junk food.

2011-08-17T09:56:00.000-07:00

The food industry is throwing a zillion-dollar tantrum to quash proposed national nutritional guidelines for food advertised to kids. Meanwhile, yet another research study came out demonstrating the harm done by advertising directly to children.

As concern about childhood obesity escalates, the barrage of kid-targeted marketing for unhealthy food is increasingly identified as a factor—not the sole cause, but an important part of the problem—which could easily be remedied. The evidence keeps building for the need to stop inundating kids with food marketing. Remember the study from Stanford showing that branding even trumps our senses, at least for preschoolers. Kids were given food wrapped in McDonald’s wrappers and the same food wrapped in plain wrappers, and most of them swore that the food in branded wrapping tasted better. Similarly, a study from Yale found that processed food tastes better to young children when its packaging is emblazoned with popular characters like Scooby Doo.

The Johns Hopkins researchers took a different tack. They looked at triggers for nagging in preschoolers, and found the more kids were exposed to commercial television—in particular beloved media characters like Dora the Explorer or SpongeBob—the more they nagged. And at the top of the list of what they nag for? Junk food.

Of course, marketers already know all about commercials and nagging. They even have a name for it: The Nag Factor. The Brits call it “pester power,” which sounds more refined, but comes down to the same thing—making parents lives miserable. Like the folks at Johns Hopkins, marketers also do research on nagging. But the industry studies are not designed to help parents cope. They’re to help companies help children nag more effectively. After all, one out of three trips to a fast food restaurant comes about through nagging.

The industry spin is that parents should be immune to nagging, and the study lists strategies for preventing and containing nagging. Curb children’s exposure to commercialism and prepare kids for what you are and aren’t going to buy when you go to the supermarket are two of the suggestions. They’re good suggestions (I particularly like the first one) but really, truly shouldn’t we give parents and kids a break and stop the endless barrage of junk food marketing? In fact, as I’ve said before, shouldn’t we stop marketing food to children altogether?

The best way to curb any kind of marketing to kids, including junk food marketing, is regulation. But the proposed Interagency Working Group guidelines are a step. That’s why the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is joining public health and advocacy organizations in urging everyone to tell the food industry to stop behaving like spoiled kids and do what’s best for real children—stop sabotaging the government’s food marketing guidelines.

Outsourcing Summer: College Essays and the Commercialization of Childhood

2011-08-12T09:22:00.000-07:00

A recent article in the New York Times about how high school kids are spending their summers reminded me once again that the commercialization of childhood extends way beyond Happy Meals and sexualized clothing to compromise every stage of children’s development. A commercially saturated culture has a profoundly negative influence on children’s basic assumptions, values, life choices, and experience of living.

The Times profiled companies like Everything Summer that craft summer experiences for teenagers designed to translate into stand-out personal essays for college admissions. There’s so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. Never mind that it’s yet another example of how unequal opportunity is in this country. While there is a company that takes low income students on a trip to Italy, about which they are tasked to write an essay, most kids can’t afford to buy designer summers to boost their chances of getting into college. But there’s something else insidious at work.

One of the marketplace tenets so harmful to kids is that extrinsic value trumps intrinsic value. Children trained to consume learn to value things not for what they are, but as a means toward acquiring—popularity, friends, sex appeal, notoriety, success and so on. They learn to judge people by what they own and to diminish experience unless it comes with value added. They learn to read for pizza, not pleasure; choose shoes for status, not comfort; and to eat for who’s on the package, not for nutrition or even taste. They learn that the dreams, ideas, and projects they generate are not nearly as valuable as those manufactured for them.

So it shouldn’t surprise me that the value of what teens do in the summer these days is judged not by the quality of their experience, but for the color it lends to their college applications. But families who outsource summer to companies manufacturing essay-worthy adventure deprive kids of the authentic challenge of figuring it out themselves—of exploring an interest for the sheer joy of it, or of discovering what it’s like to work at a boring, low-paying job, or finding out a little bit more about who they are and what they might like to become.

Blue About "The Smurfs"

2011-08-05T14:05:00.000-07:00

My contemporaries and I should be called Generation Deregulation. Born in the early 1980's, we were the first to grow up immersed in TV programs designed to sell us stuff. G.I. Joe, My Little Pony, Strawberry Shortcake, Ninja Turtles—these were the shows that dominated our after school time and playground play. Cartoon-linked products (lunch boxes, toys, clothing, you name it) were staples. Ours was a media- and merchandise-saturated environment from the get-go. We didn’t know any other world.

It’s no accident that these same shows are being introduced today to a new generation of children and reintroduced to their nostalgic parents, including the film version of the 1980s cartoon The Smurfs that debuted last week. Most of my generation doesn’t find anything out of the ordinary about the plethora of products being marketed with the movie; I, for one, ate Smurf-berry Crunch for breakfast and told time on a Smurfs watch. But the marketing madness surrounding The Smurfs is extraordinary, and emblematic of the escalation of commercialism in children’s lives even from my own commercialized childhood.

The internet wasn’t at my fingertips as youngster, unlike today’s 6-year-old who can navigate to The Smurfs website and easily find available Smurfs paraphernalia by clicking to view the film’s “partners.” Once there, she’ll be enticed to build-a-Smurf at Build-A-Bear and “get Smurfy” with Suave Kids Body Wash. She’ll be drawn to FAO Swartz for the largest assortment of Smurfs toys, video games and backpacks, and to Kids Foot Locker where she could win a trip to “Smurf It Up in NYC.”

The Smurfs are beckoning in supermarket aisles, from Stauffer’s cookies to a revamped version of Post’s Smurf-berry Crunch. And the golden arches call to her repeatedly from toy-laden commercials, as a bizarre fast food version of green washing reminds her that when she chooses apple dippers with her Smurfs Happy Meal, she’ll be doing good for the environment.

If she actually sees The Smurfs movie, she’ll be exposed to product placement for Sony and other brands, not realizing—because she’s too young to understand—that it’s there to sell her on Sony products. Nor will she understand the intent of the commercials for Smurf vacations at Starwood Hotels & Resorts (but wow, will she want to go there!).

The twenty-somethings who grew up in the 80’s are the new generation of parents. For the sake of nostalgia, many of us will go see the new Smurfs and pick up some blue trinkets for kids. But we should think twice. Marketers are targeting children more aggressively than ever before, and we’re helping them do it. For the children in our lives, and children everywhere, we can’t continue to participate uncritically in a system that uses media to exploit kids. We need to fight for their right to a commercial-free childhood, even if that right was lost to us.

The Real Trouble With Breast Milk Baby

2011-08-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

The controversy brewing over a new breastfeeding doll soon to be sold in the United States reminds me of the bru-ha-ha about Teletubbies when Jerry Falwell accused Tinky Winky of being gay. People rightfully upset about homophobia came to the support of the show, misguidedly defending the goodness of Teletubbies—which was being marketed, falsely, as educational for babies.

Public discourse about Breast Milk Baby is following the same lines. Arguments over the doll are centered on culture wars—whether it is appropriate for young children to witness breastfeeding, imitate it, or even know what it is.

Fox News Pundit Bill O’Reilly worries that it will make kids grow up to soon. The American rep for Berjuan Toys, the Spanish Company making the doll, claims to have God on his side, saying "We’re being called perverts and pedophiles for promoting feeding our babies the way God intended? Churches all over the world are filled with images of Mary nursing baby Jesus. . ." Dr. Logan Levkoff, a sexologist writing for the Huffington Post, is mixed about the doll. “How are kids supposed to make sense of Breast Milk Baby,” she asks, “if the majority of their dolls are missing genitals a la Barbie and Ken?” She’s concerned that without proper education, introducing the doll will fixate children on breasts.

It’s the wrong argument.

The real trouble with Breast Milk Baby is not that it promotes breastfeeding. It’s that it undermines creative play. Like any toy that talks, sucks, walks or what have you—thanks to the wonders of modern technology—the doll robs children of opportunities to exercise their imagination, to truly interact with their toys, and to make their play personally meaningful.

Here’s where I come down: Of course we should, along with the World Health Organization, Michelle Obama, the AAP, and myriad public health organizations, support breastfeeding. Of course children should be allowed to see breast feeding if they encounter it naturally. And of course children should be allowed to pretend that their baby dolls are breast feeding. But they don’t need an expensive doll (suggested retail price: $69.99) specially designed for electronic sucking and sold with a special halter to play about nursing. The toys most useful for children, and the ones that generate the most fun, just lie there until children invest them with life or transform them into something else.

This is World Breastfeeding Week. Let’s celebrate, and speak out all year round for the benefits of breastfeeding. And let’s discourage parents from buying this ridiculous doll. It benefits the toy industry, not children.

The Economics of School Bus Advertising

2011-07-28T12:13:00.000-07:00

As the economic pressures on school districts intensify, more and more are considering turning to school bus advertising as a way of ameliorating their budget woes. The impulse is understandable, but it would be great if more school boards did their homework before deciding to make compulsory exposure to school bus ads a part of children’s school day. In addition to being ethically unsound, school bus ads just don’t pay.

Consider the case of Sumner County, Tennessee: the Board of Education has just filed a lawsuit against 1st Class Marketing for failing to properly pay the school district for ads sold on the district’s buses. The board’s contract with the marketing firm called for 60% of ad sales to go to the district. But to date, they’ve only received $5,422 of more than $47,000 in ad sales, so they are suing for the remaining $22,875 they claim they are owed.

So in a best-case scenario, the Sumner County board will recover that money and hopefully its court costs. That means the district would generate $28,297 in revenue from school bus advertising for school year 2010-11.

Now I know $28K is nothing to sneeze at, but let’s put that in perspective. The district’s annual budget is $180 million a year. In the best case, the school bus ads will account for about .015 percent of the district’s annual budget. Or to put it another way: ads will generate about $1.03 for each of the 27,369 students in the district. Sumner County spent $6,577 per student last school year.

And that’s if everything turns out right. If the board is unable to recoup the money it’s owed, or if it accrues significant legal fees, or if it has to devote more staff time to the dispute, the ads could actually cost the district money.

The numbers for Sumner County are consistent with what I’ve seen other places. If districts sell ad space on their buses, it’s fair to say they can expect to generate between $.50 and $1.50 per student each year.

I’m often asked, “Isn’t it better to allow school bus advertising than to lay off dozens of teachers?” It’s a compelling and heartbreaking hypothetical, but one that has little to do with the real choices school districts are facing. A better question for educators would be: “Are you really willing to sell out your students for a dollar a kid?”

Who Put McDonald's in Charge of Kids' Health?

2011-07-27T12:30:00.000-07:00

When McDonald’s sneezes, the media jumps. Such was the case yesterday when the fast food giant announced it was giving the Happy Meal a makeover. Well not really, but that’s how it got reported, because the media loves simple stories. But when it comes to marketing and PR by multinational corporations, nothing is ever that simple.

While my colleagues have done a great job of explaining why nutritionally, this move is little more than PR (see Marion Nestle and Andy Bellatti), missing from the analysis so far is this: what McDonald’s really wants is to remain in charge.

The fast food giant’s motivation beyond the obvious positive PR spin is to stave off more laws like the one passed in San Francisco to set nutrition standards for Happy Meals, not to mention lawsuits like the one filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest based on deceptive marketing.

No doubt McDonald’s is gearing up to challenge the San Francisco ordinance in court the minute it goes in effect later this year. A similar bill has been proposed New York City while other localities wait to see the legal outcome. Now, McDonald’s gets to claim to any lawmaker or judge who will listen: “We don’t need no stinking laws, we got it covered with our new and improved Happy Meals. We got the message loud and clear, so now we’re cleaning up act all on our own. Nothing to see here, move along.”

As I explained in my book, Big Food announcements of improved corporate behavior are for two reasons only: positive PR and staving off government regulation (and in this case, more litigation).

While the former is more obvious, the latter should cause you to ask: Who is in charge here? McDonald’s ultimate goal is to make as little change as possible to get media attention (and praise from the likes of the first lady), while distracting policymakers from doing its job setting the boundaries of corporate behavior.

One argument I often hear about why we should praise these sort of industry moves is that “it’s a step in the right direction.” But in what direction exactly? A direction in which McDonald’s and friends continue to get to call all the shots for how we eat and how our children are marketed to? What is the end game in a world where we accept “incremental change” from corporations who answer only to shareholders? Somehow I don’t see that in 200 more steps Happy Meal boxes will morph into CSA boxes full of fresh, local produce.

Rather than praise corporations like McDonald’s for such meaningless and most likely temporary “improvements” let’s call them out for the distractions they are. We can at least celebrate that years of advocacy efforts to curb marketing to children is causing McDonald’s to take notice, as lame as it is.

Then let’s get back to the much harder job of policy change: to convince our democratically-elected leaders (or judges if that’s what it takes) that McDonald’s should not be allowed to market to children, period. No matter how many ounces of French fries or apple slices Happy Meals contain.

Commercialism Corner

2011-07-21T09:39:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Critics: FCC Not Policing Kids TV – Along with parent and child advocacy groups (including CCFC), lawmaker Rep. Ed Markey is pointing out that the FCC’s enforcement of laws regarding children’s programming and commercials is “weak.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59487.html#ixzz1SjjUxHX8

Junk Food Industry Determined to Target Kids – CCFC Steering Committee member Michele Simon on the IWG’s proposed food marketing principles and extreme push back they’re meeting from the industry in Food Safety News. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/junk-food-industry-determined-to-target-kids/

Toy Movies in 2011 - Has Hollywood Gone Too Far? The toy industry is concerned that movies based on toys don’t bring in as much cash that they used to, and that there are too many of them. “In short, you cannot get good films if the sole purpose of the movie is to sell you stuff.” http://www.toynews-online.biz/opinion/145/US-OPINION-Toy-Movies-in-2011-has-Hollywood-gone-too-far

GAO: Children’s TV Rules Better Enforced on Broadcast Than Cable - A new report finds that rules on advertising to children on cable and satellite are easily skirted and recommends that the FCC create a strategy to ensure children are not exposed to excessive or inappropriate advertising. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/gao-childrens-tv-rules-better-enforced-on-broadcast-than-cable/2011/07/15/gIQA7c0EGI_blog.html

Lawmakers Push for Children’s Online Privacy Law – Congressional representatives stress the importance of protecting children from online tracking, but the FCC falls short of expressing support of (or opposition to) a bill introduced by Markey and Barton that would address the problem. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/lawmakers-push-for-childrens-online-privacy-law/2011/07/14/gIQAWpNHEI_blog.html

Sony PlayStation Ramps Advertising Technology For Brands – PlayStation introduces new methods of in-game advertising. For example, in one ad, a character from the game sprays himself with Axe body spray, which allows a chance at more points. Ford, Toyota, and Wrigley are among the advertisers on PSP. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=153921

Summer TV’s Top Target: Boys – Television shows like Disney’s Phineas and Ferb are looking to hook young male viewers, as well as build a major male-dominating franchise. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576441790597642646.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle

Commercialism Corner

2011-07-13T12:37:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Summer TV's Top Target: Boys – Children’s TV programmers and marketers team up to aggressively push video games, toys, Nesquik, Kraft Mac & Cheese, Kellogg's Fruit Snacks and much more to boys this summer. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576441790597642646.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle

Industries Lobby Against Voluntary Nutrition Guidelines for Food Marketed to Kids –The media industry and food marketers align to lobby against the Interagency Working Group's new voluntary food marketing principles for ads aimed at kids.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/industries-lobby-against-voluntary-nutrition-guidelines-for-food-marketed-to-kids/2011/07/08/gIQAZSZu5H_story.html

No Junk Food Ads? No Jobs, ANA Says – US Association of National Advertisers claims that job losses should prevent food marketing regulations and forms the “Sensible Food Policy Coalition,” which includes Kellogg, PepsiCo, Viacom and other industry members. http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/07/11/ANA-Responds-Junk-Food-Marketing.aspx

Despite Best Efforts, Kids Are Still TV Junkies – Canadian meta-analysis on efforts to reduce children’s screen time in hopes of getting kids to lose weight finds interventions largely unsuccessful. But keeping kids away from screens at an early age was found to be part of the solution. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/despite-best-efforts-kids-are-still-tv-junkies/article2091343/

Scoreboards Will Ring Up Ad Dollars for Tacoma Schools – CCFC’s Associate Director Josh Golin speaks out against new ad-supported scoreboards coming to high schools in Tacoma, WA. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/07/05/1732814/scoreboards-will-ring-up-ad-dollars.html

Lake County School Board Wants Advertising to Help Fill Budget Gaps – Josh Golin comments on a Florida district considering okaying corporate ads in schools. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-04/news/os-lk-school-ads-20110630_1_advertising-on-school-buses-volusia-schools-budget

Hope and Hypocrisy Under the Golden Arches

2011-06-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

As advocates for deep change know, big success is often preceded by small incremental changes that may go unnoticed by the general public. It seems the effort to stop fast food companies from hawking toys to kids is gaining ground.

Last week I was watching Friday Night Lights (a great show if I don’t fret about the product placement) and blithely forwarding through the commercials when an ad for McDonald’s Happy Meals stopped me cold. There were no toys. Intrigued, I rewound and watched in real time:

We see a multi-racial bunch of totally cute kids with Happy Meal boxes—but they’re empty. A child’s voice chirps, “There’s something inside a McDonald’s Happy Meal. It’s called hope…” The kids keep looking for hope in the boxes, but—it’s invisible! Then there’s the tag line, “Happy Meals, the simple joy of helping.”

Turns out five cents of every Happy Meal purchase goes to Ronald McDonald House Charities. According to the fast food giant, there’s a moral imperative to feed your children junk food.

Over the past year, advocates have brought increasing pressure on McDonald’s to stop marketing to children. Corporate Accountability International’s Retire Ronald campaign is gaining traction. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is suing McDonald’s for using toys to sell Happy Meals to children. And San Francisco now requires that restaurant food sold with toys meet basic nutritional standards.

To distract adults from the toy giveaways, McDonald’s is now working hard to convince parents that children can, and should, do good by eating bad. Meanwhile the company is running the same old Happy Meal ads during kids’ shows. No hope there, just toys, toys, and more toys.

These days there is something you can’t see inside a McDonald’s Happy Meal. It’s called fear.

I’m lovin’ it.

The Mind/Body Problem: Why we should all be advocating for limits on children’s screen time

2011-05-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

I’m troubled by an apparent split over children’s screen time between the guardians of children’s health and the guardians of their education. The public health community, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, is intensifying efforts to set limits on the amount of time young children spend with screen technology—one to two hours per day for older children and no screen time for babies and toddlers.

Meanwhile, the National Association for the Education of Young Children—the nation’s premier professional organization for early childhood educators—recently released a draft of its statement on children and technology which advocates incorporating screens into all early childhood programs and pointedly does not advocate for limits on screen time. As it stands, NAEYC’s position on children and technology actually undermines the growing public health movement to reduce children’s screen time.

What’s sad for me is that I associate NAEYC with the important mid-twentieth century movement toward whole child development—which highlighted the importance of recognizing children not just as minds or bodies, but as complex beings with intertwining physical, emotional, social, psychological, and spiritual needs. There’s a dearth of credible evidence that introducing babies, toddlers, or even preschoolers to computers, phone apps, and video games is beneficial to their long-term learning and academic success. And the convergence of ubiquitous, miniaturized screen technology and unregulated commercialism is wreaking havoc with children’s hands on creative play—which we know is essential to healthy brain development. But even if screens were proven to be excellent learning tools for young children (and I repeat, they’re not), given the links between screen time and childhood obesity, it would still be important for educators to take a stand with the American Academy of Pediatrics, The White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity and others to urge early childhood professionals to limit screens in their classrooms and work with parents to limit screens at home.

To read NAEYC’s draft statement on children and technology please click here.

To read the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s response to the statement on children and technology, please click here.

To send a message to NAEYC sharing your concerns about children and technology, please click here.

Scholastic Severs Ties With the Coal Industry

2011-05-14T11:33:00.000-07:00

May 14, 2011

Contact:
Josh Golin, (617-896-9369; josh@commercialfreechildhood.org)
Bill Bigelow, (503-282-6848; bill@rethinkingschools.org)
Nick Berning, (703.587.4454; nberning@foe.org)

For Immediate Release

Scholastic Severs Ties With the Coal Industry

Controversial Elementary School Materials Withdrawn After Protests

BOSTON -- May 14 -- Yesterday afternoon, Scholastic announced that it would stop distributing “The United States of Energy,” a controversial fourth grade curriculum paid for by the American Coal Foundation. The materials were also removed from Scholastic’s website. Scholastic’s decision came after a two-day campaign led by the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), Rethinking Schools, Friends of the Earth (FoE), Greenpeace USA, and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

Statement of CCFC, Rethinking Schoools, FoE, & CBD

"Scholastic’s decision to stop distributing coal industry-funded teaching materials in elementary classrooms is a significant victory for anyone who believes that schools should be free of industry PR and teach fully and honestly about coal and other forms of energy. It is also a testament to the activism of thousands of advocates for children, education, and the environment who are determined not to let the coal industry buy its way into schools.

We are pleased that Scholastic is no longer working with the coal industry and has committed to thoroughly reviewing its policy and editorial procedures on sponsored classroom materials. In addition to the American Coal Foundation, Scholastic’s InSchool Marketing clients have included the Cartoon Network, Claritin, SunnyD, Disney, and McDonald’s. Scholastic also worked with The Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, which is completely funded by corporate interests. It is our hope that Scholastic will choose to stop distributing all corporate and industry sponsored classroom materials. Children everywhere deserve a commercial-free education."

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (www.commercialfreechildhood.org) is a national coalition of health care professionals, educators, advocacy groups and concerned parents who counter the harmful effects of marketing to children through action, advocacy, education, research, and collaboration among organizations and individuals who care about children. CCFC is a project of Third Sector New England (www.tsne.org).

Rethinking Schools (www.rethinkingschools.org) is a nonprofit organization that publishes a quarterly magazine and other educational materials. Rethinking Schools seeks to provide practical guidance and supportive networking for educators who want to offer academically challenging curricula for all students and to engage students in learning contexts that emphasize equality, anti-racism, and social justice.

Friends of the Earth (http://foe.org/) is fighting to defend the environment and create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

The Center for Biological Diversity (www.biologicaldiversity.org) is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 320,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Commercialism Corner

2011-05-03T08:53:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Life Notes: Too Much, Too Soon for Kids – Susan Linn and Diane Levin discuss commercialism, sexualization and bullying--and why it's important to fight for change--in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/lifestyles/2011/may/01/tdflair04-how-parents-can-combat-the-effects-of-me-ar-1000642/

Obama Ducks Food Fight Over Children’s Ads – CCFC's Josh Golin tells SmartMoney that we need a way to enforce the new FTC food marketing standards if we hope for success. http://blogs.smartmoney.com/paydirt/2011/05/02/obama-ducks-food-fight-over-children%E2%80%99s-ads/?mod=SMBlog

Marketing Food to Children – In this letter to the editor in response to the New York Times article on food marketing to kids, Corporate Accountability International’s director says Susan Linn has it right, and it’s time we demand the end of fast food marketing to kids. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/opinion/lweb02food.html

The Sad State of American Kids' Food Environments – This Time post describes the “toxic food environment” in which kids grow up. The author presents some ways to begin addressing the problem, including removing TVs from kids’ bedrooms to limit junk food ad exposure. http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/28/the-sad-state-of-american-kids-food-environments/

Kids Have Easy Access to Explicit Music But Have a Harder Time Getting Violent Video Games – An FTC sting finds that while 13% of kids can buy an M-rated video game, 64% can buy music with a parental advisory. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/04/ftc-2011-sting-operation-music-retailers-is-worst-offender-but-games-were-most-compliant.html

Kids' 'Screen Time' Linked to Early Markers for Cardiovascular Disease – Here is a summary of the new study: “Six-year-olds who spent the most time watching television, using a computer or playing video games had narrower arteries in the back of their eyes — a marker of future cardiovascular risk, in a first-of-its-kind study reported in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology: Journal of the American Heart Association.” http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-04-kids-screen-linked-early-markers.html

Media Multitasking? It’s More Like Multi-Distracting – Study finds multi-screen users are driven to distraction…and they have no idea. http://www.bc.edu/publications/chronicle/FeaturesNewsTopstories/2011/news/multitasking042811.html

My Screen-Free Week

2011-04-29T13:54:00.000-07:00

I wasn't able to meet my ambitious goal of no Internet at all during the week. In fact, I didn't last very long thanks to a post at the Corporate Babysitter that I couldn't help reading . . . or responding to.

I quickly realized that using the Internet was so ingrained in my work that forgoing entirely wasn't going to work. So I loosened up that rule and decided that I could read things and visit sites that were truly work-related. Making that delineation was easier than I anticipated, and I'm proud to say, I didn't stray into non-work related sites all week.

The other part of my Screen-Free Week plan was to avoid all screens when not at work. This part was an unqualified success. The first couple of nights felt strange with the computer not on, but it was very easy to get used to screen-free nights. I was more focused during my time with my daughter, not only because there were no "quick" email checks, but because without even the possibility of going online I was more present when I was with her as well.

After she went to bed, during what it is almost always Internet time for me, I read. And I went to bed early. And easily. For whatever reason, it was much easier to fall asleep after reading something tactile than after my usual routine of reading online. And like Shara, my dreams were pretty awesome!

The weekend wasn't as much of a challenge as it might have been because we visited friends and family in New York. The only hard time was when both my wife and daughter took a nap on Saturday and I really wanted to go online. And if it was just between me and the screen, I probably would have; "No one will even know," a voice kept telling me. But the knowledge I was doing this with others was really helpful. I forced myself to go for a walk and, once I was outside in my old Brooklyn neighborhood on a beautiful afternoon, I felt positively foolish that cheating had even crossed my mind.

There were other hard moments, mostly related to not being able to check blogs or news sources. Whether it was the protests in the Middle East or the budget wars, I didn't feel on "top of things," not that I'm sure I could define what that means. It felt strange not to know that Bradley Manning had been transferred to another prison until reading about it in the paper the next day. If it hadn't been Screen-Free Week, Twitter would have alerted me to the transfer as soon as it happened and then I would hit the blogs for analysis and, by the time I picked up the paper the next day, it would have felt like old news.

So if I had one major insight during the week, it was that my need to constantly consume news and analysis is about more than simply keeping informed; there's something clearly compulsive about always having to be "connected" to the events of the day.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that I swore I was a changed man, I've slipped very easily back in old habits this week. I found it much easier when I had strict limits. I fear the next challenge -- learning how to use the Internet in moderation -- is actually going to be much harder than going Screen-Free.

Dreaming of a Screen-Freer Future

2011-04-27T10:44:00.000-07:00

I not only survived, I thrived during Screen-Free Week. I can tell by my dreams. The last few nights of my screen freedom yielded some of the most spectacular dreams I’ve had in a long time. Friday night I was literally flying around town with an air-powered jet pack, sharing my environmentally-friendly transportation invention with interested onlookers. Saturday night I giddily watched a performance by a couple who erupted from an organized sit-down dinner into a colorful, acrobatic dance. My mind at rest could suddenly imagine the bizarre and the beautiful, flight and frolic. I attribute my dream renaissance to several days of living uninterrupted by screen media’s barrage.

My waking experience of Screen-Free Week was not quite as surreal, though the first few days did induce a kind of vertigo.While using the internet for work, I found myself impulsively clicking over to Facebook and Twitter. I’d get to the log-in page and realize, startled, that I wasn’t supposed to be there. I’d navigate away, but before too long there I was again, staring at the request for a user name and password. Monday after work I had plans with family, so I wasn’t enticed by screens, but Tuesday night was a different story. I was really tired by 7PM and all I seemed to be able to think about was not being able to turn on the television and zone out. It reminded me of the time I tried to quit coffee and, as my head pounded, all I could imagine was how a cup of joe would be a quick cure and how delicious it would taste. Except Tuesday night the thought that consumed me was how easily I could click the TV on and how mindlessly I could watch it. Thankfully, this was the low point of my week.

The rest of my days without screens were wonderful. I had dinner with my college roommate, filled an entire box of books to donate, and spent a great weekend with my family in New Hampshire. My first night in the mountains my aunt, grandmother and I chatted while my 11-year-old cousin Nate and I played a game of “spot the differences between the photos” we found in some of my nana’s old magazines. Saturday my family ventured to find a country pancake house (well, more like barn) of which we’d heard rumors. The local maple syrup was worth the windy ride. Later that day, my aunt Melissa and I explored my family’s old camp in the woods and made preliminary plans to give it new life this summer. Luckily I’m not a hockey fan, or else sitting next to the TV reading while my family watched the Bruins game might have been tough, but all in all I was happily surprised by the ease of ditching screens for a week.

Today is my third day back on screens. I haven’t remembered a single dream since I plugged back in. But that may be a short-term effect of my return to screen-mediated life, because my relationship to screens has changed. I’ve not updated my personal Facebook status, nor have I tweeted. The TV has stayed off. These activities just don’t feel as essential as they used to. I’m looking forward to all of the time I’ll spend away from screens this year imagining and revitalizing our little cottage in the woods—which will, of course, be screen-free.

Compulsory Screens—and Screen-Compulsions

2011-04-27T07:32:00.000-07:00

I broke my Screen-Free Week pledge within 60 minutes of waking up on the first day—by walking into the gym. After drifting into my usual exercise-induced trance, I startled awake to find myself reading a news crawl on one of the eight wall-mounted televisions, each tuned to a different station.

That prepared me, however, for the coming week. I was going to have to be vigilant not just about the screens I chose to give up, but about screens over which I have no control. I did pretty well—and I’m proud of it.

The truth is that my hopes about reading more, taking time to do nothing, and going to the circus didn’t materialize—a death in the family had me on a plane to Detroit and spending time with several generations of cousins. I found myself wondering if grief exempted me from Screen-Free Week—or if being cut off from email during the day meant that I could check it at night—despite my pledge that I wouldn’t. I decided to stick to my promises to myself—and here’s what I learned:

After four hours offline I start going through withdrawal. I don’t break out in a sweat, but I feel vaguely antsy, anxious and disconnected. That got better as the week progressed.
It is really hard for me to be in the presence of a screen without watching it—and watching is automatic. I discovered this not only at the gym, but when I walked into a room where a five year old was watching the Berenstain Bears (I don’t even like the Berenstain Bears—but there I was for a minute or two watching them until I remembered what week it was).
It’s difficult to avoid Facebook even when I’m not on it. Postings on Facebook came up in conversation among my cousins several times a day. Question: If someone repeats a Facebook post to you verbatim is that a violation of Screen-Free Week?
I am grateful for friends on the West Coast whom I could call late at night—a time when I’m most vulnerable to screens. And it was lovely to connect to them really instead of virtually.
It’s helpful to have rules.

I also confirmed something I long suspected—for me, screen time isn’t really relaxing. Reading relaxes me. So does walking, and good conversation with friends and family.

And it was great to get on top of what I’m pretty sure is a compulsion if not an addiction. I’m about to go away for two weeks, and while I’m gone I’m going to figure out a set of rules for myself for all year round.

P.S. My cousin Jordan threatened to photoshop and post a picture of me glued to a screen during SFW. So if you see one, it’s fake. Honest.

Colbert-Free Week

2011-04-16T16:27:00.000-07:00

Screen-Free Week starts in a few days, and I am mostly excited for the challenge. I’m a little anxious about leaving the Facebook world for seven whole days (I wasn’t even able to do that during a trip to the French Alps last fall), but I look forward to escaping status update overload and all the virtual tagging and poking for a while. I’m happily anticipating more time for reading, listening to music, and enjoying longer walks with my two little dogs. But what I’m not so happily anticipating is tuning out Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert next week. I have identified my Screen-Free Week Achilles’ heel.

I’ve considered proposing that CCFC choose the date for Screen-Free Week based on the Comedy Central duo’s vacation schedules, but something tells me that won’t fly. The flurry of thoughts that came to mind when I started visualizing my week went something like this: “Can I watch online episodes of the Colbert Report and the Daily Show that I miss? Will they be as enjoyable a week later? Does it defeat the purpose of going screen-free for a week if I just double up on my screen time the next?” Even though I only catch these favorite shows of mine a few times a week, this planning process helped me realize how much I enjoy—and even depend on—my favorite television satirists.

I think that’s one of the really wonderful things about Screen-Free Week: it challenges us to think about and evaluate the media we consume. Preparing for the week has helped me weed out the programs I really love from the ones I watch just because. Turning off House Hunters? Who cares. Scrubs? Seen every episode, no problem. Seinfeld? Seen every episode thrice—wait, why do I keep watching them over and over? Determining which media content I’ll truly miss has shown me that most of the screen-based entertainment I consume I could easily do without…except those hilarious news shows I’ll miss so.

What if after Screen-Free Week the only time I spent watching TV was on the Colbert Report and the Daily Show a few times a week? I think it’s doable and that it would be screen time well spent. As for my current screen diet, it’s not the healthiest. I hope next week’s digital detox flushes away some of my media toxins so I can enjoy the full flavor of the good stuff.

Screen-Free Week and Me

2011-04-15T11:17:00.000-07:00

Given that my daughter (almost 2.5) is screen-free year-round, the week won’t really affect her (although hopefully her father will be a little less distracted). So for me, the week is more about looking in the mirror.

Giving up TV will be easy. If it weren’t Screen-Free Week, I would definitely watch some of the NBA playoffs but given that my team (don’t laugh – the New Jersey Nets) isn’t in them, it won’t be much of sacrifice.

But the Internet is another story. I know I spend way too much time online. I never joined Facebook, but Twitter definitely has its hooks in me. I get lost clicking from tweets to news and commentary. And then there’s commentary on the commentary and before you know it, wow – is it really midnight? I swore I’d be in bed by ten.

I could probably rationalize that the news and blogs I consume aren’t entertainment. After all, I’m not reading TMZ or even, for the most part, establishment media – I’m educating myself by reading alternative news sources and brilliant commentators. And isn’t it my job – both as an activist and a citizen – to be informed?

But it’s Screen-Free Week – and I owe to myself and my family not to rationalize. And as wonderful as the Internet has been for me for so many reasons, when I can’t pass by my office without checking email, when I stay up until 2:00 AM following the results of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election (yes, I really did that), when I find myself feeling cranky because no one has retweeted that brilliant tweet of mine, something is out of whack.

So here’s my plan for Screen-Free Week

1. No computer at home. No email, no Internet no matter what the content, no blogging, no tweeting, nada.
2. No Internet at work. I need to respond to emails, but rather then spending my Screen-Free Week trying to decide if an article is work-related or not, I’m going cold turkey.

I’m honestly not sure I can do it. But I do know I’m going to have fun trying. And I’m really excited to read more (offline! books!!!) than I have in years.

How Hooked am I? Thoughts about My Own Screen-Free Week

2011-04-15T06:02:00.000-07:00

So my daughter-in-law stopped by the office yesterday to pick up a Screen-Free Week Organizer’s Kit. National Screen-Free Week, April 18-24, is hosted by Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

She, her husband, and the two best little girls in the world—okay, in my world—are going to join in the celebration by giving up screens for a week and hanging out in life. What’s interesting is that she doesn’t think it’s going to be so hard for the children. But she's not so sure about the adults. She’s determined to stop checking her phone at home (which annoys the kids) and their dad is going to stop “staring at the computer” (which also annoys the kids).

That got me thinking about my own Screen-Free Week commitment. At my house, it’s going to be adults only, since we have no children living at home. And I have to admit that I’m excited, but also a little apprehensive. Like many people I know, my own screen time has gotten pretty much out of control.

Here’s what’s going to be hard for me to give up: Wordscraper. For those of you who don’t know, it’s a Scrabble-like game for a social-networking-site-that-shall-not-be-named. I’ve got several hot and heavy games going with friends I don’t see much. Guess we’re going to have to chat by phone instead—or make an effort to see each other. And I’m going to have to find someone to actually play scrabble with me.

I expect and hope that forgoing random television programs and at-home movies is going to be less hard. At CCFC, we’ve had discussions about whether actually going out to the movies counts. What if it’s a documentary? Or some really good indie film?

But here’s the biggest challenge: At CCFC we’ve agreed that we’re not going to check our email or the web after work. Now that’s going to be hard.

Here’s what I’m planning to do instead: Read, walk outside, go hear colleagues give a lecture, have dinner with friends, cook for the holidays, knit, do crossword puzzles. Take two little girls to the circus. Oh—and nothing, absolutely nothing.

101 Screen-Free Activities

2011-04-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

National Screen-Free Week is April 18-24. Here are 101 ideas for things to do during the week-long celebration. Please comment to share your favorite screen-free activities! (Click here for a printable version -- use it to cover up your TV!)

At Home
1. Listen to the radio.
2. Write an article or story.
3. Paint a picture, a mural or a room.
4. Write to the President, your Representative, or Senators.
5. Read a book. Read to someone else.
6. Learn to change the oil or tire on a car. Fix something.
7. Write a letter to a friend or relative.
8. Make cookies, bread or jam and share with a neighbor.
9. Read magazines or newspapers. Swap them with friends.
10. Go through your closets and donate items to Goodwill, the Salvation Army, or a local rummage sale. Have a garage sale.
11. Start a diary/journal.
12. Play cards.
13. Make crafts to give as gifts. Try a new craft.
14. Do a crossword puzzle or play Sudoku.
15. Save money: cancel your cable TV!
16. Learn about a different culture. Have an international dinner.
17. Teach a child some of your favorite childhood games.
18. Study sign language.
19. Write a letter to your favorite author.
20. Cook dinner with friends or family.
21. Make cards for holidays or birthdays.
22. Play chess, bridge, or checkers.
23. Play charades.
24. Have a cup of coffee and a conversation.
25. Repair or refinish a piece of furniture.
26. Make a wooden flowerbox.
27. Wake up early and make pancakes.
28. Read a favorite poem. Read poems by poets new to you.

Outdoors
29. Learn about native trees and flowers in your area.
30. Plan a picnic or barbecue.
31. Go bird watching. Learn the names of local birds.
32. Walk the dog. Wash the dog.
33. Plant a garden. Work in your garden.
34. Take a nature hike.
35. Feed fish or birds.
36. Watch the night sky through binoculars and identify different constellations. Observe the moon.
37. Learn to use a compass.
38. Take photographs and then organize them into an album.
39. Do yard work.
40. Go camping.
41. Take an early morning walk.
42. Climb a tree.
43. Watch a sunset; watch the sunrise with a friend.

Around Town
44. Attend a community concert. Listen to a local band.
45. Visit the library. Borrow some books.
46. Visit a local bookstore.
47. Visit the zoo.
48. Visit the countryside or town. Travel by bus or train.
49. Attend a religious service.
50. Walk to work or school.
51. Attend a live sports event.
52. Look for treasures at a yard sale.
53. Try out for a play. Attend a play.
54. Collect recycling and drop it off at a recycling center.
55. Learn to play a musical instrument.
56. Go to a museum.

On the Move
57. Go roller skating or ice skating.
58. Go swimming. Join a community swim team.
59. Start a community group that walks, runs or bikes.
60. Organize a game of touch football, baseball, or softball in the local park.
61. Go for a bicycle ride.
62. Learn yoga.
63. Play soccer, softball or volleyball.
64. Play Frisbee.
65. Workout.
66. Go dancing. Take a dance class.

In Your Community
67. Organize a community clean-up or volunteer for charity.
68. Become a tutor.
69. Join a choir. Sing!
70. Start a bowling league.
71. Visit and get to know your neighbors.
72. Start a fiction or public policy book group.

With the Kids
73. Make paper bag costumes and have a parade.
74. Design a poster for Screen-Free Week.
75. Discover your community center or local park activities.
76. Blow bubbles.
77. Draw family portraits.
78. Build a fort in the living room and camp out one night.
79. Research your family history and make a family tree.
80. Invent a new game and teach it to your friends.
81. Make a sign to tape across the TV during Screen-Free Week.
82. Play hopscotch, hide & seek, or freeze-tag.
83. Organize a neighborhood scavenger hunt.
84. Play board games with family and friends.
85. Clean up or redecorate your room.
86. Make puppets out of old socks and have a puppet show.
87. Write a play with friends. Perform it at a nursing home.
88. Construct a kite. Fly it.
89. Go on a family trip or historical excursion.
90. In the snow, go sledding or make a snowman.
91. Create a collage out of pictures from old magazines.
92. Shoot hoops with friends. Play a round of H.O.R.S.E.
93. Make a friendship bracelet.
94. Create a cookbook with all your favorite recipes.
95. Tell stories around a campfire.
96. Plan a slumber party.
97. Bake cakes or cookies and invite friends for a tea party.
98. Construct a miniature boat and float it on water.
99. Write a letter to your grandparents. Make a special card.
100. Create sidewalk art with chalk.
101. Everyone!!! Have a huge party to celebrate a Screen-Free Week!

Your Baby Can’t Really Read (and doesn’t need to)

2011-04-14T07:41:00.000-07:00

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint against Your Baby Can Read! for false and deceptive marketing. YBCR is a $200 video-based system that allegedly teaches babies as young as three months to read. The Today Show did a great story on our complaint, and we’re already hearing from parents who have been duped by the company.

Reading experts from around the country agree that baby’s brains aren’t even developed enough to learn to read. Reading is more than memorizing what a word looks like on a flashcard—it requires comprehension.

Like other baby media companies, Your Baby Can Read exploits our natural tendency to want what’s best for our children. There is no evidence that babies learn anything—let alone a complex skill like reading—from videos. And in addition to conning parents out of $200, Your Baby Can Read’s false and deceptive marketing may be putting babies at risk.

The complaint is part of our ongoing effort to stop baby media companies from marketing their products as educational. Last year, we successfully persuaded the Walt Disney Company to stop marketing Baby Einstein as educational, and to offer refunds to parents who believed their claims.

Research has linked infant screen time to sleep disturbances and delayed language acquisition, as well as problems in later childhood, such as poor school performance and childhood obesity. If parents follow Your Baby Can Read’s viewing instructions, their baby will have watched more than 200 hours by the age of nine months—spending more than one full week of 24-hour days in front of a screen. Meanwhile, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time for children under age two.

The last thing babies need is to be drilled with flash cards and to watch videos. It’s particularly worrisome that screen time takes away from the two activities known to be educational—time with caring adults and hands-on creative play. Babies learn in the context of loving relationships, and with all of their senses. Yet, 19% of babies under the age of one have a television in their bedroom and 40% of 3-month-olds are regular viewers of television. And we all know that screen time is habituating. The more time babies spend with screens, the harder it is for them to turn them off when they’re older.

If you bought Your Baby Can Read and you’re dissatisfied, or if you’re outraged on behalf of parents who bought the product, please click here to let the FTC know that you want Your Baby Can Read to stop its deceptive marketing and compensate parents who shelled out $200 believing they were doing the best for their children.

A Voice for Children in the Media Reform Movement

2011-04-11T13:40:00.000-07:00

This weekend I attended the National Conference for Media Reform (NCMR) here in Boston. The event, coordinated by our friends at Free Press, brought together over 2500 advocates for media justice from all over the world. It was electrifying to be among so many passionate, creative, hardworking media reform activists. What inspired me most about the conference was the diversity of issues on which we were able to connect. Individuals and organizations gathered to address issues critical to the development of a fair and democratic media system, issues ranging from war coverage to immigrant rights, from government accountability to gender equality. The mood of the conference was one of jubilation and solidarity.

So you can imagine my surprise when I was the single person to cheer after Congressman Ed Markey, in his animated keynote to a full house Saturday night, called for children's television rules to "stay on the books and stay strong." It’s not that the audience didn’t like what Rep. Markey had to say. On the contrary, happy noise from the crowd punctuated his calls for responsible environmental policies, funding for public television and, of course, net neutrality. His comments about children's TV regulation met relative silence because media reform is not, by and large, considered a children’s issue. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. A major goal of media reform is for media to give voice to and serve the needs of all people, not just the power elite. Children are the most vulnerable group in any society—and spend more time with media than they do in school—so it is especially important that media serve them well.

Our current media system does not serve children well at all. As those who follow the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s work know, programming on TV, the Internet, in films, etc. is used to deliver kids to corporate advertisers who exploit their developmental vulnerabilities to sell bad products (junk food, violent movies, sexualized dolls) and worse values (material things will make us happy, violence is the answer to conflict, women are sexual objects). An overwhelming majority of children’s media in this country is not offered with children’s health and well-being in mind, but to fill corporate coffers.

Apart from sessions on media literacy and education (which are no doubt important subjects) only a handful of NCMR sessions focused on children’s media issues. Jean Kilbourne and Diana Martinez presented with CCFC co-founder Diane Levin on media and marketing’s damaging sexualization of young girls. The screening and discussion of Media Education Foundation’s Mean World Syndrome showed how television and Hollywood create a hyperviolent culture that breeds paralyzing and volatile fear among children and adults. These sessions demonstrate that children’s issues can and should be integrated into the movement for media justice and reform. And it is in the best interest of our common goals that we do so.

When we talk about the need for laws to protect net neutrality, we must also talk about the need for regulation to protect children’s privacy as they surf the web. Marketers track children’s behavior online and target them with highly personalized and sophisticated messages manipulating them into being “good” consumers. In today’s media landscape, these messages are much louder and more powerful than those urging children to be good citizens.

When we talk about the need for media literacy in classrooms, we must also talk about the need to boot marketers from classrooms. As we fight to strengthen independent media outside of school walls, we need to challenge companies like Channel One, which delivers corporate and military advertising to a captive student audience. If we want to foster a population of critically thinking citizens, we must take on advertisers that rob children of precious school time in order to advance their own agendas.

As we petition the FCC to hold broadcasters accountable for serving the public interest, we should make sure children are included among that public on whose behalf we speak. We must make sure the FCC upholds the few laws we have protecting children from overcommercialization and not allow the blatant disregard of these rules. We need to stop shows like Zevo-3, the new cartoon by Nickelodeon and Skechers, which is based on the sneaker giant’s advertising spokescharacters and is essentially one long sales pitch. And we need to make sure that regulators prevent marketers from falsely advertising media aimed at babies as educational when research doesn’t support those claims.

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has been working for ten years on issues like these as the media reform movement has blossomed from a few dedicated individuals to a critical mass of advocates, educators and lawmakers—thanks in no small part to Free Press. We urge this powerful group of change-makers to include advertising to children on its action list and invite media reformers to join us in the movement to reclaim childhood from corporate marketers. We must work together to limit predatory marketers’ access to children and preserve what Markey, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, called "the joy of [children's] play"—that magical imaginative process that is the foundation of learning and critical thinking and key to a healthy democratic society. The future of the media reform movement, children, and democracy, depends on it.

No No Nintendo: Parents, Children, and the Latest Media Wonder

2011-03-31T11:39:00.000-07:00

The much acclaimed Nintendo 3DS promises endless hours of screen-time pleasure—and a load of trouble for parents and children. It provides 3D gaming with no bothersome glasses. Reviews glowingly describe a three dimensional experience that is more real and more compelling than ever before—instead of objects appearing to come at you, the new Nintendo technology creates a more realistic sense of depth.

According to the New York Times, “Just about every child in America who likes video games is going to want a 3DS; the clamor will reach a fever pitch this weekend and will continue straight through the summer and into the holiday season.” The Times goes on to describe how the hand-held charmer is perfect for school bus rides. What it doesn’t say is that children are going to be bombarded with marketing for the device, which comes at the hefty price of $249.99 and health warnings for children under seven.

The last thing kids need is technology that makes screen time more enticing than it already is. Children already spend an alarming amount of time with screens—more than 32 hours a week for preschoolers. And we know it’s not good for them. Childhood obesity, poor school performance, attention issues, and sleep disturbances are all linked to excessive time with screens. And screen time is habituating. The more you have, the more you want.

Every nifty, new, portable, heavily-advertised screen emerging on the market increases children’s access and desire, which manifests into a childhood characterized by all screens all the time—less active play, less creative play, less face-to-face interaction, less time with nature (and so on), and more exposure to all forms of advertising, including product integration which is increasing in video games. So what’s a parent to do?

One obvious option is not to buy in—to resist being sucked into the “my child needs the latest gadget in order to be happy” rut. That’s easy to say and harder for lots of parents to do. The social pressures start young. One mom told me that written on an invitation her eight year old recently received to a pajama party was “bring your DS.” He didn’t have one. The assumption was that he, and every other invitee, did. To her credit, she didn’t rush out to buy one. And yes, he still had a good time.

If marketing to children were regulated (and I believe it should be), and kids weren’t subject to sophisticated ad campaigns convincing them that screens are essential to their happiness, it would be easier to “just say ‘no’” to the latest media fad. But, at the moment, the burden is completely and totally on parents. Most parents I talked to are troubled by excessive screen time, and the money they’re shelling out to support it, but it’s rare that they feel on top if it. They’re asking for help—and they need it.

We certainly can’t legislate how much screen time families allow their children. And, short of a consumer boycott—which is laughably beyond unlikely—we can’t stop Nintendo and other companies from manufacturing amazing electronic screens. But advocates, the public health community, educators, government officials, and anyone who cares about children can speak out about the need for limits on screen time and help parents come up with viable alternatives. The American Academy of Pediatrics has long recommended no screen time for children under two and no more than two hours per day for older kids. More recently, the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health organizations are also recommending limits both at home and in child care settings.

More than seventy of these groups have endorsed Screen-Free Week 2011—the national celebration where children and families escape entertainment screen media for a week and have fun exploring the rest of the world. My organization, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, is the new home of Screen-Free Week (which used to be called “TV-Turn-off”). And communities around the country are organizing screen-free activities—like picnics, game nights, dinners—on the theory that it’s easier, and more fun, to take a break from screens together rather than alone. For CCFC, celebrating Screen-Free Week is not an end in itself—it’s a springboard for changing behaviors and lifestyles.

The Nintendo 3DS is not the be-all and end-all for screen technology, which is only going to become more evolved, more enticing, more accessible, and probably more affordable. Meanwhile, screen time for children is a major public health and social problem that is only just now beginning to be recognized. And kids aren’t going to set limits themselves. Reducing screen time can’t be a national law, but it can, and should, become a national value.

Scholastic's Suffocating Stereotypes

2011-03-31T08:00:00.000-07:00

From Scholastic's Firefly Book Club, for pre-k and kindergarten children:

If you can't read the small type, here it is:

For girls, it's the "Perfectly Pink! Pack: Little princesses will love these five enchanting stories -- filled with everything PINK!"

For the boys, it's the "Power Pack: Keep active kids reading with five power-packed books about rockets, bulldozers, and more."

I guess if I want my daughter to be a good consumer I better tell her to put down that toy truck, stop being so active, and focus on being a little, enchanting, pink princess. And remind her that, in Scholastic's world, it's the boys that have the power.

These suffocating stereotypes aren't, of course, unique to the kiddie marketers at Scholastic. (Here's a fantastic word cloud breaking down the words used in toy commercials aimed at boys and girls.) But what's different is that Scholastic is using tax-payer funded time to peddle this junk to a captive audience of schoolchildren. Remind me, again, why we let them do that.

Commercialism Corner

2011-03-22T07:49:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

New from Skechers Entertainment - Skechers Entertainment, a division of footwear company Skechers USA, launches worldwide licensing campaign fueled by its kids show Zevo-3 (target of a CCFC FCC complaint) and upcoming direct-to-DVD animated movie Twinkle Toes (http://www.twinkletoesusa.com), based on Skechers girl-targeted footwear line. http://www.cynopsis.com/editions/kids/032211/

Cartoon Website Targets Kids and Network Execs – Toon Googles is a new cartoon website aimed at young children that “collects data surrounding viewer demographics, time spent watching and star ratings and shares this information for free with subscribers.” http://kidscreen.com/2011/03/18/cartoon-website-targets-kids-and-network-execs/

NASDPTS Cites Safety, Legal Concerns in Opposing School Bus Ads – The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services renews its opposition to school bus advertising by issuing updated position statement. http://www.stnonline.com/home/latest-news/3202-nasdpts-cites-safety-legal-concerns-in-opposing-school-bus-ads. Visit CCFC’s School Bus Ad Action Center here: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/schoolbusads.html

Online Self-regulation May Not Satisfy Obama Administration – Senator Kerry, Senator McCain and President Obama are pushing for regulation to protect online privacy, despite advertisers’ attempts to dodge legislation with self-regulation. http://adage.com/article/digital/obama-online-advertising-regulation/149493/

Parents Face Challenges in Keeping Kids from Violent Video Games – This article explains why parents struggle to protect their children from the harmful effects of violent video games. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/11/parents-face-challenges-in-keeping-kids-from-viole/news-breaking/

A Glossy Take on Disney – Disney will introduce new glossy magazines for kids based on Phineas and Ferb, Cars and other properties because, according to a Disney, “kids want them and moms will pay for them.” Ads will first be limited to Disney franchises, but the magazines will feature outside advertising eventually. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/a-glossy-take-on-disney/

Meet the Doll That Teaches Your Daughter to Pluck and Shave – The Monster High doll Clawdeen, which has been criticized in recent weeks for being a prime example of “how marketing is further eroding female self-esteem before girls even hit puberty,” is the most popular fashion doll on Toys 'R' Us shelves, according to a corporate spokesperson, and also harmful to girls, according to parents, advocates and psychologists. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/meet-the-doll-that-teaches-your-daughter-to-pluck-and-shave/article1946181/

Food Industry in Europe Engaging in Familiar PR on Marketing to Kids

2011-03-13T17:34:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a 2-day meeting in Brussels. I was asked to participate with other experts from around the world (mostly from Europe) to address the problem of cross-border marketing of unhealthy food to children. In the age of satellite TV, the Internet, and other technologies, one country's standards may be insufficient to protect children from being exposed to junk food marketing. Because the meeting was not open to the general public, I cannot share all of what was discussed (the standards are still in draft form), but I can highlight a couple of presentations made to a larger group of "stakeholders."

The only industry presentation was made by Rocco Renaldi, the managing director of a PR firm called Landmark Europe, which apparently is handling the food industry's self-regulation charade there. Mr. Renaldi briefly described the voluntary program, which bears some similarity to the American version. In the US, it goes by the lofty name of the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, under the rubric of the Better Business Bureau, and consists of a series of "pledges" by various companies on how they market their products to children. Oddly, while McDonald's takes part in the US, it has not joined in the UK, at least one not-so-subtle difference.

By way of showing off about how great the system is working in Europe, Mr. Renaldi explained how food ads aimed at children on TV had declined from 2005-2010. (Note the industry program didn't start until 2009.) I thought this was misleading data for another reason so I asked him during the Q&A: what about other forms of advertising, did they look at anything else? Because the evidence suggests in the US that when TV ads go down, children are still plenty exposed to junk food messages through other forms of media, such as the Internet. He had no good answer, except to admit he only had data for TV, saying "how hard" it was to measure other forms of media. Well, it certainly is hard for actual researchers and advocates, but if you're working for industry, maybe not so hard? Just convenient to be selective about your data.

Next, a researcher named Ileana Sondergaard from the Metropolitan University College of Copenhagen, Denmark essentially tore apart everything the industry PR guy had just said. She explained how bad the standards are, how companies use misleading information while breaching their own standards, and that overall the system suffers from an inherent lack of transparency. (All of which sounded painfully familiar as problems I described in my book and we continue to see here.)

Nine of the 11 original corporate members of the voluntary pledges in Europe use distinct nutrient-profiling systems that are conveniently set to match each company's own products. (This is the same game industry plays in the US: 16 companies, 16 different pledges.) For example, Unilver sets an upper limit for sugar at 20 grams per 100 grams of product, and then magically its Calippo Orange Popsicle clocks in at 19 grams. Also, the upper limit for calories is 110 and Calippo contains 100, how convenient. Sondergaard also showed how Nestlé products often listed different nutrient information in different places on the Web and elsewhere, making it impossible to get reliable information. Finally, she explained how she tried to contact many of the companies, but to no avail. (Her research is not yet published, but I will share it when it becomes available.)

Back on the home front, Mary Engle of the US Federal Trade Commission gave an update on the stalled federal voluntary guidelines process here. In 2009, Congress authorized the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, to "develop recommendations for standards for the marketing of food" to children age 17 or younger, mandating that a report be submitted "no later than July 15, 2010." Oops. (The three other federal agencies involved are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the US Department of Agriculture, which put out the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 2011.)

The committee did release this draft proposal back in December of 2009, which was actually not bad as far as nutrition standards go. And this of course explains the delay. As Engle noted: "Industry was not happy; companies complained that under these guidelines, no products could be marketed." (Isn't that the point?) Engle said they heard from critics warning that industry would just ignore the standards, which seems likely in any case, because remember, it will be voluntary.

So now what? Engle predicted we should see the proposed guidelines released in the next 2-3 months, followed by a 45-day comment period. (Why we need regulatory comments for voluntary guidelines is unclear to this lawyer, but OK.) While Engle said the proposal "won't be radically different," from the draft, she also noted the standards "have to be feasible, something industry will adopt on a voluntary basis, and cannot be dead on arrival." Translation: the final document will be watered down. (And then likely to be ignored by industry anyway, even after all the whining.)

I left Brussels with the impression that the food industry is engaging in the same charade all over the world: setting weak, self-serving, voluntary guidelines designed to ensure companies can keep right on marketing their unhealthy brands to children while mollifying regulators and distracting researchers with evaluating their useless pledges, commitments, and initiatives.

While none of this is surprising, more disappointing was the realization that advocates throughout Europe haven't figured out how to address this serious problem any more than we have in the US. The junk food industry is way out in front of all of us, having co-opted the process the world over. Meanwhile, children continue to be exploited as the global public health crisis deepens.

With Students Leading the Way, Toronto Says No To Video Ads in Schools

2011-03-10T12:29:00.000-08:00

Great news! Last night, the Toronto District School Board rejected a proposal to install digital monitors in more than 70 area high schools. The monitors would have been used for news and school announcements and to showcase student projects. The catch? Thirty-percent of the air time – or two hours a day – would have been reserved for ads.

The proposal’s proponents claimed that the ads could earn the district up to $100,000 a year, but opponents of the plan passionately argued against selling their students to marketers. “It is shameful, absolutely shameful, that we are being forced to prostitute ourselves and sell access to the children in this system because we are an underfunded institution,” said trustee Sheila Cary-Meagher. “We’re here to educate our children, not to sell their souls.”

CCFC was alerted to the plan a few hours before the board meeting. We quickly notified our Toronto-area members, many of whom immediately contacted their board representative and urged them to vote against the ad plan.

But the best part of the story is that students played a big part in stopping the ads. The district’s student council opposed the plan, as did the two student representatives on school board. Student Trustee Zach Schwartz told the Toronto Sun, “I do not think it is the school board’s place to leverage students’ minds to the highest bidder. School has to be a learning environment first and foremost and should not be doing things that do not have a direct educational benefit.”

And while proponents of in-school marketing often ask “what’s the big deal?” since ads are everywhere, Student Trustee Jenny Williams reminded her fellow board members precisely why its so important to preserve schools as commercial-free zones: “Students are feeling as though they are going to be bombarded with advertising from various companies and that school will no longer be a 'safe zone' for them.”

So thank you, Toronto, for putting your students first and reminding all of us that, even in these stark economic times, advertising in schools is neither inevitable nor desirable. And for giving impassioned, articulate students like Zach and Jenny a role in shaping their own educational experience.

Commercialism Corner

2011-02-16T09:08:00.000-08:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Disney Makes Nightmares Come True in Hospital Maternity Wards - This Yahoo! News article covers CCFC's action urging Disney to stop branding newborns literally at birth. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110210/bs_ac/7825750_disney_makes_nightmares_come_true_in_hospital_maternity_wards

In-app Purchases in iPad, iPhone, iPod Kids' Games Touch Off Parental Firestorm - Children, often unknowingly, are buying virtual goods from iTunes that cost their parents real money, sometimes lots. The author writes that many parents and public interest groups say that the marketing of these e-goods “doesn't have any business in a children's game.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020706073.html

Disney Looking Into Cradle for Customers - Disney has gained access to maternity wards in hospitals and is marketing its new line, Disney Baby, through a company called Our365, a business that sells bedside baby pictures. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07disney.html

Sex Sells: Teaching Kids Not to Buy - As sexualization of young girls in media and marketing intensifies, Diane Levin tells Fox Business what can be done to combat the commercial assault on children. http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/02/01/teaching-teens-modesty/

How Fast Food Companies “Super Size” African Americans - This Atlanta Post article examines “Race-based obesity” in America, calling attention to marketers history of marketing unhealthy food to minority communities. http://atlantapost.com/2011/01/31/how-fast-food-companies-%E2%80%9Csuper-size%E2%80%9D-african-americans/

Study Begins to Unlock the Development of Child Taste Preferences - New study suggests that “children with detailed mental representations of fast food and soda brands – as developed by advertising and experience – have higher scores on an ‘added flavour’ sugar/fat/salt (SFS) liking palate.” http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Study-begins-to-unlock-the-development-of-child-taste-preferences/

Why it's already illegal to market Happy Meals to kids

2011-01-26T09:59:00.000-08:00

When it comes to food, everybody's got an opinion. Same goes for parenting. Mix the two together and you've got the makings of a culture war. Witness the recent scuffle between Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama over the White House's rather tame Let's Move campaign aimed at ending childhood obesity.

So last month, when the Center for Science in the Public Interest announced it was filing a class action lawsuit to stop McDonald's from using Happy Meal toys to market to children, the fierce and ugly backlash against the mother of two who was brave enough to attach her name to the case was predictable.

But I am not interested in debating good or bad parenting. Nor am I interested in arguing over whether this lawsuit is a good idea. How many calories are in a Happy Meal and whether you can ask for carrots instead of fries is irrelevant to me. I am not even going to give you all the scary data about how America's kids are getting fatter and sicker. Nor do I care whether the cause is fast food or video games.

That's all been done. Instead, let's talk law. Because that minor detail seems to have eluded most of the national conversation about how food companies market to children.

Our legal system does not allow marketers to advertise just as they wish, either to children or adults. We have consumer protection laws because marketers aren't exactly trustworthy. From time to time, they've been known to stretch the truth.

That's why both at the federal and state levels, the law requires that advertisers not engage in deceptive marketing. Otherwise, they would have an unfair advantage over consumers. In other words, the law aims to provide a level playing field between the two parties. The key legal terms here are "deceptive" and "unfair." Bear with me; I am saving you three years of law school and a grueling bar exam, not to mention years of debt.

Now, what about marketing to children? Ample science, along with statements by various professional organizations tells us that marketing to young children is both deceptive and unfair. Why? Because young children simply do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that they are being marketed to; they cannot comprehend "persuasive intent," the linchpin of advertising. Here's how the nation's trade group for kids' doctors puts it: "The American Academy of Pediatrics considers advertising directly to young children to be inherently deceptive, and exploits children under the age of 8 years."

So, if advertising to young children is inherently deceptive, and deceptive advertising is illegal under federal law and in most states, how is it even happening? And doesn't this mean that not just food, but all marketing to young children is currently illegal? I get this question a lot. The answer is yes.

It may seem unsettling to imagine so much illegal activity going on every single day, but it's really not that unusual. The marketplace is chock-full of deceptive advertising that goes unchallenged -- aimed at both adults and children. It's the reality of a free marketplace and a government that lacks both the political will and resources to properly enforce the law. That's why we sometimes need lawsuits to fill the void left by government agencies.

Now I am sure you legal eagles are just waiting to throw the First Amendment in my face. You're thinking, but doesn't free speech protect McDonald's right to advertise? Yes and no. When it comes to kids, mostly no.

While the food industry likes to wrap itself in the Constitution, the truth is that the free speech clause under the First Amendment is not a blank check to advertise anywhere, anytime, or to anybody. Free speech protection must be balanced against other considerations, such as deceptive advertising. We have plenty of examples of the federal government stepping in to stop shady marketing claims, such as skin patches causing weight loss. Marketers cannot lie: that is not free speech. Thus, if advertising to small children is "inherently deceptive" it cannot be protected under the First Amendment.

Lest you think I am just some crazy activist lawyer who's making up her own legal theories, I am not alone. In 2005, I coordinated a legal symposium on food marketing to children. Angela Campbell, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote a compelling article in which she called on Congress to prohibit product placement and cartoon characters to market junk food to children. She argued that the First Amendment would not be a barrier to such a law because it does not protect deceptive marketing.

Last year, Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, published an article making a similar argument calling on the Federal Trade Commission to protect children from food marketing.

But if you still think that protecting kids is all up to parents because they are actually purchasing the Happy Meals, I asked Steve Gardner, litigation director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and architect of the lawsuit, to respond to this argument.

His answer was simple and elegant: "Just because it's possible for a parent to intervene doesn't change the fact that what McDonald's is doing is illegal." In other words, there are often many ways that parents can act to protect their children but that doesn't make it OK for others to break the law.

And that is exactly what McDonald's is doing, until someone stops them.

This post originally appeared on Grist.

Commercialism Corner

2010-12-22T05:42:00.000-08:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Bribes: How Food Corporations Keep Opponents Quiet – Marion Nestle exposes how corporations buy advocacy groups’ silence. This time Save the Children stopped advocating in favor of soda taxes after accepting millions from Pepsi and seeking more from Coke. http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/12/bribes-how-food-corporations-keep-opponents-quiet/68210/

How Toy Crazes Are Born - This Wall Street Journal article explains how marketers exploit kids' natural developmental tendencies to whip up collectible toy frenzies. http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/news/2010/12/howtoycrazes.html

Mint.com Hits The Books; Offers Personal Finance Curriculum To Students – Scholastic’s newest in-school advertising partner, Mint.com, is “a free, online program designed to educate middle-school students about personal finance and financial management.” At http://www.scholastic.com/mint/ teachers can print lesson plans around sponsored videos like “Quest for Credit” and schoolchildren can play games like “Quest for Money.” http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/20/mint-com-hits-the-books-offers-personal-finance-curriculum-to-students/

Coca-Cola Infiltrates Teen Social Network WeeWorld – Coke takes over the social network for teens with a Coke Party Room, Coke video game, Coke virtual products and integrated billboards. The site is supposedly for teens 13+, but the advertising for Build-a-Bear suggests a younger target audience. http://mashable.com/2010/12/17/coca-cola-infiltrates-teen-social-network-weeworld/

Not So Happy Meals – This New York Times editorial expresses support for efforts to curb fast food marketing to children. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20mon4.html

Commercialism Corner

2010-12-21T22:30:00.000-08:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Has Scholastic Books Outstayed Its Welcome in American Schools? As CCFC launches a new way for parents, teachers and advocates to voice concern over Scholastic's commercialization of classrooms, this author says it's about time schools ditch the company altogether. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20101214/bs_ac/7404678_has_scholastic_books_outstayed_its_welcome_in_american_schools

Los Angeles Schools Seek Sponsors - Josh Golin tells the New York Times why the Los Angeles decision to allow advertising on school campuses is a mistake. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/education/16naming.html

Class Action Lawsuit Targets McDonald's Use of Toys to Market to Children – A concerned mother and Center for Science in the Public Interest sue McDonald’s for unfairly using toys to market unhealthy food to children. http://cspinet.org/new/201012151.html

Sexualized Teen Girls: Tinsel Town's New Target – The Parents Television Council released a new report finding the hypersexualization of teen girls in popular broadcast TV shows among 12-17 year olds. http://www.parentstv.org/FemaleSexualization/Study.htm

Cartoon Network and Kids Foot Locker Team Up – The kids’ network will host its first Cartoon Network Hall of Game Awards, sponsored by Kids Foot Locker, in which the sneaker company will sponsor a voting category and a “Kids Foot Locker micros site,” (www.hallofgame.com/sneakers) which will advertise its sneakers and offer kids discount coupons. Pepperidge Farm and Sports Illustrated Kids will also sponsor the awards show. http://www.cynopsis.com/editions/kids/121610/

Commercialism Corner

2010-12-10T05:53:00.000-08:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

A Whole New Name Game – Naming rights are up for sale at public parks, schools and government buildings across the country, as advocacy groups try to combat the idea that corporate marketers are the answer to every budget gap. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703350104575652763782808830.html?mod=WSJ_business_LeftSecondHighlights

How About Reassessing First Amendment “Right” to Market Junk Foods? Food guru Marion Nestle discusses the First Amendment, commercial speech, and ending junk food marketing. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/12/how-about-reassessing-first-amendment-right-to-market-junk-foods/

Study: School Vending Machines Undermine Student Nutrition – A new study finds that school vending machines contribute to bad eating and poor nutrition among school children. It also finds that vending machines in 83% of schools sold foods with minimal nutritional value. http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/food/diet-nutrition/2010-12-02-school-vending-machines_N.htm

Canadian Dietitians Want Better Controls on Food Advertising to Kids – A leading group of Canadian dietitians has issued a position statement requesting better government controls over the advertising of food and beverages to kids. http://www.marketingmag.ca/english/news/marketer/article.jsp?content=20101207_093840_7184

David Cameron Orders Review into Sexualised Products for Children – The UK Prime Minister has launched an independent investigation into the sexualisation of childhood, and whether regulations should be imposed on retailers and broadcasters preventing them from marketing sexualized products to children. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/06/david-cameron-review-sexualised-products-children

Junk-food Giant Targeting Kids – (Australia) Fast-food outlets directing mailing coupons to children under 12 are catching heat from Australian public health organizations, which are rallying the federal government to ban the exploitive marketing practice. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/junk-food-giant-targeting-kids/story-e6frezz0-1225965696378

Happy Meal Makeover: How a Healthy Food Coalition Defeated a Fast Food Icon

2010-11-11T13:24:00.000-08:00

On election day, while most of the nation was distracted with the mid-term election, another vote was taking place in San Francisco City Hall. The Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to place limits—based on specific nutrition criteria—on how toys are marketed by restaurants in the city and county of San Francisco.

Most media accounts got the story wrong. The Los Angeles Times for example, called it a “Happy Meal ban.” (It’s true that, according to McDonald’s, none of the current Happy Meals meet the criteria, but that’s fixable.) The real story is, how did McDonald’s—the nation’s most beloved fast food brand—get so beat up?

It’s easy to dismiss this victory as just another liberal law passed in “wacko” San Francisco. While the majority of the Board of Supervisors do lean to the left, passing this bill was by no means a slam dunk. To the contrary, it took months of organizing and coalition-building to get the job done. Along the way, proponents faced numerous obstacles, including underhanded lobbying, deceptive polling, and more.

How did they do it? According to Judy Grant, Value [the] Meal campaign director for Corporate Accountability International (CAI), the lead organizing group on the ground, “the old-fashioned way – we hit the phones and the pavement.” [full disclosure: I'm on the advisory board of CAI's Value [the] Meal campaign.] Once the bill was introduced by Supervisor Eric Mar, CAI quickly realized the industry would defeat it without a solid grassroots voice. Grant explains:

We worked with Mar’s office to form a coalition from every corner of the City. Many San Franciscans felt the time for this law had come, so it was easy to find many residents in support. We took local activists to farmers’ markets and food-related events to get their fellow San Franciscans involved.

Many other organizations also played an important role, including the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, Prevention Institute, and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, whose mailing lists and resources were critical to garnering support.

Testimony from doctors at the University of California, San Francisco was also key. Pediatricians told heartbreaking stories about how the children they see suffer.

Another critical organizing group was the Bayview Food Guardians, based in the low-income San Francisco neighborhood of Bayview / Hunters Point. Here is an excerpt from Food Guardian Jameela Toups’ powerful testimony:

The youth in my community are getting diet-related diseases like diabetes and hypertension at younger and younger ages. This is largely because of an unhealthy food environment that lacks fresh, affordable food and instead has an overabundance of fast food and relentless fast food marketing, including these toy incentives.

We at Food Guardians have helped some folks in our neighborhood change the way they eat. But we can’t reach everyone. There are hundreds of others that we have not been able to talk to yet. To reach everyone, we would need millions more in funding.

But the fast food industry has those millions. They can reach pretty much everyone, almost 24-7, and their message is counter to what we want our neighbors – particularly our youth – to hear. We try to reach youth before their habits are set, but far too often the industry has gotten to them first.

All of this organizing and testimony was needed to go up against a full-court press counter-lobbing effort by McDonald’s and the California Restaurant Association, the industry’s powerful statewide lobbying arm.

At the bill’s very first hearing, dozens of local supporters showed up while McDonald’s flew lobbyists in from corporate headquarters to testify, including the company’s “director of nutrition.” But the hearing got really bizarre when a parade of Mandarin-speaking individuals testified against the bill, each with similar talking points. One of these speakers was even seen consulting a script in the hallway.

Given that most Chinese people in San Francisco speak Cantonese and not Mandarin, were these alleged McDonald’s supporters even locals? “We were not able to confirm that they were from San Francisco, though we got the sense they were not,” said Supervisor Mar in a statement. “We’re also not able to confirm their connection to the fast-food industry. It’s all very suspicious.”

Another underhanded move involved expensive polling conducted by the California Restaurant Association that allegedly showed San Franciscans were largely opposed to the bill. But the survey questions were so biased that the tactic actually backfired. For example, the lobbyists asked, do you agree or disagree that “It should be up to parents, not city politicians, to decide what to feed their children,” and, “A working parent coming home after a tough day should have the option of occasionally purchasing a meal with a toy for their child.” Not exactly objective scientific survey methods.

While San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (who was just elected lieutenant governor of California) has promised to veto the bill, organizers were able to secure a veto-proof majority, which was a tremendous effort in itself, requiring hundreds of phone calls and hours of meetings to get the key swing vote to come on board.

So how much money did McDonald’s and friends spend on lobbying against the measure? According to Deborah Lapidus, senior organizer for Corporate Accountability’s Value [the] Meal, at least tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars. But no amount of corporate cash was enough to overcome the passion of a few hundred community leaders and residents who said enough is enough. As San Francisco is often a national leader on health issues, other cities are sure to follow. McDonald’s may have to start loading up a few more buses.

Commercialism Corner

2010-11-10T07:55:00.000-08:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Some Preschool Kids Get Double Dose of Screen Time – Another study published in October shows that many preschools show hours of television to young children. Study author Dr. Pooja Tandon says that while there are some positives to educational programming for preschoolers, "Studies have found that the more screen time a young child is exposed to, the more they're at risk for a range of problems including language delays, learning issues, obesity, even aggression, possibly sleep problems.” http://www.king5.com/health/childrens-healthlink/Preschool-kids-get-a-double-dose-of-screen-time-at-home-and-child-care-106729463.html

Report: Fast-Food Chains Increase Targeting Our Kids - Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity releases the "most comprehensive study of fast-food nutrition and marketing ever conducted,” finding that marketers have increased their child-targeted advertising: preschoolers see 21% more fast food ads and older children 34% more than in 2003. The study also finds that of 3,039 possible kids’ meals, only 12 meet nutritional criteria for preschoolers (15 for older children). Teens 13-17 purchase 800-1,100 calories in an average fast food meal—about half of their recommended daily calories. And a single meal at most fast-food restaurants contains at least half of young people’s recommended daily allowance of sodium. 40% of children aged 2-11 ask their parents to go to McDonald's at least once a week and 15% of preschoolers ask to go every day. Another troubling finding: fast food restaurants target minority children up to 50% more than white children. http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/report-fast-food-chains-increase-targeting-of-kids/19706296

Fast Food Restaurants Not Fighting Child Obesity – CBS Evening News with Katie Couric on the Yale study that finds that fast food restaurants are contributing to childhood obesity (despite claims to the opposite). CCFC’s Allen Kanner says, "The industry has been promising for years that it would do something about this…Self regulation is a trick, it's a farce, it's a joke." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/08/eveningnews/main7035550.shtml

Unplug, Turn Off and Reconnect – Referencing our friends at TRUCE, a Newburyport, MA Reverend makes a plea to parents: “This holiday season, take a careful look at your children's wish lists and consider how your toy and game purchases can help our kids build peace in our communities and beyond.” http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x1507935544/Unplug-turn-off-and-reconnect

Disney Junior to Focus on Social Values - Disney's new channel will focus less on an educational curriculum and more on teaching social values and behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/media/05disney.html

The Turf War for Tots – In a battle to captures preschoolers, “one of the most important demographics in television,” Disney is rehashing Disney Junior. The article covers Disney’s marketing plan and includes some troubling stats and quotes, including: “The sale of toys, books and DVDs for Nick Jr.'s ‘Dora the Explorer’ has generated more than $11 billion in sales globally since 2002, Nickelodeon says. The value of future brand loyalty is incalculable,” and “For Disney, preschool is an entry point to the entire brand—from DVDs, theme parks and plush toys to Pixar movies and older-skewing Disney Channel series like ‘The Wizards of Waverly Place.’” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590231467452448.html

Commercialism Corner

2010-11-04T08:34:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

'Educational' DVDs Don't Expand Baby Vocabulary: Study – Yet another study finds that toddlers exposed to DVDs marketed as “educational” show no greater improvement in their vocabulary than young children not exposed to such content. The researchers found that babies learn best doing everyday activities, without exposure to videos. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326362/Talking-toddler-helps-make-like-Einstein.html

San Francisco Bans Happy Meals – Standing up for children's health and against fast food giants, San Francisco rules that restaurants may no longer target children with toy giveaways for meals high in sugar, calories and fat. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story

Supreme Court To Hear Violent Video Game Case - The Supreme Court will rule on California's effort to prohibit the sale or rental of video games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" to children and teens under 18. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130953921

Kids' Use of Electronic Media at Night Linked to Problems – A preliminary study suggests that over half of children who use electronic media at night may suffer from learning or mood problems during the day. http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/teen-ya/2010-11-01-sleeptexting01_st_N.htm

The Hub and Toy Company Enter Partnership Deal for “Hubworld” – The new Hasbro/Discovery children’s network “The Hub” and WowWee, a toy entertainment company, enter into a sponsorship deal for the launch of The Hub’s weekly so-called magazine series, Hubworld, for co-branded content. http://www.cynopsis.com/editions/kids/110210/

Redken Video Game Beckons Girls to Hair Salons - Redken, a hairstyling products brand that is owned by L’Oréal and sold only in salons, creates a new hairstyling Wii video game for girls, with integrated product placement for the brand. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/business/media/02adco.html

Moshi Monsters Bolsters Merch Program – Licensing partners eager to target children with marketing for their products are flocking to Moshi Monsters, a popular children’s virtual world with more than 30 million members worldwide. http://www.kidscreen.com/articles/news/20101103/moshimonsters.html

Is Your Child Watching Too Much TV? The authors of this article outline the American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines on children's media use and summarize related research to help parents understand the effects of screen time and limit children's media use. http://galvestondailynews.com/story/187958

Commercialism Corner

2010-10-21T13:09:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Alloy wants to own teenage girls – A detailed account of how Alloy is positioning to completely take over the teen girl market—and manufacture teen culture. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200084876175.htm?chan=magazine+channel_features

Despite spending billions on advertising, the fast food industry blames parents for skyrocketing obesity rates – This Alternet post give a great argument of the “parents are to blame” argument used by food marketers in response to critiques of their marketing to children practices. http://www.alternet.org/health/148544/despite_spending_billions_on_advertising,_the_fast_food_industry_blames_parents_for_skyrocketing_obesity_rates

Junk food ads aimed at kids come under fire – Global study of junk food marketing to kids finds that Canadian kids (outside of Quebec) are targeted with more TV junk food ads than even American children. This finding, along with rising rates of childhood obesity, and starting a national conversation about limiting advertising aimed at children. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/health/Junk+food+aimed+kids+come+under+fire/3686649/story.html

Preschool items help boost Hasbro – Hasbro gains and sales grow thanks to preschool toys—many of which are tie-ins for PG-13 movies, as seen in the article image. Hasbro execs expect the company to do well this holiday season, with chief executive Brian Goldner noting that its children’s network, The Hub, has been well received by consumers. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/10/19/preschool_items_help_boost_hasbro/

Baby’s must-see TV does not increase vocabulary – This article give a quick recap of growing evidence that screens do not make babies smarter. http://www.miller-mccune.com/education/babys-must-see-tv-does-not-increase-vocabulary-24301/

Teen clothing brands set sights lower – Teen retailers such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Forever 21 and American Eagle begin marketing to younger children. While some express concern about the appropriateness of marketing styles for teens to younger kids, marketers see the move to “go after them younger and get them hooked into our brands” as a “natural evolution.” http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/10/12/Teen-clothing-brands-set-sights-lower/UPI-97891286897819/

Chamber: Worry about energy regulations, kids - Chamber of Commerce partners with Scholastic for “energy curriculum” in schools. Advocates raise concerns about the effects and ethics of such sponsored materials. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43844.html

Commercialism Corner

2010-10-19T06:14:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Give advertainment the boot – This Boston Globe editorial supports CCFC’s FCC petition that the Skechers show Zevo-3 airing on Nicktoons is not in the public interest. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/10/12/give_advertainment_the_boot/

Ads may roll out on N.J. school buses - Lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow advertising on the sides of school buses. If the New Jersey Senate concurs with the state Assembly, school buses in the Garden State may soon resemble rolling billboards. CCFC’s Susan Linn weighs in. http://whyy.org/cms/news/uncategorized/2010/10/11/ads-may-roll-out-on-n-j-school-buses/48011

Too much screen time can psychologically harm kids – Children who spend more than two hours a day watching television or playing video games are at greater risk for psychological problems, a new study suggests. Children’s physical activity did not compensate for the negative psychological effects of screen time. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39612834

Social networks not protecting children's privacy, poll finds - A nationwide poll shows that parents and teens don't think social networks are adequately protecting children’s online privacy. 75% of parents say they would negatively rate how social networks are doing, according to the survey of more than 2,000 parents and 400 teens by Common Sense Media. http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/2010-10-08-socialmediasurvey08_ST_N.htm

Show and tell: Food firms get kids to do the talking – Australian health advocates raise concern about companies who use children to do work-of-mouth marketing for products ranging from junk food to MP3 players. http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/show-and-tell-food-firms-get-kids-to-do-the-talking-20101009-16d1q.html

A children’s channel retools – This New York Times article on the launch of the Hub, Hasbro/Discovery’s new children’s network, mentions that CCFC will be closely monitoring the station for product placement and commercial messages aimed at children. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/business/media/11adco.html

New kids' TV channel raises product-placement concerns –The Hub channel raises advocates’ concerns about FCC rules protecting children from overcommercialization. CCFC’s Susan Linn says, "The notion of a toy company owning a television channel for the sole purpose of promoting their toys is egregious practice.” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-kidstv-20101005,0,1622131.story

Scholastic and SunnyD’s Shocking School Spree

2010-10-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

Last week, Angela S. was shopping with her six-year-old son when he started excitedly lobbying her to buy SunnyD. Angela was surprised – it wasn’t a product she had ever purchased for him. Moreover, “he sounded like a commercial,” yet Angela’s family doesn’t even own a television, so she was pretty sure a TV ad wasn’t the source of his newfound enthusiasm for SunnyD. And then, as her son excitedly told her that if she bought SunnyD his class would get free books, it dawned on her why he was lobbying her: his teacher had told him to.

Her suspicions were confirmed when she got home and looked at the latest handouts that her son had brought home from school and saw a letter from his teacher promoting the “SunnyD Book Spree.” The letter, prewritten by SunnyD and festooned with the company’s logos, began:

Dear parents and guardians,

I’m very excited to tell you about a program our class is participating in that will bring free books to your child’s classroom. It’s called the SunnyD Book Spree, and the program will donate 20 books when our class sends in 20 SunnyD UPC labels. The program will also award hundreds of books to the ten schools that collect the most labels. Please help us get our free books!

How do you get teachers to shill for SunnyD? One way is by partnering with Scholastic, which isn’t shy about using its unique access to educators to promote products and brands in classrooms. Scholastic’s reputation as an educational company lends its clients’ in-school marketing activities a veneer of respectability, even – as in this case – when the product being marketed isn’t good for kids.

When I shared Angela’s concerns about the program with Scholastic’s Vice President of Corporate Communications, she emailed me, “The Sunny D program is a promotion in Parent & Child Magazine that is strictly for parents and teachers… not children.” But the SunnyD Book Spree website tells a different story. The “Tips for Teachers” include the following:

Have a class party to "raise labels" for books—ask parents to send kids in with SunnyD.
Keep fun cut-outs or colorful charts in the classroom, showing how many labels have been collected.

Sounds like SunnyD hopes and expects that kids will be actively involved in their classroom promotion. And that Angela’s experience with her son wasn’t an anomaly – it’s how the program was conceived.

So in exchange for twenty books, schools are being asked to:

Exploit a captive audience of students by making exposure to SunnyD ads compulsory.
Commercialize their classrooms by decorating their rooms with SunnyD ads and holding SunnyD events.
Encourage consumption of a product of really poor nutritional quality. When I asked my nutritionist friends about Sunny D, the phrase I heard most often was “sugar water.” An 8-oz serving of Sunny D has 27 grams of sugar; the same size serving of Coca-Cola has 26.
Encourage students to nag their parents for SunnyD, a product that a lot of parents would probably prefer not to buy for their kids.
Teach their young students that supporting your school means drinking – and proselytizing to others about – SunnyD. Think about how confusing it must have been for Angela’s son. He was doing what his teacher had asked. He was trying to help his school get books. And his mother was saying no because she doesn’t want him drinking beverages loaded with high-fructose corn syrup?! (Remember, he’s six years old.) Now think about another six year old, who because her parents are not keen on her drinking “sugar water,” is excluded from her class’s SunnyD party.

I hear so often, in these dark economic times, how schools need to “think outside the box” and “partner” with corporations. But marketing in schools isn’t a partnership. It’s exploitation. There’s a lot that kids should learn in school, but how to become a brand ambassador for a lousy beverage isn’t one of them.

Shame on SunnyD and Scholastic.

Snub The Hub: Why children would be better off if parents turned off Hasbro’s new television station

2010-10-08T05:55:00.000-07:00

What if they launched a television station and nobody watched? The new Hasbro/Discovery partnership The Hub, which premieres this Sunday, might be a good deal for the 2nd largest toymaker in the world, but if it succeeds it’s a bad deal for parents and kids—both for what it is and what it portends. As the first television station owned by a toy company, it’s another slide downward in the increasingly greedy and lucrative world of children’s media.

The Hub’s existence forces us to confront simultaneously the inadequacy and lack of enforcement of rules and laws protecting children from overcommercialization. It’s an intensification and aggregation of the growing problem of program-length commercials masquerading as legitimate children’s programming. That most children’s media are platforms for selling children toys, food, clothes, and accessories to kids is both unfair and deceptive. Media characters play an important role in children’s lives—as a source of comfort, excitement, and aspiration. It’s unfair to link those characters to rafts of products and devise marketing schemes designed to convince children that they have to own those products in order to play, or be cool, or be happy. And, in fact, children play less creatively with media-linked toys. Besides, it’s deceptive to blur the distinction between programs and ads.

Hasbro executives make no bones about their intent to use the station to promote Hasbro products and expand the Hasbro brand. As Brian Goldner, Hasbro’s President explained in the Boston Globe, “It became clear that our competitive set had expanded. We were no longer just competing with additional toy and game companies.’’ The lynchpins of the station’s line up are Transformers, Strawberry Shortcake, My Little Pony and other popular characters owned by Hasbro. To critics, the company justifies The Hub in three ways. The station will provide more choice for parents; only some of the shows are based on its products; and—in the age old junior high refrain—“everybody’s doing it.”

About choice: Actually, the last thing parents need is a slew of more media programming for kids. Between TV, the Web, video games and phone apps there are already plenty of choices among the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, on average, children are spending way too much time with screen media anyway—32 hours a week for preschool children and more than 50 hours a week for older kids. Parents following the AAP’s recommendation for screen time for children over the age of 2 would only need to find 4 half-hour programs a day for their children to watch. Surely between the offerings of PBS, Sprout, Noggin, Cartoon Network, the many Nickelodeon and Disney stations, and all of the movies available—there’s more than enough choice without The Hub.

Less than 20% of the shows are based on Hasbro products: First of all, that’s about 18% too many. And what’s to stop Hasbro from adding more and more branded programming in the coming months and years? If the product-based shows make money, we can expect that that Hasbro will add more of them. Interestingly enough, the company’s actions imply that it believes that the shows touting their products are actually commercials. Instead of designating the standard 12 minutes of regular commercials per hour on weekdays, the station will only have six. But since the shows based on Hasbro toys, and showing the image of those toys in their content (like Transformers and Strawberry Shortcake), they are essentially 24 minute commercials anyway—way more than the amount allotted for children’s programming by the Children’s Television Act.

Everybody’s doing it: It’s unfortunately true that most children’s programs, including many on PBS, generate income from brand licensing—but it’s harmful to kids that there are so few media experiences available to them that aren’t primarily an implicit pitch for a whole slew of stuff (see paragraph 2 of this piece).

Hasbro isn’t the only company blatantly flouting the inadequacy of our current regulatory environment this season. Last month, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood filed a Federal Communications Commission complaint against Zevo-3, a show premiering on Nicktoons which is based solely and completely on logos and spokescharacters for the shoe giant Skechers. We believe that the show violates some of the very few rules and laws we have protecting children from overcommercialization. The FCC has begun proceedings to investigate whether the show is in the public interest and has invited public comment; we’re pleased that our efforts have sparked the first national conversation about program-length commercials aimed at children in almost 20 years.

I’ve worked with CCFC since its inception because I believe that we have an obligation to build a society that supports parents and encourages, rather than undermines, children’s healthy development. But social change takes time. So I hope that, in the meantime, parents decide to snub The Hub and let Hasbro know that its expansion from toys to TV just goes too far.

Commercialism Corner

2010-10-01T13:32:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

For Pupils, a Note and Ad from School – Peabody, MA school committee approves advertising on elementary school notices like permission slips and school calendars. This is the latest in a trend of struggling schools selling out students in an attempt to fill budget gaps. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/10/01/for_pupils_a_note_and_ad_from_school/

Healthy Kids, Healthy Families! Disney Launches Magic of Healthy Living – Disney teams up with Michelle Obama and the Ad Council (sponsored by the Dept. of Agriculture) for a series of PSAs starring Disney characters to promote “healthy lifestyles” for kids and families, which direct kids to new Disney websites designed to promote health—and obviously the Disney brand. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/healthy-kids-healthy-families-disney-launches-magic-of-healthy-living-2010-09-30?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Skechers Show a Hot Topic for FCC – The latest in the media coverage of the FCC’s inquiry into CCFC’s petition that the upcoming Skechers cartoon is nothing but a 22-minute ad. The author writes, “If the Federal Communications Commission decided that TV shows based on toys constitute illegal program-length commercials, the implications could be bigger than a life-sized Barbie.” Multichannel subscription required. http://www.multichannel.com/article/457659-Skechers_Show_a_Hot_Topic_for_FCC.php

'Happy Meal' Legislation Will Be Back for Seconds – San Francisco Happy Meal junk food toy ban will be debated again next week, even after company that makes fast food toy trinkets launched the (desperate) website FreeToChoseOurMeals.com. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/happy_meal_san_francisco_eric.php

Parents Unaware of Kids' Online Gaming: Survey – 77% of Canadian kids 6-17 said they played online games, but only 5% of parents believed their children engaged in online gaming, and 90% of children age 6-12 reported playing an online game in the past 4 weeks. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2010/09/28/video-games-children.html

But, Mo-o-o-o-m! -- Converting Engaged Teens To Sales – Inside the marketing mindset: This trade publication article advises advertisers on how to transform teens into dollar signs for companies. The author writes, “a teen might have the cash for a can of soda, but wouldn't you rather sell them a case for $8.99?” http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=136724

Kucinich Proposal Would Raise $15-19 Billion for Childhood Nutrition Efforts – Rep. Kucinich says it’s not fair to cut food stamp money to fund childhood nutrition efforts, when plenty could be saved by disallowing tax deductions for companies that market junk food to kids: “Kucinich announced that the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that his proposal to revoke corporate tax deductions for advertising and marketing expenses aimed at selling junk food and fast food to children could provide $15-19 billion (over 10 years) for child nutrition programs.” http://politicalnews.me/?id=4833&keys=Congressman-Dennis-Kucinich-TaxDeductions

As Tween Girls Start to Look Toward New Fashion Influences, Parents May Resist – Parents and schools aren’t so keen on sexualized fashions for “tween” girls, but shopping for non-provocative clothes for 8-13-year-old girls can be quite a challenge with “risque” fashions filling the aisles and dominating marketing. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-living/ci_16147387?nclick_check=1

Commercialism Corner

2010-09-23T06:48:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

FCC Probes Complaint That Cartoon Advertises Skechers Shoes - After only a week, the FCC opens an investigation into CCFC's petition that the upcoming Nicktoons show "Zevo-3" is one long Skechers ad. http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/news/2010/09/fccprobes.html

Schools Seek Extra Cash Through Campus Ads – This Associated Press article addresses how school districts around the country are attempting to close budget gaps by entertaining or enacting the sale of advertising space in schools. CCFC’s Josh Golin and Parents for Ethical Marketing’s Lisa Ray explain why selling students out to corporate marketers is a bad solution. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/19/schools-seek-extra-cash-through-campus-ads/

On the Web, Children Face Intensive Tracking - A Wall Street Journal investigation into online privacy has found that popular children's websites install more tracking technologies on personal computers than do the top websites aimed at adults. Nickelodeon sites make up a chunk of the 50 most popular children’s sites and were found to install a disturbing number of tracking cookies on users’ computers. The author writes, “Parents hoping to let their kids use the Internet, while protecting them from snooping, are in a bind.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703904304575497903523187146.html

Understanding the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act – This WSJ blog summarizes COPPA and reviews calls to revamp the Act to define behavioral tracking as online data and to extend the law to protect teenagers. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/17/understanding-the-childrens-online-privacy-protection-act/

Study to Reveal How Consumers Feel about In-store Media – Automated Media Services, the company behind 3GTv—a network of mini-televisions airing ads that it hopes to install on grocery shelves all over the country—will be conducting in-store customer research coinciding with its pilot launch in Food Lion’s Bloom supermarkets in the DC area this fall. Over 1300 CCFC members who do not want to run a gauntlet of screens with their families while food shopping have already told Food Lion to pull the plug on 3GTv. http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/entry/54788/study-to-reveal-how-consumers-feel-about-in-store-media/

US Department of Energy and The Advertising Council Launch Disney-created Energy Conservation PSAs – Public service announcements (PSA’s) created by Disney and starring the licensed character Tinker Bell are supposed to encourage kids’ energy conservation. Not so coincidentally, the announcements/advertisements coincide with the release of Disney’s Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue movie on DVD and Blu-ray. www.energy.gov/kids

Commercialism Corner

2010-09-20T06:53:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

N.J. Assembly Committee Displaying Ads on School Buses - New Jersey is the latest state attempting to close school budget gaps by selling a captive student audience to advertisers. CCFC's Josh Golin weighs in. http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/news/2010/09/njassembly.html

Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom – This New York Times (registration required) article looks at an educational program called Quest to Learn in New York City, which aims to turn the classroom into a video game experience. Is turning the classroom into a video game really the best way to help children learn and grow, especially when kids spend nearly every waking hour outside of school engaged with screens? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html

Seventeen Fuels Fashion's Night Out Takeoff – Seventeen magazine throws a marketing event in New York City for the “adolescent set.” The fashion night hopes to “encourage girls to part with their money while they’re there” with retailers distributing coupons and other marketing materials. Event comes complete with “mocktails” for girls. http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/magazines-newspapers/e3icb71760d866948d82d6b071d4c82895f

Children's Brain Development Is Linked to Physical Fitness, Research Finds - Researchers have found an association between physical fitness and the brain in 9- and 10-year-old children: Those who are fitter tend to have a bigger hippocampus and perform better on a test of memory than their less-fit peers. While this article doesn’t make the connection, the links between children’s screen time and lack of physical fitness have been made in other research. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100915171536.htm

Disney, Nielsen Team on iPad App – New Disney, Nielsen, iPad teaming will enable people to watch a TV show while simultaneously browsing the web and participating in social media marketing. The new app will enable even more screen multi-tasking (which has been shown to have negative affects) and more ads crammed into digital spaces. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic5827d475c9bb436805f367fbb7c3763

MU Criticises an Increase in Sexualisation of Children – A new report finds that UK children are exposed to too much sex and violence on TV. The UK Prime Minister agrees that the growth of advertising and marketing to kids “is not good for families and not good for society.” http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=100702

'Places' Can Harness Mainstream For Location-Based Services - Facebook’s new “Places” application, which lets users check-in to a location and then tag friends as being there (even if they don’t own a smart phone or use Places) is a marketer’s dream. Learn why marketers hoping to cash in by exploiting teens are salivating over the profit potential of this location-based app. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=135830

A Tale of Two School Districts

2010-09-16T13:24:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a good day. Today brings this disappointing news from District 15 in Minnesota:

As St. Francis District 15 students put their jackets into their lockers this fall, they could be greeted by pink jelly fish or luscious apples.

It’s all part of the plan to bring more revenue into the schools.

The school board Sept. 13 voted 6-1 to allow some of the lockers at six of the district’s eight school buildings to become advertising billboards for OMCM Marketing Solutions.

A few thoughts:

1. One thing people often don’t realize about in-school advertising: schools usually don’t contract directly with advertisers; they use third-party placement agencies like OMCM. Not surprisingly, agencies that hope to profit by exploiting schools’ financial difficulties aren’t always the most scrupulous. For example, until CCFC caught them, OMCM falsely implied that reputable PBS Kids was a client. Agencies like OMCM also take a significant cut of any ad revenue generated which is one reason why…

2. Advertising is rarely the cash cow schools expect. District 15 hopes to earn $100,000 - $240,000 this year by turning its lockers into billboards. I don’t for a second mean to downplay the couple of jobs that this money could save or the supplies it might buy. But with 6,000 students, that’s only $16-40/student. Consider how many times a day students visit their lockers and how many impressions the advertisers will get to make over the course of a year. And how powerful those ads will be because a) the kids have to see them several times a day and b) the advertised products will come with the school’s implicit endorsement. Sounds like a great deal for the advertisers. I’m guessing it’s a good one for OMCM. I know it’s a lousy deal for the students.

3. OMCM Greg Meyer claims children’s lockers will be used for “nutritional and educational ads, like ads from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety urging students not to text and drive.” But I’m guessing the Minnesota Department of Public Safety doesn’t have $100,000 to throw at a campaign for 6,000 students, the overwhelming majority of whom are nowhere near driving age. You know who does? General Mills, Nintendo, MTV Networks, etc . . . So what happens come January when the ad revenue hasn’t met your projections? Does the junk food or video game that you told parents would be off limits start looking more attractive?

When you start down the slippery slope of selling your students to advertisers, it’s really hard to put on the brakes. That’s just one reason why the San Diego approach is so much more preferable.

Sell Our Kids To Advertisers? No Thanks, Says San Diego

2010-09-15T15:05:00.000-07:00

Huzzah to the San Diego Board of Education!

San Diego school board members were once intrigued by the thought of allowing ads on campus to help soften the blow of budget cuts, but they turned uncomfortable once they learned more.

The board voted 4-1 Tuesday to reject a plan to allow ads in hallways, cafeterias, libraries and other places on school campuses. Nine months ago, the same board directed staff to research the idea.

It is hard to overstate what a courageous decision this is. San Diego schools, like so many in these difficult times, desperately need money; officials estimate the district is facing a deficit of between $141 million and $160 million next year. But rather than succumb to slick sales pitches from companies eager to exploit their financial situation, the San Diego board carefully studied the issue.

They realized that the money they’d raise by allowing advertising on their hallways and in their cafeterias would be a drop in the bucket (about $10,000 per school) compared to what they need. More importantly, they were honest that there was a real cost associated with selling their kids to advertisers.

"We need to teach them critical thinking, not jam thoughts down their heads," said school board member John de Beck, who voted against the plan. "I don't want to be a part of using kids to sell stuff."

Neither do CCFC members. Yesterday afternoon, I learned from a reporter that a board vote was scheduled for that evening. We quickly emailed our supporters in the San Diego area and urged them to contact their board members and attend the meeting. Despite the short notice, they did. Here’s CCFC member Elena McCollim, the mother of a kindergartener in San Diego Unified schools, at the meeting last night:

Public schools, like public parks, are part of the shrinking commercial-free space in public life. I sympathize with the need for money for schools. But I question what message we're sending to our children.

And here’s what CCFC member Elaine Boyd wrote to the board:

Dear Board of Education:

I know that public schools are under terrible financial stress, but please don’t sell our kids to advertisers.

What do ads “teach” kids? They generally teach them to want things they don’t need. Turning children into hungry consumers is nearly inescapable as it is – squeezing ad messages in through the cracks of the schoolyard leaves virtually no commercial-free place to hide.

Corporations are already setting the agenda for the childhood experience in powerful ways through toys, food, and popular media. (There is a growing body of academic work dedicated to the subject.) The halls of education should be the place where the message to “consume – consume – consume” should be countered, not promoted.

I have a 4 year old daughter who will enter kindergarten in one year. Some of my friends are stunned that she doesn’t pester me to buy things for her. It’s because she has never seen TV or print ads and hasn’t been taught to want things that (a) are bad for her health, or (b) will wind up in a landfill within months.

I love that my child is unreachable by corporations who seek to create false needs in her mind, thus saddling her with a needless sense of dissatisfaction if she doesn’t get the desired object. Offering her up to single-minded corporate advertisers would certainly change that.

Finally, I have heard that in-school advertising almost never generates the revenue that administrators expect. Please reject ads in schools.

What a perfect letter. And what a great decision by the Board. Even in this economy, we can -- and must -- preserve commercial-free spaces for kids.

Commercialism Corner

2010-09-15T05:15:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

FCC asked to block Skechers' new cartoon series - The AP covers CCFC's petition urging the FCC to rule that a new Skechers-produced children’s show is not in the public interest. CCFC’s petition finds that the show Zevo-3, scheduled to debut on Nicktoons on October 11, is a program-length advertisement and violates ad limits set by Congress in the Children’s Television Act. AP story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091404586.html. Press release and petition: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/skecherszevo3.html

San Diego school board rejects campus advertising - After hearing from CCFC members, San Diego Board of Education puts students first and shoots down a proposal for in-school ads. CCFC members who received our action alert went to the school committee meeting and emailed board members, speaking up to make San Diego remain commercial-free. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/schooled/article_1137b0b0-c082-11df-969a-001cc4c03286.html

Outgunned FDA tries to get tough with drug ads - As the FDA struggles to monitor a flood of pharmaceutical advertising, CCFC's Susan Linn highlights the deceptive tactics companies use sell children on drugs in this special report. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6821PN20100903

Less Play Today Means Fewer Leaders For Tomorrow – Gooddard Systems, a childcare franchise, sponsors Play for Tomorrow's Ultimate Block Party: The Arts and Sciences of Play, a national event celebrating the importance of children’s creative play on learning with a major play event in New York City and mini play-focused block parties across the country. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/less-play-today-means-fewer-leaders-for-tomorrow-102859269.html

UMass professors tap media literacy to fight childhood obesity – Professors at UMass find the marketing of junk food to young people is a leading cause of childhood obesity and launch intervention to help curb effects. http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/181399/

Kmart’s Teen Site Is, Like, Totally Bogus – Kmart’s new teen social networking site, Stylesip, is a thinly and badly veiled marketing ploy. The author writes that parents who realize “what Kmart is up to with Stylesip may be turned off.” http://www.bnet.com/blog/retail-business/kmart-8217s-teen-site-is-like-totally-bogus/10869

As Chinese Youth Head Online, Marketers Follow With Content – Multinational marketers flock to produce branded online entertainment in order to target young people in the world’s most populated country. Branded dramas funded by Unilever, Burger King, General Motors Corp., Kraft Foods, and Anheuser-Busch proliferating all over China. http://adage.com/globalnews/article?article_id=145843

Smith & Tinker, Marvel team up for social and mobile games – Marvel is “chasing consumers on the new platforms audiences are gravitating to for their digital entertainment” with the creation of new apps featuring popular children’s characters Iron Man, the X-Men, Hulk and others. http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/13/smith-tinker-teams-up-with-marvel-on-online-collectible-fighting-game/

This Science Lesson is Brought to You By...

2010-09-14T05:32:00.001-07:00

An article in the Sacramento Bee last week raised concerns about the role of British Petroleum scientists in shaping a statewide k-12 science curriculum. BP representatives were among many experts called in to shape what and how science would be taught to California students. Having caused the worst human-made ecological disaster ever, BP certainly deserves to be the current poster child for corporate greed and corruption. But the company’s participation on a large committee shaping science curriculum is only a tiny piece of the giant problem of corporate influences on what children learn in school. For one thing, other industry representatives with a clear financial stake in how and what children learn about fossil fuels and non-renewable energy were also represented, along with environmental groups, educators and academics.

Significantly more troubling than BP’s role in shaping the curriculum are what’s called Sponsored Educational Materials (SEMS), created solely by corporations or corporate trade organizations and distributed for free in schools around the world. These teaching materials bypass review by any board of education and are marketed directly to teachers as alternatives to aging, out of date, and/or expensive textbooks.

SEMS are not exactly new. I have vague memories of watching industrial films in elementary school made by G.E. and other companies. But, like all commercialism, the presence of these materials in schools has escalated—and will escalate even more as we continue to abdicate financial responsibility for public education. In Britain, BP creates science and math materials for kids as young as five.

In the U.S., Exxon is notorious for the ecology curriculum it developed after the Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Currently, the American Petroleum Institute (API) hands out teaching materials that are heavy on extolling the virtues of fossil fuels and light on environmental concerns:

API materials also feature a video game about offshore drilling designed for students in grades 6 to 12. Not surprisingly, the action doesn’t include explosions, fires, or devastating, unstoppable leaks:

The American Plastics Council, a division of the American Chemistry Council, which—like BP—helped shape the California curriculum, has its own downloadable teaching materials. Hands on Plastics, Jr., for kindergarten and early elementary school classes, includes a work sheet featuring the Polymer Family’s House:

Of course, the worksheet doesn’t question whether the Polymer family needs all of the plastic stuff in their house. Or how it was made. Or where it’s going to end up.

The American Plastic Council also offers a polymer ditty to be sung in the classroom to the tune of The Farmer in the Dell, which includes verses like this:
What’s markedly absent is a verse addressing any environmental concern about plastic polymers. Perhaps something like this:I’m not unaware of the ways that we benefit from oil and plastic. Full disclosure: I drive a car, have a toothbrush, and my husband is an art conservator who uses plastic polymers in his (excellent) restorations. And I certainly believe that children should learn about material sciences in school. But they shouldn’t be taught content provided by entities with a financial interest in what they do or do not learn.

The American Petroleum Institute, with 400 corporate members, describes itself as “the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry.” The goal of its teaching materials is to “Provide teachers and students with engaging and informative resources on energy and related concepts, including the vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.”

According to the American Plastic Council’s website, its mission is to “advocate unlimited opportunities for plastics and promote their economic, environmental and societal benefits.” To accomplish that mission, the Council demonstrates “the benefits of plastic products and the contributions of the plastics industry to the society it serves.”

The purpose of these organizations is to protect and promote the industries and the corporate interests they serve, not to educate the public with balanced and objective information. Given the state of the environment, we don’t need to extol the benefits of fossil fuels and plastics to children—we should help them weigh the environmental costs against the benefits of our dependence of them, and learn to think carefully about what they need and don’t need.

Oil and plastics aren’t the only industries that distribute SEMS. So does the coal industry, the food industry, the entertainment industry, and even the drug industry. One primary purpose of education should be to promote critical thinking in children. By definition, corporations—legally bound to make profits for their stockholders—can’t jeopardize sales by promoting critical thinking about their products. For that reason, alone, they cannot create effective, ethical educational materials.

Why is McDonald's listed a resource for Childhood Obesity Awareness Month?

2010-09-05T12:08:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of any sort of "awareness" month as I find the concept trivializes important health issues. Are we only supposed to care about heart disease, diabetes, etc, during that one month of the year? And I never see anything of substance come from the month-long activities, just the usual ineffective educational campaigns, instead of meaningful public policy reforms. Plus many issues tend to crowd themselves into certain months of the year, so it all just becomes noise. September is one such month. Among other causes, September has been proclaimed "Childhood Obesity Awareness Month" by Congress and President Obama.

When I first heard about about it, I though, oh god, please no ribbons or walks. Thankfully, no signs of either, yet. But there are still plenty of early indicators that the idea is doomed to failure. For one, the Presidential Proclamation itself is pretty milk-toast when it comes to policy change. For example, referring to the report of the President's Task Force on Childhood Obesity:

The report outlines broad strategies to address childhood obesity, including providing healthier food in schools, ensuring access to healthy affordable food, increasing opportunities for physical activity, empowering parents and caregivers with better information about making healthy choices, and giving children a healthy start in life. I invite all Americans to visit LetsMove.gov to learn more about these recommendations and find additional information and resources on how to help children eat healthy and stay active.

All of those ideas have been on the table for years, but little progress has been made. And he's inviting Americans to find resources to help kids eat better? Not exactly cutting-edge. Finally, nothing even mentioning the role the food industry plays in undermining parents, no matter how much the First Lady tries to "empower" them with her Let's Move campaign.

Then I looked a little further to find the official website for Childhood Obesity Awareness Month, which seems innocuous enough at first. The American College of Sports Medicine is listed as the main contact, which tells me the emphasis is more on physical activity than on healthy food, or god forbid, food marketing. Other partners listed include the NAACP, Richard Simmons' Ask America, American Society for Nutrition, and various other private health companies and associations, an odd lot to say the least.

But what caught my eye was the list of "external resources," which includes some usual suspects such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Let's Move, along with several other government agencies. Then inexplicably, at the very bottom, is a link to "McDonald's Stage M," which appears to be a video game site intended for young children to "learn" about nutrition. As described on the fast food giant's main website:

McDonald's is proud to introduce Stage M - an exciting and entertaining place for kids, where they can watch music videos all about the fun and great taste of fruits and vegetables. The whole family will want to sing along! Kids can even put themselves in a music video!

So many exclamation points, it must be fun!

What a coup for the company most closely associated with contributing to childhood obesity to get listed as a resource, right after the US Department of Agriculture, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. This same list can also be found on the website for Congresswoman Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio, who sponsored the resolution that established the event. Kudos to her for taking leadership on this issue, but perhaps her staff is unaware that she is giving McDonald's some great PR? (I tried emailing the American College of Sports Medicine to find out how much money McDonald's paid for the privilege, but have not yet heard back.)

Other industry players are also jumping on the "awareness" bandwagon. For example, the American Beverage Association, the powerful trade association for Coke and Pepsi et al, blogged about it last week under the silly headline, Childhood Obesity Awareness: What a Difference a Month Can Make! Without a hint of irony, ABA tell us to:

Get informed. Get connected. Get involved. That’s the message on the “Healthier Kids, Brighter Futures” website. There, families and individuals can learn how taking even small steps can make a big difference in their lives. National, state and local leaders, as well as businesses and organizations, are encouraged to observe the month.

National, state, and local leaders are encouraged to observe the month, like it's a religious event? Because they cannot possibly be encouraged to actually do anything about the problem, since then Big Soda will just pour even more lobbying dollars into obstructing public policy for real change.

So brace yourselves for the rest of September, as your local school or neighborhood group just might take up the mantle to "observe" Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. And then, on October 1, everyone can go back to whatever they were doing before, having observed and been made aware. Problem solved.

Are you Kidding Me, Kmart? More on Alloy's First Day

2010-09-02T11:55:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, I wrote about my concerns regarding First Day, the new online Kmart infomercial webisode for tweens and teens from Alloy Media and Marketing. Well, the first episode is up and it’s even worse than I predicted. (The second episode is up too, but there’s a limit to my masochism).

The takeaway? Pick your outfits carefully for the first day of school because:

First day of school determines who you’re gonna be friends with, which determines if a guy is gonna like you which determines if you’ll ever be kissed, because after awhile you build it up and you get all nervous, until you’re 25 and totally unkissable.

Pretty subtle message for a program developed by Kmart to promote its back-to-school clothes.

The show is only 9-minutes and takes place over the course of a single day, but there are still plenty of outfit changes. In fact, the plot consists of little more than a series of mishaps that force the main character to change her clothes after they’ve been soiled. As new outfits are introduced, they flash on a sidebar next to the episode, complete with links to Kmart where young viewers can purchase the items right away.

The entire premise is inherently deceptive. There’s no disclosure that Kmart actually helped write the script, just a credit that says “Styled by Kmart” that flashes on screen before the show starts. If kids knew they were about to tune into a 9-minute commercial, they’d most likely click somewhere else. That’s why Alloy has to pretend that First Day is something more than an ad.

In addition to all the marketing, the show is pretty vile. Amy Jussel of ShapingYouth.org calls First Day “classic online product placement meets mean girl drek.” She breaks down the show a lot more thoroughly than I’m able to (she’s got a sharper eye and a stronger stomach) and I highly recommend her take.

The unholy alliance between Kmart and Alloy is not, however, limited to First Day. Kmart is also promoting its Bongo jeans at Alloy’s Teen.com website, a site that is regularly advertised in classrooms on Alloy’s Channel One. As with First Day, Kmart and Alloy disguise their Bongo advertising as something else – in this case, a “behind the scenes” of a photo shoot with Bongo model (and star of The Hills) Audrina Patridge. Because the “behind the scenes” is one of several rotating ads on Teen.com and may not appear when you click on this link, I’m including a transcript and some screen shots below:

Hi this is Audrina Patridge and I’m taking you behind the scenes on my Bongo shoot. We were shooting the Bongo campaign for this fall and it was really fun and exciting.

The concept behind the Bongo shoot today was very flirty, sexy, pin-up style a little bit. Bongo’s a great brand for going back to school because it’s affordable and it’s stylish.

There’s some really cute striped tops that tied in the back that I loved. All the jeans fit really nice and comfortable and you feel like you look like you have a cute butt.

To sum up:

Alloy and Kmart have teamed up for a series of deceptive 9-minute infomercials for teens and tweens to sell back-to-school clothes.

Kmart is using a “very flirty, sexy, pin-up style” to market its junior line so girls can “have a cute butt”.

Channel One is promoting Teen.com, which features ads like the one described above, to a captive audience of students in nearly 8,000 schools around the country. If you live in a school district with Channel One, your tax-dollars are being used to encourage kids to visit Teen.com where they'll watch ads that celebrate the "sexy, pin-up style."

So what can we do?

First, find out if your child’s school has Channel One. If they do, show your administrators this blog post and ask them to pull the plug. If they don’t, thank them and show them this blog post in case they are ever tempted to consider it.

And if you’re appalled by Kmart’s decision to sexualize children and commercialize classrooms (remember, they are advertising directly on Channel One, too), let them know. Kmart’s chief marketing officer Mark Snyder can be reached at mark.snyder@searhc.com.

More on Alloy and Kmart::

Today is the First Day of Kmart's Marketing Assault on Children: http://commercialfreechildhood.blogspot.com/2010/08/today-is-first-day-of-kmarts-marketing.html

Everything you ever wanted to know about Channel One from Obliation, Inc.: http://www.obligation.org/category/alloy-channel-one-news.

Toxic Teen Messaging In A K-Mart/Alloy Episodic: The First Day by Amy Jussel: http://www.shapingyouth.org/?p=11984.

Kmart targets teens online, via Alloy Media Digital Marketing: Time for FTC & Congress to Protect Adolescent Consumers, inc. Privacy by Jeff Chester: http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?p=997.

Commercialism Corner

2010-09-01T08:30:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

U.S. Pediatricians Decry Media's Portrayal of Sex – A new study published in Pediatrics shows that the messages media teach teens and children about sex are dangerous. "’We want physicians to ask two media questions at every well-child visit: how much entertainment screen time per day does the child engage in, and is there a TV set or Internet connection in his or her bedroom,’ said Strasburger, professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. ‘That takes 20 seconds and may be more important than asking about childproofing or car seats or bicycle helmets.’” The article shows that media are a powerful sex educator, and with children spending more time with media than in any other activity but sleeping, media needs to shape up. The authors also recommend that advertisers stop using sex to sell products. http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/642575.html

Baby Carrots Take on Junk Food with Hip Marketing Campaign – In a $25 million effort to win inclusion in millions of back-to-school lunches, the carrot industry launches an ad campaign to brand the orange, crunchy veggie as cool, taking a page out of junk food advertisers’ handbook with Cheetos-like packaging, phone apps, and “sexy” TV ads. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-08-29-baby-carrots-marketing_N.htm

Parents Sue Facebook Over Ads And 'Like' Data – Parents file a suit against Facebook, claiming their children are being exploited for commercial purposes when they see that a friend has “Liked” an ad on Facebook. With good reason, the parents ask that Facebook obtain parental consent before using minors’ “Like” data for marketing purposes. http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1730180/parents-sue-facebook-over-ads-and-like-data

Location-Based Shopping: Can Shopkick Keep Kids in the Mall? – The new application Shopkick (the one that allows marketers to follow customers around stores and into dressing rooms) takes a “decidedly brand friendly approach” and targets teen girls—the marketing platform’s “sweet spot.” http://www.mobilebehavior.com/2010/08/17/location-based-shopping-can-shopkick-keep-kids-in-the-mall/

Spearmark Unveils New Rise & Shine Line – New Disney-branded “sleep-time routine trainer” for kids is a 24-hour programmable electronic device (which dubs as a nightlight) that aims “to teach youngsters about bedtime routines by copying the Disney characters.” http://www.licensing.biz/news/5862/Spearmark-unveils-new-Rise-Shine-line

Strawberry Shortcake Supports Childhood Cancer Month – In advance of the new Strawberry Shortcake show, which will premiere next month on the new Hasbro/Discovery children’s TV network, The Hub, Strawberry Shortcake is promoting childhood cancer awareness month (and its own brand) by sponsoring Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, a nonprofit that raises money for cancer research mainly through lemonade sales, by encouraging people to host special Strawberry Shortcake Alex’s Lemonade Stands. http://www.alexslemonade.org/campaign/strawberry-shortcake

Back to school with PepsiCo stealth marketing?

2010-08-31T21:39:00.000-07:00

I recently blogged about questions regarding how PepsiCo's voluntary beverage guidelines, announced in March, would be implemented in schools given that contracts are made at the local level. Now with back-to-school in full swing, I have even more questions about how PepsiCo may be using stealth marketing techniques to gain access to that coveted captive K-12 audience.

Today, the company announced a new program it calls Score for Your School. From the press release:

PepsiCo's Frito-Lay North America business unit kicks-off high school football season with the "Score for Your School" program for Texans only that invites fans to help schools win up to a $10,000 donation for their sports programs. Beginning today, Texas fans can visit www.scoreforyourschool.com, enter the 9-digit product code from ANY Frito-Lay product (chips, dips, salsa and more) and then select the Texas high school of their choice.

So in order to even vote for your school, you have to purchase a product. How nice of Frito-Lay to "invite" fans to buy Fritos, Doritos, Tostitos, Cheetos, Lays, etc. But it's "ANY" product, so generous! Why just Texas schools? The company's marketing guy explains: "Frito-Lay snacks and high school football are a Texas tradition," said Michael Del Pozzo, director, marketing, Frito-Lay North America.

Frito-Lay snacks are a Texas tradition? I will let the words of someone who replied to me on Twitter today speak to that: "Being that TX has a high obesity rate, this sure crushes any efforts being made 2 teach kids about eating healthy!!!" In other words, that's one tradition Texas can do without. Frito-Lay's Del Pozzo continues:

As high school sports programs face many challenges, we thought this promotion would be an easy and fun way for fans to help. Now, each single purchase can add up for a chance to win up to $10,000 for their school when they go online and 'Score for their School'.

How thoughtful of Frito-Lay to create a fun and easy way for fans to help sports programs. Couldn't have anything to do with how many more chips would get sold would it? Because if the company really cared, how about just sending a check to each Texas high school football team instead? This program, which runs through December 31, is capped at $90,000 in donations, a drop in the bucket for the nation's largest salty snack purveyor.

But this marketing-disguised-as-philanthropy is by now old territory for PepsiCo. For the past year, the company has been gaining much positive PR with its ubiquitous Pepsi Refresh donation program. If you're like me, you've been annoyed by friends and colleagues begging you to vote for their nonprofit or other worthy cause, like a high school popularity contest.

Last week, a parochial elementary school in Alton, Illinois held a "thank you assembly" for Pepsi employees after the school won a Refresh Everything grant of $25,000 to purchase computers. The article describing the event is worth checking out for the image of little 6-year old Matthew Dixon holding a "thank-you Pepsi" sign; yes 6. The reporter explains how the youngsters showed Pepsi employees their gratitude:

The entire school signed a large, thank-you poster, and the younger students made individual thank-you drawings in red, white and blue, the soda brand's colors. [my emphasis] Teachers wore turquoise shirts that read, "Every Pepsi Refreshes the World," and the children pinned on Pepsi buttons....

The highlight of the 15-minute assembly in the gymnasium came when Father Delix Michel riled up the youngsters with a T-shirt toss. Similar to professional baseball games - but minus the slingshot - Michel showed a good pitching arm as he deftly threw Pepsi shirts to all areas where students were sitting, including landing one shirt in the back row. Some of the shirts landed in the students' laps.

A priest handing out Pepsi T-shirts, it doesn't get any better than that for positive PR. Now it's great that PepsiCo wants to give back to the community, but there is only one word for this and it's not philanthropy, it's branding. It's sad that schools feel they must participate and don't see through it.

The Pepsi Refresh website has an entire section devoted to education. Please let us know if your school is involved in either of these stealth marketing campaigns. Pepsi does not belong in schools, whether it's soda vending machines or voting contests.

Today is the First Day of Kmart's Marketing Assault on Children

2010-08-31T11:23:00.000-07:00

Later today, Alloy Media + Marketing, will launch First Day, its latest web series for children and teens on the Internet channel AlloyTV. An Alloy press release suggests the show will have it all – if by all you mean the full gamut of troubling trends in youth marketing.

Because First Day will air on the web instead of a traditional television channel, the FCC’s rules that dictate strict separation of commercial content and programming matter do not apply. That means that, unlike children’s television shows, First Day can feature product placement. That’s where Kmart comes in. Not only will the characters wear Kmart’s back-to-school fashions (Dream Out Loud by Selena Gomez, Rebecca Bonbon and Bongo), but Kmart actually helped create the script for First Day, so expect the clothes to play a prominent role in the show’s narrative. And if you’re creating a Kmart infomercial, why stop there?

First Day will also feature a unique retail component in each episode. Kmart will "hotspot" its fashions throughout the series, enabling viewers to buy the inspired looks worn by the lead characters by means of a direct link to the products on the Kmart website.

When they click through to the Kmart website, what will they find? Perhaps images like these that are being used to promote the same Bongo line in Seventeen magazine and Teen Vogue, two publications whose readers skew younger than their titles imply:

Or this ad that touts Bongo’s junior line for “back to school” at Kmart’s parent company, Sears:

It’s as if Kmart designed their back-to-school campaign using the exploitative marketers’ handbook. Use sex to sell tween girls on clothes. Create “branded entertainment” so that children won’t realize they’re really watching ads. Use interactive technology so that kids can click right from the “program” they’re watching to the checkout line. Add a viral component so that children’s friendships are commercialized; Kmart is offering applications for kids to upload to their phones so they can tweet their purchases to their friends.

And of course, promote your brand in schools. Kmart is also advertising its fall fashions on Alloy’s controversial in-school television network, Channel One. For students in the 8,000 schools with Channel One, viewing Kmart’s ads will be a compulsory part of the school day. That’s right – Kmart will be using class time paid for by your tax dollars to promote its clothing to a captive audience of students.

Kmart clearly believes that its provocative marketing strategy will result in more sales, but I’m not so sure. There are a growing number of parents who are saying, “if you want my business, treat me and my children with respect.” That’s a lesson that Kmart clearly hasn’t learned. Maybe we need to teach them that this fall.

Commercialism Corner

2010-08-31T08:56:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

A Source of Solace, Not Ad Revenue – This Miami Herald article, quoting CCFC's Susan Linn, criticizes a proposal in Miami to allow advertising in public parks. The author concludes, “To accommodate a plethora of commercial imagery in county parks is to fill them with visual pollution. The premise of the commercial culture is that buying things will make us happier. But no purchase is enough to achieve happiness. Instead, an encounter with nature—without an assault by this culture of consumerism—offers life's best gift.” http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/28/1796085/a-source-of-solace-not-ad-revenue.html

Kids in Their Sights – Canada’s Financial Post details the global political struggle to limit junk food ads aimed at kids in an effort to curb childhood obesity. While child health experts point out that the failure of ad industry self-regulation proves that “the fox does a really poor job of guarding the henhouse,” advertising execs claim that the parent has the purchasing power and is the “CEO of the household.” Meanwhile, childhood obesity rates continue to soar, and a new study on global food advertising to children finds that 67% of food ads targeted at kids in 11 countries are for unhealthy food. http://www.financialpost.com/news/Kids+their+sights/3452015/story.html

Don't Touch That Disney Channel -- and Many Other Things, in Blogger Experiment – The St. Petersburg Times spotlight’s Lisa “The Corporate Babysitter” Ray’s family’s year without Disney. http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/dont-touch-that-disney-channel-mdash-and-many-other-things-in-blogger/1117944

Crest and Oral-B Try to Make Dental Care Cool – The two companies launch a marketing campaign aimed at kids as young as 8, which includes a phone app called “Yuck Mouth” to teach kids about healthy oral care…oh yes, and to sell them on Crest and Oral-B products. http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/20/2971664/crest-and-oral-b-introduce-pro.html

Kids are Influencing $10.9 Billion in Videogame Purchases; Over 90% of Kids are Playing Games Online – Children influence half of all video game purchases—to the tune of $10.9 billion—according to the new M2 market research study. http://www.gamingbusinessreview.com/m2kidsandgamesreport.htm

Popular Demand: Teenage Texting and More – New stats reported in the New York Times show that the number of teens visiting social networks from their mobile phones increased 81% this year. (It’s no wonder that marketers are increasingly targeting teens and pre-teens with cell phone advertising.) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/08/23/business/media/23mostwanted.html

FCC Appeals Fox Indecency Ruling – FCC, with the support of the Justice Department, appeals Second Circuit’s Court of Appeals decision on its indecency (“fleeting expletives”) enforcement policy, claiming that the court’s decision would make creating a new enforcement policy a “seeming impossibility.” http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/456402-FCC_Appeals_Fox_Indecency_Ruling.php

The Hub Adds New Pop Culture Series “Hubworld” to Network’s Original Programming Line Up – The new show “Hubworld” is described as “a pop culture magazine show that infuses what's happening in the life of everyday kids with what's happening on The Hub television network,” the new children’s network by Hasbro and Discovery. The show will feature highlights of Hub shows and segments “keeping up with what’s going on in the world of entertainment, music, sports and much more.” Might the “much more” category include new Hasbro toys and licensed merchandise by any chance? http://www.pr-inside.com/the-hub-adds-new-pop-culture-r2080991.htm

Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime – Studies show that being constantly hooked into technology deprives the brain of downtime needed to process and remember information, which is essential to learning. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/technology/25brain.html

Dethroning the Disney Princesses

2010-08-26T12:17:00.000-07:00

According to newspaper reports, researchers are exploring links between a girlhood characterized by “princess culture,” and womanhood fraught with narcissism, materialism, and overspending. No adult behavior can be explained solely by one thing—human beings are complicated creatures. But these researchers are on to something. We pass cultural values on through the stories we tell and the toys we give to children. The messages they take away from what they see, hear, and experience contribute to their understanding of the world and how it works.

Much has been written about the negative impact of impossibly built fashion dolls on how girls conceptualize beauty, and how they feel about their bodies. For many parents, the Disney Princesses seem like the lesser of several evils—perhaps they aren’t quite as in-your-face sexualized as the Bratz, or My Scene Barbies, or the new Monster High Dolls. But, in addition to promoting the dream that irks so many feminists—someday a prince will come and solve all of my problems—Disney Princess films, sequels, prequels and products subject little girls to clear messages about class and entitlement.

In The Case for Make Believe, I relate the following conversation with a four year old Disney princess aficionado:

“What’s a princess?” I asked Abigail. “A rich girl,” she answered promptly, “with a kingdom.” She was a bit fuzzy on exactly what a kingdom is, however. “It’s got lots of rooms,” she explained tentatively. Then her eyes grew big and round, sparkling with excitement. “And now there’s no food in it!” “Oh, no!” I groaned. “Yes!” she said with joyful urgency. “The servants have run out of ingredients!”

In the wonderful world of Disney, the female ideal is a rich girl living in a big house with lots of servants. And while the company has given the nod girls of color—Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, and Tiana—the crème de la crème of princesshood, the ones featured most prominently in the princess brand, are white: Cinderella, Ariel, Belle, Snow White, and Aurora.

Truth be told, I love fairy tales. While my fondness for them sometimes rests uneasily on my social conscience (the themes may be deep and complex, but the characters are not), I understand why they have so much meaning for young children. Classic stories of perseverance rewarded, good triumphing over evil, and the weak overcoming the powerful are valuable for kids as they grapple with the immense cognitive, physical and emotional demands of growing up socialized. And our exploration of fairy tales doesn’t have to be limited to the Western European versions that are so popular in the United States. After all, the original Cinderella story is the Chinese Shen Teh—and there are magical tales handed down for centuries from all over the world. In their original forms they are often explorations of important themes universal to children—sibling rivalry, family discord, loss, and redemption. But in the Disney versions of fairy tales, the deeper themes get lost amid the talking teapots and adorable singing mice. The films are enjoyable and the do what Disney does best—create longing for a magical world where virtue is synonymous with beauty and ultimately rewarded by material wealth.

Back when a movie was mostly just a movie seen only in theaters, princess values didn’t necessarily permeate little girlhood. But with miniaturized screen technology and tens of thousands of princess products on the market, that’s no longer the case. It’s not just that children see the films repeatedly, so that the scripts are embedded in their brains. Their play about the films is constricted by the plethora of princess toys and accessories. In addition, the image of the princesses—plastered on sheets, wallpaper, toothbrushes, snacks, backpacks and pretty much everything under the sun—dominates children’s experience of the stories.

One reason that commercialization is so harmful for children is that marketers exploit and pervert normal developmental stages—in this case, gender identification—so that corporate messages dominate how a child’s world view is shaped. Children, naturally attracted to glitter and longing to be so much more more powerful, are sitting ducks for gendered marketing like the Disney’s Princess selling machine. A society that does not protect kids from being immersed in advertising is complicit in their exploitation and the harms caused by it. As the father of a tiny potential consuming princess fanatic laments, unless you move to the woods it’s just about impossible for little girls to avoid the world according to her majesties Cinderella, and Ariel et al.

So what’s a parent to do? Until and unless we change the culture, you can set some limits and at least keep your daughters from drowning in The Little Mermaid and other Princess paraphernalia. Here are just a few options:

For babies and toddlers: Avoid purposely exposing young children to screen-based entertainment, at least until they ask for it, and limit exposure after that. You can at least put off instilling the expectation that the Disney princesses are essential to a happy girlhood.

For preschoolers: You might choose to avoid the films altogether. But if you love them, and want to share them, go ahead—but do so with the understanding that you’re not going to let Disney dictate your child’s post-film experience. Encourage hands-on creative play free of branded products.

From preschool on: Surround your kids with books of multi-cultural stories, including folk and fairy tales. And make sure to include stories that defy stereotypes. If your daughters love frufru and want to play princess, then haunt thrift shops and the closets of friends and family for cast off finery. Keep talking with children about your values and how they are similar and different from the commercial values celebrated by Disney and other corporations with a corner on the kid market.

Oh, and one last thing. Join the movement to stop companies from targeting children directly with marketing. Gender stereotyping and materialistic values aren’t the only inevitable harms of a commercialized childhood.

Commercialism Corner

2010-08-26T07:06:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Digital Diversions Leave Teens, Parents Sleep-Deprived – New study shows that 80% of adolescents don’t get enough sleep, even though 90% of parents think they do. The study finds that “digital diversions,” like cell phones, are major factors of the sleep deprivation, which is supported by the finding that 4 out of 5 teens sleep with their mobile phones and wake up to respond to text messages. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305482.html

Princess Culture Turning Girls Into Overspending Narcissists – A commercial culture that tells girls they can be Disney princesses by purchasing products gives way to narcissistic adults and loads of credit card debt, say researchers. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Princess+culture+turning+girls+into+overspending+narcissists/3403856/story.html

M2 Research Reports 90 Percent of 'Tweens' are Playing Games Online; Mobile and Social Media Use on the Rise Among Children – New market research finds 93% of so-called ‘tween’ boys and 91% of ‘tween’ girls play online games and calls this a “Sweet Spot” for advertisers. The research also finds that social networking sites are increasingly popular with youngsters, with boys 8-11 and girls 12-15 reporting Facebook (which is renowned for its lax privacy controls) as their favorite site. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/08/prweb4392494.htm

Want Your Kid to Get Ahead? Learn From the Gorillas – Free-Range Kids founder Lenore Skenazy, drawing from Susan Linn’s The Case for Make Believe, playfully describes the primal importance of children’s creative play—and the importance of battling its erosion by screen activities—for children’s healthy and happy development. http://www.parentdish.com/2010/08/24/want-your-kid-to-get-ahead-learn-from-the-gorillas/

The Summer Movie Marketing Report Card – Ad Age reviews and grades major film studios’summer movie marketing campaigns. Iron Man 2’s Paramount and Twilight’s Summit score well; apparently the marketing of these PG-13 movies to children (with, for example, tie-ins with Burger King Kids Meals) scores high in the marketing industry. http://adage.com/madisonandvine/article?article_id=145495

New Law to Forbid Junk Food Ads on Estonian TV – A draft of a law that may be approved by the Estonian Parliament would ban junk food ads on children’s TV shows there. If the law passes, Estonia will join other EU countries that are enforcing limits on advertising for low nutrient foods aimed at children. http://www.estonianfreepress.com/2010/08/new-law-to-forbid-junk-food-ads-on-estonian-tv/

Volkswagen Drives TLC.com Family Travel Content – In an effort to market the Volkswagen Routan minivan, VW sponsors an original online series “The Great Getaway” with VW branding integral to the program. This KidScreen article concludes that more of this kind of branded content can be expected: “The partnership shows how content providers are creating custom platforms upon which advertisers can introduce new products and reach their target audience.” http://www.kidscreen.com/articles/news/20100818/tlc.html

Ralph Lauren: Ganging Up on Kids

2010-08-19T09:22:00.000-07:00

The inevitable late summer plague has arrived. No, I’m not talking about mosquitoes, or poison ivy, or humidity. I’m talking about the back-to-school fashion frenzy. The buzz this year is about “interactivity." Shopping is now supposed to be ever so much more than interacting with our wallets. Some stores offer shopping sprees to “haulers,” kids who show off their purchases on YouTube. Others encourage them to play disc jockey on life size MP3 players when they walk in. Even clothes themselves have to be interactive. There’s some brand promoting different shaped stick-on patches so that kids can personalize their garments (“But mom, everyone is personalizing this year. If I don’t personalize, I won’t look like everybody else.”)

And then there’s Ralph Lauren. The designer who blessed us with “preppy” in the 1980s has produced a new online book for kids. And guess what? It’s interactive! Little fashionistas can click on the clothes the characters wear—and buy them. An ad on the front page of NYTimes.com called it “The First Shoppable Children’s Storybook.”

The Wall Street Journal touted the brand’s literary debut, The RL Gang, as a threat to Dr. Seuss. Wow. Here’s the plot: Eight kids, cute as hell, arrive at school sporting way cool clothes. A “well-dressed” man enters the room. It’s their teacher, the only visible part of whom is his torso, clad in . . .Ralph Lauren. They kids count to twenty and land in a magical wood, in totally new outfits. They find a little tree that isn’t thriving. They get sad. A kid named River suggests that they water the tree. They do. It transforms instantly into a full grown apple tree bearing fruit. And the kids wear yet another set of outfits. They pick the apples. They count to twenty. They arrive back at school. The room is empty. Their well-dressed teacher’s torso (and presumably the rest of him) is gone. They don’t care. They each give away their apples, but get to keep their trio of first-day-of-school ensembles—for sale in their on-line closets.

The point isn’t, however, that it’s lousy literature. It would be just as problematic if The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins was an online shopping experience. The point is that The RL Gang is another slide down the slippery slope toward seamlessly integrated marketing in children’s lives. David Lauren, Senior Vice President of Advertising, Marketing and Corporate Communications, calls it "merchantainment." Like advergaming, the goal is to make sales by seducing kids into lingering with a product long enough to associate it with fun, or longing, or excitement.

Here’s the problem. We are getting so used to marketers inserting advertising everywhere in children’s lives—in schools, in books, in songs, in games, in the content of movies, that we forget to care. The RL Gang, by itself, is just one little annoyance that most of us can avoid. It’s the aggregate that’s really troubling—a commercialized childhood where everything and everyone is for sale.

Commercialism Corner

2010-08-18T12:25:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Fashion: School Shoppers Giving a Lesson in Individualism – Marketers target children will back-to-school marketing ploys that tout individualism and expression. http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-living/ci_15816161?nclick_check=1

Aisle by Aisle, an App That Pushes Bargains – A new location-based phone app called Shopkick follows customers around the mall and markets to them by rewarding them with points as they enter stores, move to the cash registers, and even while they’re in the dressing room! The points can be redeemed for such things as store coupons or to buy virtual goods on Facebook. In addition to stores like Best Buy and American Eagle Outfitters, Simon Property Group, the prominent mall operator, will support the app. One AdPulp blogger writes of the app, “If anyone followed you around that much in real life, you'd get a restraining order. But for a discount at a store? No problem.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/technology/17app.html

Tween Beat – New York Times Magazine navigates the terrain of risqué ‘tween’ fashion with new brands like Madonna and 13-year-old daughter Lourdes’ new Material Girl clothing line. Sexualized with offerings like zebra-print leggings and black body suits, even Madonna admits that her daughter’s style, which inspires the brand, is at once “incredible” and “completely inappropriate for school.” http://nymag.com/fashion/10/fall/67509/

Mattel's Monster High: Twilight Meets Britney Spears – Mattel aims to surround girls with its sexualized new brand, as this Brand Channel article makes clear: “Mattel hopes kids will not only collect the Monster High dolls, clothing and accessories, but play games and watching animated webisodes on its website, become fans on Facebook, read the young adult book series, buy the Halloween costumes at Party City locations across America, and download its catchy theme song on iTunes.” http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2010/08/16/Mattel-Monster-High-Launch.aspx

False Connections – This marketing trade publication observes that with children’s increasing use of technology and social media to connect, children long for “real” connections, like those created through time spent with friends, family, and teachers. The Media Post article urges marketers to take advantage on this void children feel by inserting their brands. The author writes, “This sense of connectivity that children are gaining via technology has, to a certain degree, left them craving for "real" connections…This is an ideal opportunity for brands to build (or re-build) some real and genuine connections.” http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=133881

Google and the Search for the Future – Google CEO, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., talks to the Wall Street Journal about privacy in the digital age. Instead of a focus on protecting young people’s online privacy, Jenkins’ approach is different: “He predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html

Superheroes 'Poor Role Models for Boys' – BBC News reviews Professor Sharon Lamb’s study, which finds that Modern-day superheroes marketed to children promote a macho, violent stereotype for young boys. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10957590. Sharon answers a critic’s questions on the Packaging Boyhood blog: http://packagingboyhood.com/uncategorized/superheroes-and-the-media/

'Dora' Birthday Special Draws 3.3 Million Viewers – NickJr.com visits and gaming sessions also have highest traffic in months due to the Dora Big Birthday Adventure lead up, with 3.2 million unique website visitors, 63 million page views, and 30 million game sessions from Aug. 9-Aug 15. Think of all those preschoolers who, thanks to CCFC, weren’t being prompted to click over to AddictingGames.com! http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/456116-_Dora_Birthday_Special_Draws_3_3_Million_Viewers.php

Aiming to Boost Broadcasters' Commercial Viability – This Wall Street Journal article points out that in the EU and US, rules allowing more flexibility in broadcast advertising are on the rise. However, whereas the EU places restrictions on, for example, product placement (requiring disclosure before and after shows containing paid product placements), the U.S. “takes a more relaxed approach,” with the FTC arguing that product placement doesn’t make “objective claims,” and so is not subject to its rules on deceptive or unfair advertising to children. WSJ subscription required. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411123371475474.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Commercialism Corner

2010-08-17T05:25:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Suit Alleges Disney, Other Top Sites Spied on Users - A lawsuit filed in federal court last week alleges that a group of well-known Web sites, including those owned by Disney, Warner Bros. Records, and Demand Media, broke the law by secretly tracking the Web movements of their users, including children. http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20013672-261.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Would Kids Eat Fruits and Veggies To Get a Free Fast-Food Toy? – Proposed legislation in San Francisco would allow fast food toys only with meals that have better nutritional quality. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/08/12/would-kids-eat-fruits-and-veggies-to-get-a-free-fast-food-toy/

Do These Jeans Make My Diaper Look Big? – Children’s clothing retailers are selling adult-style “skinny jeans” for toddlers and babies with great success. Why are children being dressed like adults so young, and what are the possible consequences? This Wall Street Journal article probes these questions. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704901104575423220608807714-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html

Fisher-Price Celebrates the 10th Anniversary of Dora the Explorer With the Debut of its New We Did It! Dora Doll – The press release for the new, more grown up-looking Dora doll markets the toy as follows: “This year, Dora moves her arms, swings her beautiful long hair and swivels her body to the beat as she teaches kids the steps to her signature dance.” http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/fisher-price/45526/

Disney/Pixar's Toy Story 3 Becomes the Highest Grossing Animated Movie Ever - Disney/Pixar cashes in with Toy Story 3, which earned a total of $920 million at the box office. http://www.cynopsis.com/editions/kids/081610/

Will schools follow new PepsiCo beverage guidelines even if students want Mountain Dew?

2010-08-15T20:03:00.000-07:00

This past March, soft drink giant PepsiCo announced with much fanfare a new global school policy. The specific guidelines, to take effect by 2012, limit the types of beverages that are to be sold in schools. According to the press release, the policy will "stop sales of full-sugar soft drinks to primary and secondary schools."

That's why the announcement last week that Union County High School in Indiana was signing on to a brand new five-year contract with Pepsi (thereby ending its exclusive contract with Coca-Cola) came as a surprise. Not the contract itself, but what one school official had to say about it. From the news article:

The new contract is expected to earn the high school and middle school and booster groups $20,000 more over five years, Union County Middle School Assistant Principal Mark Detweiler said. Prices for soft drinks will remain $1.25, but school officials expect sales to increase with Pepsi products. "Students drink Mountain Dew," Detweiler said.

They sure do, only problem is, PepsiCo says those products aren't for sale. Or are they?

I asked Derek Yach, director of Global Health Policy at PepsiCo for an explanation and he told me that the vending machines have not been put into place. He also said:

Our intent from the outset has been that the contract be 100 percent compliant with the American Beverage Association / Alliance for a Health Generation guidelines and other relevant PepsiCo policies. Our local teams in Indiana are well aware of this and will work closely with local school officials to ensure compliance.

Yach was referring to yet another voluntary policy announced by the soft drink industry back in 2006.

Someone should have probably clued in the school officials in Indiana at the time they signed the new contract. Were they even made aware of the PepsiCo policy not to sell the worst products, even if they are the most popular?

This raises many questions about how PepsiCo's school policy will play out in each school district. Indeed, the language of the policy is pretty vague on implementation and enforcement:

PepsiCo will encourage our bottlers, vending companies and third-party distributors to work closely with parents, community leaders and school officials to ensure that only products that meet the following guidelines are offered...

"Encourage?" "Work closely?" And while it's nice to mention them, what do parents and community leaders have to do with school contracts?

Here's what New York University Professor Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics has to say about the Indiana contract:

In my experience, you have to see for yourself, which is why I love visiting schools when I get the chance. With school officials in tow, you can watch kids using the vending machines during the lunch hour with nobody saying a word. The incentive here is to sell MORE product, not less, and that’s the problem.

Right. And here we have the odd situation where the vendors will essentially be telling its customers: Sorry, but we can't sell you Pepsi and Mountain Dew, those products that the kids love best and that will bring you all that extra cash you need to run your programs.

Let's see how well that works.

Thinking About Allowing Advertising in Your School? Do Your Homework

2010-08-13T07:37:00.000-07:00

With schools facing unprecedented budget shortfalls and teacher layoffs, it’s not surprising that so many are considering what just a couple of years ago would have been unthinkable: allowing corporate advertising in their schools. The San Diego Union Tribune reports that the Sweetwater Union High School District has signed a contract with a company called 4 Visual Media Group to allow advertising on its cafeterias, hallways, and school buses. Meanwhile, schools in the Twin Cities area are signing up with a new company called School Media’s to place ads on children’s lockers.

Who are these companies that hope to profit off of schools’ fiscal crises? Let’s start with 4 Visual Media Group. I stumbled upon their website six months ago when doing some research and couldn’t believe what I saw. In a section of its website labeled “Elementary School Media Kit,” the company boasted to potential advertisers:

4VMG's unique form of advertising caters to a captive audience where the viewer can't "change the channel" or "turn the page.” As such, 4VMG’s product is able to capture the attention of the consumer for longer periods of time and with a more specific focus than traditional billboard style advertising.

This is the company that Sweetwater schools has sold their students to. A company that that refers to schoolchildren as consumers and brags about its ability to deliver a captive audience. The fact that advertising in schools exploits a captive audience is the number one reason (of many) that it’s so wrong. But for 4 Visual Media Group, that’s the selling point. And it gets worse:

In addition to providing “captive audience” advertising, 4VMG offers the option to its advertisers of a unique interactive campaign allowing for each advertisement to possess a “dynamic” component. Promotional codes displayed on the table or panel allow for promotions such as a coupon to be sent to the viewer’s cell phone directly and immediately.

It’s hard to imagine anything more inappropriate than providing advertisers with a platform to send text messages to children while they’re in school. And remember, this is from 4 Visual Media Group’s elementary school media kit.

Or it was. After I shared 4VMG’s plans with Jim Metrock at Obligation, Inc., he posted about the company’s plans on his website and wrote to their President. Shortly after, http://4visualmedia.com/ went dark and, when it relaunched, there was nary a word about text messaging, captive audiences or even advertising in schools at all. That’s why the first rule of anti-school commercialism advocacy is document everything you see before going public with your concerns.

Which brings me to School Media’s, the company that specializes in advertising across students’ lockers. Until a few days ago, their website included this lovely picture:

Now if you’re trying to allay concerns about marketing in schools, what better way than to suggest one of your major advertisers is a company that most parents hold in high regard, like PBS Kids. There’s just one problem: The picture is a fake, as we found out thanks to the magic of Twitter:

A company that wants to send text message advertisements to elementary school students and a company that pretends to have a client that they don't in order to give their predatory marketing a veneer of respectability. These are the kinds of companies that schools will have to deal with if they decide to let advertisers in. Which is just one more reason (I’ll write more soon about the others) why schools should be commercial-free.

Commercialism Corner

2010-08-13T07:01:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

S.F. Proposal: Healthier Kids Meals or No Toys – San Francisco follows Santa Clara County and proposes ban on junk food toys. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/08/11/MNJG1ES4M2.DTL

Girls at Comic-Con Find Marketers Ready for Them – Toy makers used this year’s Comic-Con to show off their new brands targeted at girls, including Hasbro’s Strawberry Shortcake (who will have a show on Hasbro’s new children’s TV network, the HUB, launching this fall) and Mattel’s Monster High, a brand based on sexualized characters around which the company is planning an “entertainment juggernaut.” Mattel’s Monster High dolls, clothing line, and electronics are already available, webisodes are online, a book series is publishing September 1, and a movie musical is being developed by Universal. This Friday (the 13th) Mattel will launch a Monster High music video on YouTube to promote the brand. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/business/media/11adco.html?_r=2&ref=media

Traditional Outdoor Games are Forgotten by Kids – Study shows that traditional outdoor kids’ games are unknown to many children; 75% of children 4-11 reported never playing hopscotch or tag. Nintendo video games have replaced these games, according to the study, signaling that “high-tech gadgets are over-taking more traditional children's pastimes.” http://newslite.tv/2010/08/10/traditional-outdoor-games-are.html

In the Driver's Seat of 'Cars' Online Community – Disney unveils its latest online community, based on Cars in an advanced massive marketing effort for the 2011 release of Cars 2. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-facetime-20100812,0,4740314.story

National Geographic Kids Launches Animal Jam Virtual World – Kids playing in this “ad-free” virtual world, http://www.animaljam.com/, will earn “bonus Gems and premiums from National Geographic Publishing and discounts on National Geographic’s acclaimed books and magazines.”

Nickelodeon Launches Dora The Explorer's Landmark Tenth Anniversary With 'Beyond the Backpack' Pro-social Campaign to Champion School Readiness – Dora turns 10; Nickelodeon launches a “pro-social” campaign--including the auctioning of limited-edition Dora backpacks and offering Nick-sponsored educational materials--in partnership with The Children's Defense Fund and National Parents Teachers Association (PTA). http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nickelodeon-launches-dora-the-explorers-landmark-tenth-anniversary-with-beyond-the-backpack-pro-social-campaign-to-champion-school-readiness-86001942.html

Youth Exposure To Alcohol Ads Declines – Self-regulation by the alcohol industry has resulted in 62% decline in children’s exposure to liquor ads in magazines, but a 57% increase in exposure to beer ads. The study shows that 16 brands, including Patron Silver Tequila, Absolut Vodka, Kahlua Liqueur, have higher visibility among child audiences than others. The article concludes that this finding suggests “ad placements are part of a deliberate strategy” to market alcohol to those under 21. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=133615

Commercialism Corner

2010-08-11T12:56:00.000-07:00

Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.

Senate Passes Child Nutrition Act – The Senate unanimously passes the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which aims to improve school nutrition programs, and which--if the regulation passes and the USDA enforces the rule--will ban junk food sales both in school cafeteria lines and vending machines. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/senate-passes-child-nutrition-act/

Twin Cities: This Education Brought to You By ..? Public school districts in Minnesota turning to an advertiser-sponsored model. CCFC’s Josh Golin and Parents for Ethical Marketing’s Lisa Ray explain why forcing children to look at corporate ads in school is not an acceptable solution to school budget problems. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_15699573?

Reps Seek Info From Comcast, MSNBC, Others On Web Tracking, Targeting – U.S. Representatives, disturbed by findings of a report on online advertisers’ tracking activities, demand that several companies disclose information about their collection and use of website users’ data. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/455697-Reps_Seek_Info_From_Comcast_MSNBC_Others_On_Web_Tracking_Targeting.php

Alarming Global Survey on Children's Perceptions of Nature: The Results – New worldwide study of children’s perceptions of the environment shows that “10X more kids ranked watching TV or playing computer games first compared to those who chose saving the environment.” 41% of American children report that saving the environment is least important to them, compared to the global average of 32% who ranked it last. http://www.airbus.com/en/worldwide/americas/newsroom/news-items/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3811&tx_ttnews[backPid]=796&cHash=45652a0849

Back-to-School Shopping: It's All on Your Phone – Scannable phone coupons from Target and outfit creation apps from JCPenney are just a few of the ways in which marketers are targeting teens and “tweens” on their phones with back-to-school ad campaigns. Sears and Kmart offer apps for kids to upload and tweet their purchases, complete with GPS and zip code locators so friends can search inventory at their local store. American Eagle gives out free phones, with a 2-year contract as an expensive catch. One executive comments, "From a marketing standpoint, you need to be where they're at and teens spend more time on their mobile phones than on the Internet and than watching TV or reading.” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/back-to-school-shopping-its-all-on-your-phone-2010-08-02?siteid=rss&rss=1

All Interactive Youth Marketing Will Soon Be Location-Based – This marketing trade publication lists reasons why all marketing targeted at young people will be location-based, including: Privacy is not as important to teens as media portrays it; Nielsen predicts half of all Americans will own a smart phone by 2011; young people will use location-based serviced to hook up; mobile costs are getting cheaper. The author writes that “Geo-targeting will continue to birth a new wave of technologies, experts, and devices built to deliver relevant information based on where you are, not just who you are,” and concludes that youth-targeted advertising will be at the forefront of this new, more invasive marketing frontier. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=133297

Discovery and Hasbro's Hub Kids' Channel Gears Up for Launch – New joint venture between Discovery and toy maker Hasbro hopes aims for the younger (6-12) child audience, hoping to “woo kids and advertisers trying to reach them.” Discovery and Hasbro will spend $20 million to hype the channel leading up to its 10/10/10 launch. The Hub lineup will include Transformers Prime, Clue, and other Hasbro-toy focused advertainment. Hub CEO Margaret Loesch says the channel is being “so careful” about content and advertising (only 25% of the shows will be based on Hasbro products, and advertising on programming will fall below the federally mandated limits) in hopes of avoiding any “brouhaha” from concerned advocacy groups. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/08/discovery-and-hasbros-hub-kids-channel-gears-up-to-battle-nickelodeon-disney-and-cartoon.html

TCA: Hub Chief Optimistic, Cautious About Launching Children's Network – This is another article about the launch of new Discover/Hasbro kids’ television network, The Hub, in which its CEO makes clear that the network intends to market to a captive audience of children in schools in order to attract an audience to sell advertisers. The CEO also claims, “We have no product placement on our shows. Zero.” A leading toy marketer creates a TV network and entire shows built around toys it aims to sell children, but this isn’t product placement? Hmm... http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/455789-TCA_Hub_Chief_Optimistic_Cautious_About_Launching_Children_s_Network.php