I certainly have mixed emotions seeing a nine year old girl sitting at her computer for hours – it’s not homework. It’s not to feed her natural curiosity. It’s Webkinz.
I suppose it’s always been this way, but the objective in children’s toys is to create a revenue stream that outlasts the original product. So it’s not enough to sell these kids little animals – they have a whole line of overpriced accessories too. And, the worst part, they come with codes that activate an online version. The object is to get the kid to the computer. That’s what that nine-year old was doing that day.
I just read about the business model for Webkinz in Business Week. Ganz Corporation, the maker of the product, is happy with sales, but there’s a discordant note too.
Ganz … must now strike a delicate balance: maximizing profit from the fad without alienating parents and kids. Visitors to Webkinz.com spent more than a million hours there in November, but the site is free.
Horrors! Neither Ganz nor its competitors have yet figured out a way to turn the kids’ time on the web into a revenue stream. Frankly, there’s only two ways: advertising, and getting hold of parents’ credit card numbers. They’re working on it.
The Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood has noticed that Webkinz is using its web site for cross-marketing purposes, advertising other products for kids (in this case the movie Alvin and the Chipmunks). They have organized a protest campaign. Ganz is ambivalent, saying the have standards after all, but affirming their intention to advertise to kids on their web site.
In other countries, there are standards for marketing to kids. In this country, we let the advertisers into our schools. Kids are bombarded with ads on the first Saturday morning of their cognizant childhood. Parents are overmatched. Perhaps now is a good time to remind parents (and the corporations that market to our kids) that advertising is neither wholesome nor healthy, and that childhood should be a time when kids are exempted from our society’s shortcomings.
Piece of Mindful 
Here, here! We’re working on it. Join us!
LikeLike
Parents for ethical marketing, – it’s “Hear, hear” like “hear him.”
Mark, so should we shield them from the news too? After all, there’s no bigger display of “society’s shortcomings” than what’s delivered there. We better start banning books too. Think about the message Treasure Island sends about human nature. How about banning Where the Red Furn Grows so we don’t expose them the shortcomings of coon hunting. We better ban history too, Sheesh, what a mess that is. And logo clothing – I’m all for dressing them up in homogenous green uniforms. And, holy smokes, we better ban rap music from their ears on radio as well as all of those sexualized teen stars that pound the airwaves. While were at it we better drop that whole “don’t talk to strangers because they might hurt you” stuff to keep them insulated from society’s shortcomings. Jeeze, there’s so much out there that lets them in on the failings of society we just better round ’em all up and put them in education camps. That’ll protect the little dears.
I didn’t realize what a bad parent I was until I read this post. There ought to be a law. Oh, but maybe we should also teach them the value of buck, the differences between play, education and work and the fact that the world is full of traps.
LikeLike
Adults marketing to children is something we can actually control, and quite easily. They are, after all, after the parents and merely using the kids as a tool. That’s abusive.
LikeLike
We can control all sorts of speech pretty easily too, Mark. Would it be just as abusive if Barnes and Noble set up a site for kids to buy books?
What’s abusive is you telling parents they need the government to block language that’s offensive by your definition. Where does it stop? Toys now, music later, literature next.
Stop trying to “protect” both me and my kids. It’s not your place.
LikeLike
Here’s an idea, Mark: Rather than looking to the government to look after your kids, why not look after them yourself?
LikeLike
I’m working to prepare my son to live in the real world. I shield him from things like pornography and blatantly violent programs. Other than that, we give him full exposure to the world. We take time to discuss major events and issues of the time with him. He sees the truth of things through his own eyes and forms his own opinions. He’s smart and will be a success in life because he is prepared and not naive. We don’t need Big Brother’s help with that.
LikeLike
Dave – we can and do regulate all kinds of speech, from sale of alcohol to marketing of pornography to political contributions. Advocating for any of these does not mean we wish to clamp down on all kinds of speech. Name that fallacy! (Slippery Slope?)
You are all seeing thee results of adults marketing to kids in our obesity problems, along with credit card debt. Whatever you guys are proposing, it ain’t working.
Anyway, if you’re doing such a good job already, Rocky, none of this will affect you at all. There are those among us who think that marketing, just like pornography and alcohol, needs to be kept in its place.
LikeLike
I understand we regulate all sorts of speech and I don’t approve of it much. But the slippery slope argument is not necessarily a fallacy in situ (a slippery slope argument can be either valid fallacious) because, as you point out,the amount of restrictions on speech have been increasing over time.
As for your assertion of cause and effect – that is a logical fallacy inasmuch as you only show a correlation with no supporting causation.
Still, leave me alone with your
LikeLike
should read valid or fallacious.
LikeLike
Oh – leave me alone with your
I do believe the restrictions on speech have decreased over time. I recall people being thrown in jail in the early 20th century, and threatened with imprisonment and loss of livelihood during the 1950’s. What we’re doing here is attempting to prevent one group with an advantageous marketing position from taking advantage of another. It wouldn’t be done if one of the groups were not children. As you say, people are always taking advantage of one another.
Your slippery slope argument is fallacious because you haven’t shown how regulating speech affects any others beyond this one issue. Do you think we’ll be doing Palmer raids as a consequence? Will we be wiretapping Mattel?
Cause and effect: Advertising fast food to kids causes them to eat fast food, makes them fat. Advertising to kids at all is abusive because the kids are not of an age where they have the faculties to properly evaluate the message. They are being manipulated.
We can and should put a stop to that. Throw ’em in jail.
LikeLike
I said people are always taking advantage of one another? I doubt it.
But your fallacy is no less than mine (even though I don’t stipulate that mine is a fallacy.) Kids get fat because they eat too much and don’t get enough exercise. But how is it manipulating kids by advertising to them? They don’t have money to spend on their own. That’s what parents are for. But you avoided my question; would it be manipulation if Barnes and Noble set up a special website advertising to kids to get them to buy book?
But since it’s clear that you think all advertising is manipulation why not just ban all of it?
I think that when you restrict commercial speech you will in fact continue to do so. If advertising toys to kids is bad then advertising soda pop is bad too, no? What about advertising fast food? If the ad is strictly aimed at adults but kids will likely see it, should it be banned? How do you draw the line to define where it becomes too much of a speech restriction?
Throw them in jail? Now were talking fascism.
LikeLike
Ah, humor, lost on Budge. I’m well advised not to attempt it.
Your Barnes and Noble query: I have a problem with direct advertising to kids. They are not equipped to resist the subtle manipulation – most adults are prey to it too, but we don’t attempt to protect them and shouldn’t. That’s overbearing.
Kids get fat becuase they don’t get enough exercise and eat the wrong kinds of food – high fat and carb diets of burgers, fries and soda pop are a direct cause of obesity. We can’t make them exercise, though we certainly encourage it through the schools. But we can affect their diet. Parents play a prime role – that the boomers and genx turned out to be lousy parents? We were the first product of mass consumer advertising. Who knew?
The soda pop issue is interesting – studies have given us a direct link between soda and weak bones and dental decay. There’s a health issue there, but the cola companies have invaded the budget-stressed schools, inserting pop machines and allowng the schools to pocket the profits in exchange for creating lifelong customers. Pernicious, if you ask me – kick them out, and fund our schools with taxes, cheapskates.
We cannot isolate kids from advertising. We can prevent their being targeted. And we can teach them critical thinking skills in school – where would our military be if kids were able to resist the ads they are constantly running? Two things the schools should teach that they don’t: Financial skills (to resist credit sharks), and resistance to advertising.
Advertising is manipulation. It seeks to undermine the individual using subtle suggestion to alter behavior. By definition, it speaks to the private, inner self. It invades private spaces – that’s the only way it can work. I don’t seek to ban it. As with all propaganda, sunlight is the best antiseptic.
LikeLike