My Article on Marketing to Kids

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 14:46:00 PM PDT

Today I have a piece on Alternet about marketing to kids. This issue became VERY personal when I moved in with my boyfriend and his two young kids. In fact, the article opens with a paragraph or two about my boyfriend and his oldest daughter. I wrote about them not to criticize his parenting but to point out how tricky the marketers are, operating in ways that the parents just don't suspect. Even wonderful, loving, involved, intelligent parents like my boyfriend. Every so often, the kids come home with a new toy. When I ask where they got it, my boyfriend will say, "You won't like the answer." That means: It came from a Happy Meal. He does this rarely now, but the McDonald's trips were much more frequent before I came into the picture. At my suggestion, he's at least transitioned over to In N Out Burger when his kids really start begging for fast food.  

Things have changed since I've been around. I assume that he let his ex-wife (and the kids themselves) take the lead on a lot of things, perhaps because as a guy, he figured that they knew best what girls wanted. When it comes down to it, my boyfriend is incredibly loving and that's the most important thing any parent can do. Many parents THINK they provide their kids with unconditional love but they don't. Many can't, often because they didn't receive unconditional love when they were kids. But my boyfriend truly does. And while that's the #1 most crucial thing any parent can do, but it doesn't give them a free pass on other things - like paying attention to marketing to their own kids.

When we've talked about marketing, my boyfriend noted that his generation was exposed to marketing too and he came out fine. Which is true. Except marketers are so much more sophisticated now that parents who assume that just have NO IDEA what their kids are being exposed to. It's not just the food, but toys too. And while the issues I write about are all food-related, as a step-parent, I can't ignore toys.

I was very grateful that this article forced me to reach out to the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, because their work is excellent. I read through several pages of their site and they effectively state what I have observed but often haven't been able to put into words. All of the marketing these days can zap a kid's creativity. Our little one likes to play pretend, but very often that means just recreating scenes from Disney movies, word for word. She's got Cinderella's official dress AND glass slippers. I've been the wicked stepmother (ironic, huh?), the stepsisters, and the prince. She's ALWAYS Cinderella. It's so cute when she does this (although I HATE participating) but there's very little creativity involved because the story and the script are already written for her.  

I noticed on my own that a lot of the marketing trains children as consumers from a young age. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the Webkinz toys, which our older daughter LOVES. She's got about $600 worth of these stupid stuffed animals, and she logs each one into the Webkinz website and gives it a gender and a name. Then she plays games on the site to win fake money, which she can use to buy stuff for her Webkinz virtual world. The entire goal of the game is the needless accumulation of stuff.  

But Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood points out an even MORE disturbing point. Marketing teaches children that you need to always have newer, bigger, better, and more. What you have now is never enough. Buddhism teaches that pain comes from desire, and by ending desire, one can end pain. In other words, be happy with what you have. And certainly sometimes people have legitimate needs, and it's nice to get a new present or treat once in a while. But does one child need 40 stuffed animals or more? (And yes, she wants more.) This mentality creates unhappiness, as there is always something more to buy and what you have is never enough.

The Government's Plans for Guidelines on Advertising to Kids

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 13:45:50 PM PST

Today's FTC Event: Panel on Self-Regulation of Food Ads to Kids

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 11:59:07 AM PST

Online Advertising and Advergaming Hits Home

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 17:00:01 PM PST

Well... let me share a scene from my home last night. I was in the living room, where my boyfriend's oldest daughter (age 7) was playing on the computer. I figured she was playing Webkinz until I saw the letters "Mc" flash across the screen.

"Hey," I called out. "Are you playing Webkinz?"

"Worse." Called a voice from the kitchen (my boyfriend). "McWorld."

Uh-oh. I wanted to jump up and tell her she wasn't allowed on that website and then explain to her very clearly why McDonald's is awful and so is advertising. Except I didn't. She isn't my child. Besides, that wouldn't be productive. When it comes to these things, it's almost better to just let it pass without making a thing about it, so the child doesn't have to rebel against you by eating MORE McDonalds or spending MORE time on their site. But - there you have it. Advergaming works. Shit.

Sampler Platter 07.27.09

by: JayinPortland

Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 17:35:03 PM PDT

• Marion Nestle takes on 'better' junk food marketing efforts, and also brings us a recap of her recent trip to Fairbanks, Alaska.

• Michigan farm families are having success in going farm-to-door, as more and more Michiganders are eating closer to home.

• School Lunch Talk brings us some info on fast food in schools, and other statistics from America's cafeterias.

• A group of Lane County, Oregon residents seeking to create a pesticide buffer zone around their homes to protect their farms and families from aerial spraying of nearby commercial forest land by helicopters, are gaining traction with their county commissioners.

• Over 100 farmers, entrepeneurs and investors at a "slow money" conference in Madison, Wisconsin today discussed how to finance and rebuild local food systems and infrastructure.

• According to researchers, 90 percent of television food advertisements aimed at American children are for junk foods.  That number is also the same in Germany, while the "lowest" percentage of the 11 countries studied was 50% in Britain and Australia.

• The City of Seattle is making it easier for residents to turn parking strips into gardens.

• Hamburgers are for imperialists, comrade!  North Korea's first fast food restaurant serves "minced beef and bread", instead.

• An "etiquette" question - is it rude to take pictures of your food in a restaurant?  I've done it a few times myself, but I snap my shots quick and low, and preferably when nobody else is around.

Apples and French Fries...

by: JayinPortland

Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

Investigators asked college students to choose foods from menus that differed in only one feature; one menu offered a salad and the other did not.   The point?  To find out whether the presence of a salad on the menu influenced what else the students ate.   It did.   The students choose French fries more often from the menu with the salad.  The authors' interpretation: the "health aura" of salads gives people permission to indulge.

I've noticed that McDonald's seems to be heavily pushing their happy meals with apple slices on television recently, more than they have in the past.  

Besides the fact that McDonald's gets undeserved credit and positive press for, let's face it - treating a healthy, nutritious whole food like an apple as if it were a big red chicken nugget (preserved pre-sliced apples with dipping sauce is kinda defeating the purpose of eating fresh fruit, isn't it?); maybe I'm just being cynical, but the timing on this seems pretty suspicious.  Coming right on the heels of this recent study, I'm thinking their marketing folks aren't much for subtlety...

Finger-Lickin' Good Potholes

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM PDT

This is seriously pathetic. The right has said for years that we should rely on the private sector to do everything. Is this what they meant? Subject our citizens to looking at advertisements for food that is bad for them, just so they don't have to pay for road maintenance with tax dollars?

I heard from a guy who worked in advertising once that advertisers are frustrated by TiVo, pop-up blockers, TV series on DVDs, and all of the other "tricks" consumers have found to avoid looking at their ads. So now I see ads in the trays where you put your laptops and shoes in the security line at the airport. They are clearly looking for every possible space they can find to advertise - including the back of people's shaved heads in the case of one airlines.

And I realize the companies will continue to do this, but in this particular case, fixing the streets is the government's job and it's pathetic that it's turned into a KFC advertising opportunity.

Hat tip to Aliza for sending this to me.

Food Companies Announce Surge

by: JayinPortland

Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:11:06 AM PDT

While the food companies, like other large advertisers, pulled back on their spending as the economy soured, many big foodmakers plan advertising punches in the coming months. The shift comes as consumers worried about rising costs eat at home more and shop with budgets in mind - a trend that's leading many of them to generics, or private-label brands.

So while automakers may be less apt to advertise right now - SUV, anyone? - food companies say they are jumping back in the game. If they want to keep selling their own brands, they've got to keep them in the minds of shoppers.

From Sara Lee Corp.'s new ad campaign with The Walt Disney Co.'s "High School Musical 3: Senior Year" to Kraft's new pizza commercials preaching "DiGiornonomics," consumers should expect to be blitzed by food advertisements in the next year.

This is interesting to me, because I never even noticed that they had cut down on advertising.  It's everywhere I look, and seems just as ubiquitous as it's always been.  But I guess we're in for even more saturation now.

It's also a clear desperation move...and these companies certainly aren't known for their ethical marketing tactics and practices, especially when they perceive themselves as having their backs up against the wall.  I'd say based upon past performance, it's a pretty safe bet that a significant portion of these new ads are going to be aimed at children; or aimed at mothers (it's always mothers, isn't it?  "Hey mom, you're too busy to cook...but now you can feed the kids our cheap corn-based chemical crap right out of the box in seconds!"...) and stressing "convenience" and "value".

A brief look at a few of these campaigns below the fold, and a suggestion or two of my own...

Junk Food Industry Timed Their Release to Coincide with FTC Report

by: OrangeClouds115

Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 15:52:33 PM PDT

The bottom line on the two reports: CBBB concluded that the voluntarily participating F&B companies are indeed complying with their pledges. The FTC, while making several recommendations and stressing that it will continue to monitor the situation closely, referred to progress on the self-regulatory front and did not advocate federal government intervention at this time.

During the press conference releasing their results, FTC officials stated that for the time being, they would "like to see how the self-regulatory process is working" in terms of F&B companies adhering to their CFBAI pledges and adopting the FTC's recommendations. They added that the self-regulatory process "is not yet fully implemented" by companies, and must be implemented "over a period of time."

Big Food's PR spin is making me dizzy. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Advertisers Pay $1.6 Billion (with a B) to Advertise Food to Kids

by: OrangeClouds115

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 23:12:15 PM PDT

Marketing food and drinks to children these days occurs with more than just a few television ads. It involves promotional displays at grocery stores and packaging that directs them to Web sites where they can play games, win prizes or send e-cards to a friend.

$492 million for soda ads alone
The commission studied spending directed at children ages 2-17. Spending on soda marketing came to $492 million, with the vast majority of that spending directed toward adolescents. Fast food restaurants reported spending close to $294 million, which was divided about evenly between children and adolescents. For cereals, companies spent about $237 million, with the vast majority of that targeted to children under age 12.

There's so much to say about all of this and none of it nice. I'm glad that Tom Harkin (D-IA) is paying attention to this problem but I'm a bit disappointed in what he expressed as a soluton:

"This study confirms what I have been saying for years," Harkin said. "Industry needs to step up to the plate and use their innovation and creativity to market healthy foods to our kids. That $1.6 billion could be used to attract our kids to healthy snacks, tasty cereals, fruits and vegetables."

Senator Harkin should know by now that industry isn't going to bother marketing fruits to kids in any sort of significant way. That's not where the money is at.

Breaking: Advertising Works

by: OrangeClouds115

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 10:00:00 AM PDT

Decades of research have shown that the more hours you spend in front of the TV, the more likely you are to be obese. It's not the sedentary nature of television-watching that causes weight gain; it's the exposure to advertising and the food mindlessly consumed while watching, according to experts.

"In part, the advertising is so effective that you find the more people watch TV, then those individuals' diets are more likely to reflect what they see advertised," said Dr. Barbara Dennison, director of the Bureau of Health Risks Reduction at the state

Department of Health. "In other words, advertising is successful."

Children are particularly vulnerable.

In 2007, Stanford University researchers offered 3- to 5-year-olds identical meals of chicken nuggets, french fries, milk and carrots. Between 54 and 77 percent of the kids said the food in McDonald's wrapping tasted better than the food wrapped in plain packaging, leading researchers to comment that "marketing trumps sensory input."

Getting Real Food Into Urban Corner Stores

by: JayinPortland

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:59:47 AM PDT

 Corporate supermarkets have long ago abandoned poor people in these neighborhoods, fleeing to the outer areas of cities and into well-off suburbs.  And unfortunately, the 'food' available in the remaining establishments are mostly limited to potato chips, soda, highly processed microwavable convenience 'foods', and of course loosey cigarettes and malt liquor.  As if the social and economic environments in these neighborhoods of Newark, East Orange, Camden, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc... weren't bad enough, residents also have to deal with toxic food environments that make it near impossible for them and their children to eat healthy.  More than a few groups are currently working towards solutions to this problem from many angles, and projects like the Healthy Corner Stores Network are a great place to at least start to greatly improve upon what already exists in these neighborhoods, before much better permanent solutions can be found and implemented.