Daniel makes stuff, and, in his spare time, writes about things like movies, kid culture, and geek stuff.
The Kids Industry, an Adweek Special Report

A series of articles on marketing to children and families, from the marketers’ perspective.

Kids want what they want when they want it. The little centers-of-our-universe can beg and plead for their essentials — toys, snacks and TV shows — with unfettered determination. Turns out that parents, television networks and marketers are working double time to oblige.

In our first special issue on kids, we illustrate how companies are advancing their offerings to further get this young consumer demographic to pull harder on the family purse strings.

I imagine about half of you right now just threw up a little in your mouths. Get past that, though, and many of these articles make for a very interesting read.

Apr 26, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

A Sad, Stupid and Sexist Question.

By Daniel Bigler :: Tuesday April 6, 2010

A headline in the San Francisco Chronicle’s Mommy Files blog: “Are today’s girls abandoning their dolls too soon?”

Little girls are saying goodbye to their dollies and hello to tech gadgets and computer games. Does this mean they’re missing out on imaginative play?

Wow. If that’s not a patronizing thing to say, I don’t know what is. Girls, boys, dolls, and computers and cell phones everywhere should feel highly begrudged right now. (Yes, I’m including inanimate objects in that list. Hush now.)

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Just to be clear: I do actually get that the author is attempting to make a point about the supposed ‘disappearance’ of children’s imaginative play, and unconsciously presuming this is linked with children’s increasing use of mediated toys and technology instead of physical toys. I’m alright with being concerned about that, even if I think that fear is overplayed. Rather, it’s the wrapping that she surrounds her point in which is just presumptuous and sexist, while unconsciously reinforcing potentially harmful gender stereotypes.

First, there’s nothing necessarily “bad” with girls being interested in technology, nor is imaginative play necessarily inhibited by it. It’s a different topic, but one that should be considered: why is computer literacy still thought of as a predominantly male trait? As far as linking technology with the downfall of imaginative play – that’s a stretch, by far, and doesn’t actually consider the unique benefits that technology may offer to imaginative play. ‘Tis a topic worth it’s own discussion, and the research just ain’t there to make blanket statements at this point.

Second, while the prevalence of dolls has perhaps led us to accept that they’re necessary and beneficial, why should we assume that dolls are really all that important a thing in order for a girl to have a rich, imaginative playlife? As one commenter to the piece mentioned: If yoy’re concerned about a girl’s creativity and imagination, why not give her a tub of LEGO bricks in response? I should also probably not leave out the other begrudged party here – boys. What? Boys can’t play with dolls? History has shown that children (and adults) of all ages and genders have played with dolls in the past (see Howard Chudacoff’s book, “Children at Play: An American History“), so why have dolls become such a regimented part of the ‘girl’ gender stereotype?

I don’t mean to hate on dolls – there’s definitely a lot of play value in them, and I know a lot of little girls (and boys) who play with them. Even as the author recounts her own daughter’s doll play, you can get a picture of the richness dolls often add to play. But the real issues with this type of hypothesizing are the underlying assumptions made in the process: first with conflating doll play as a given and natural part of an imaginative girlhood (introducing gender stereotypes in doing so), and then with unnecessarily dichotomising technology against imaginative play (and undermining children’s potential in the process).

Those are some pretty big holes to be standing on when you’re asking about otherwise good topics.

Tagged under: , , , :: #




Lessons in Bad Advertising

Repeat after me: It is a very, very bad idea to emulate adult underwear advertisements with young toddlers and diapers instead.

Enough said.

Feb 09, 2010 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Must-Have Toys for the Holidays?

Scott Traylor compares a handful of the “Tops” and “Must Haves” lists of toys out there now for the holidays. All told, 44 different toys represented among the various lists – with robotic hamsters and Nerf guns among some of the toys making the grade multiple times.

There’s also some mad spreadsheet action that Scott has kindly provided, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Nov 09, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Scholastic Backtracks on Excluding Gay Friendly Book From Fair

So the Scholastic “Harbinger of Commercialised Crap, Not Books” School Book Fair organisation decides to demand that an author revise her book before they’d ship it out to schools for their book fairs – specifically, asking her to leave out some “naughty words” and beyond that, change a homosexual parenting couple in the story to a heterosexual one.

The company sent a letter to Myracle’s editor asking the author to omit certain words such as “geez,” “crap,” “sucks,” and “God” (as in, “oh my God”) and to alter its plotline to include a heterosexual couple. Myracle agreed to get rid of the offensive language “with the goal—as always—of making the book as available to as many readers as possible,” but the deal breaker was changing Milla’s two moms.

“A child having same-sex parents is not offensive, in my mind, and shouldn’t be ‘cleaned up.’” says Myracle, adding that the book fair subsequently decided not to take on Luv Ya Bunches because they wanted to avoid letters of complaint from parents.

But! Lo and behold, people have gotten wind and have been, um, firmly chastising Scholastic for the move. So now Scholastic is backtracking – probably realising that it’s bad (although perhaps originally unintentional on their part) to think of censoring books out of a nationwide school book fair set-up (that not only do they have a disgusting monopoly on, but have increasingly crapped up with commercialised toys and not books) just because said book portrays homosexual family structures.

What I really want to know, though, is what David Anaxagoras is asking: Since when is “Geez” suddenly too harsh of language for kids? I suspect if the people making this decision had spent any time actually in a school, they’d encounter a lot worse of language than that from the kids.

If we expect literature and books to make any difference in kids’ lives, then we have to not sacrifice their honesty for what’s politically smart.

Oct 29, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

"Damning" Interview with Baby Einstein Creator

BoingBoing shares from an old 2001 interview with “Baby Einstein” video series creator Julie Aigner-Clark:

“Everything I did in the first videos was based on my experience as a mom. I didn’t do any research. I knew my baby. I knew what she liked to look at. I assumed that what my baby liked to look at, most other babies would, too.”

I’m not exactly sure if that’s as “damning” as BoingBoing spins it, especially since most people seem to have had the common sense over the years not to accept everything on labels as fact. Actually it seems that most parents use Baby Einstein as a convenient, “I’m sleep deprived, the laundry is piling, and that darn kid still hasn’t taken his nap” babysitter for when things are tough – figuring, hey, it might not help, but it probably isn’t going to seriously harm or murder their babies. (At least that’s what a columnist for the Boston Globe says.) And hey, who’s to blame parents? They have a tough job.

Still, as long as we’re gonna actually have these things around, it’s nice to be clear about what Baby Einstein DVDs are actually bought and used for. And that means no hyperbolic “research claims,” Disney.

Oct 29, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

No Einstein in Your Crib? Get a Refund

I don’t think it’s going to come as a shock to anybody that the Baby Einstein videos and DVDs don’t actually turn your baby into Einstein – but as the New York Times reports, the Walt Disney Company is now issuing refunds to parents who don’t feel they’ve lived up to the “educational promises” the series once touted.

“We see it as an acknowledgment by the leading baby video company that baby videos are not educational, and we hope other baby media companies will follow suit by offering refunds,” said Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which has been pushing the issue for years.

…

Despite their ubiquity, and the fact that many babies are transfixed by the videos, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time at all for children under 2.

In 2006, Ms. Linn’s group went to the Federal Trade Commission to complain about the educational claims made by Disney and another company, Brainy Baby. As a result, the companies dropped the word “educational” from their marketing. But the group didn’t think that was enough.

Now, Disney’s offer of refunds – or “enhanced consumer satisfaction guarantee” – are a sort of implicit reckoning with the actual research behind the issue, after having long-ridden the “educational” label’s coattails onto success.

Sure, the controversy is bound to get overblown – but I think the real thing here is that social scientists can sort of reclaim (at least to a degree) their stake in the “educational research” department. Just because the packaging says something’s educational, doth not make it so. (And if you want proof, Paula Slade at the Examiner has compiled a terrific list of the actual research on under 2s and how media affects their development.)

Whether parents continue to play the Baby Einstein DVDs remains to be seen; who knows, they might have other reasons to plop their kid in front of the TV. But at least now, hopefully, companies will be a little less loose with co-opting the “educational” and “research based” labels for use in their marketing – and parents will be a little more cautious about believing such labels.

Or to summarise things another way: “An occasional Twinkie won’t kill you. But don’t let anyone ever sell it to you as a carrot.”

Oct 24, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

Inappropriate Toys for Children

From the Huffington Post, a list of the seven most “inappropriate” toys for kids. I don’t know about you, but I’ll be doggoned if that “kid’s toy tattoo parlor” isn’t the coolest thing ever.

Sep 14, 2009 :: Tagged under: , :: #

The Battle of the (Gendered) Toys

Brian Reid, a parent writing for The Washington Post’s “Smart Living” blog, ponders why boys always get the cooler toys at fast food places like McDonald’s:

At your larger, more-marketing driven outlets, you have a choice: there is a “boy” toy and a “girl” toy.

At a rather young age, my eldest daughter determined that this was a total crock. She has a vivid memory of dinner at McDonald’s with a friend where “boys” were offered some cool spy gear and “girls” … well, she doesn’t have a vivid memory of that. Even though that’s what she found when she opened the Happy Meal.

He’s conducting an (admittedly unscientific) experiment to see whether fast food employees – when asked by a parent to “surprise” them with either a “boy” toy or “girl” toy – are more likely to give out “boy” toys, because they seem less gendered. (Via KidScreen.)

Aug 31, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #

Bubble Babies

Lenore Skenazy (the Free Range Kids mom), writing for Reader’s Digest about the always-lampoonable children’s safety product industry:

In the Kiddie-Safety Industrial Complex, parents are gobbling up hitherto unheard-of stuff like those Boogie Wipes tissues, toy wagons with seat belts, sure-grip gloves for lifting baby out of the bath, and even knee pads for babies to wear when they start to crawl over that crushed glass you chose instead of carpeting for the nursery.

Personally my favorite is the gLoves – “pint-sized, disposable gloves” that will “keep kids safe from germs in public places!” Never mind that you’re going to kill your kid’s immune system by this over-protection.

As Skenazy gently points out, “you don’t get hard science when you start buying baby safety products; you get hard fear.”

Jul 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

How Brands Connect with Kids

BrandChannel.com, considering how companies such as Earth’s Best are using familiar characters and other branding elements to market to young children:

Kim Bremer, Earth’s Best’s Director of Infant Feeding, says parents and families should recognize the influence of characters like Elmo and the affect of Sesame Street’s brand on youngsters. “Kids know Elmo because they watch Sesame Street from the time they are one, and brand recognition is something they see, watch and recognize,” says Bremer. “We take the toddler audience very seriously.”

Jul 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , :: #

Kids Talk to Kaleidoscope about Brands and Advertising

Kids ages eight to 17 talk with Kaleidoscope (Nickoldeon’s brand and consumer insights department) about how they view brands and advertising. The short version: brands are important, and serve as a reflection to your friends and peers of your personality and social identity.

According to kids and teens, there are several attributes that make a brand important, with quality and “the way it looks” rated as the most important. Having an experience with a brand is typically a prerequisite, especially with boys. If kids or teens have a less-than-great experience with a brand, they tend to reject it and are reluctant to give it a second chance. From a social perspective, brands are a direct reflection of personality, therefore brand acceptance relies heavily on peer approval. This makes brand choices especially significant to tween and teen girls. As one girl in grade seven said, “You get more respect if your clothes are more expensive. I get lots of compliments on my Hollister jeans because everybody wants them.”

Here’s the PDF information sheet and video of interviews from the first of Kaleidoscope’s two-part series.

Jun 28, 2009 :: Tagged under: , , , :: #