Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

So You Think You Can Raise a Brand-Free Kid?

By Colleen Kimmett, The Tyee. Posted November 5, 2007.


From day one, you've got to fight Disney and the Winnie the Pooh.
Advertisement

Parents, be warned: It takes only a single visit to McDonald's for your child to get hooked on the greasy stuff for life.

Okay, so that's an exaggeration. But the three-year-old son of Angela Verbrugge still remembers his one and only meal under the golden arches. Which has Verbrugge worried.

And Kyla Epstein swears if her young son Max ever wants to eat there, he'll be doing it on his own dime.

These parents aren't raging against the health detriments of fast food. Instead, they are making a conscious effort to limit the amount of branding and advertising their kids are exposed to in all aspects of their lives; what they eat, wear, watch and play with.

It's not easy. Brands are everywhere -- literally.

Disney 24/7

Genevieve McMahon says she experienced an "eye-opening" moment the first time she bought disposable diapers for her newborn daughter Imogen, who was then too small for the cloth variety her parents preferred.

"We were unpacking them to put them in her drawer and realized there were Walt Disney Winnie the Pooh characters all over them," she says.

"It was at that point when we were like, oh wow ... it's everywhere. I mean, she's not even conscious and yet here they are advertising. I'm staring at it everyday. And eventually...she's going to recognize them."

Exactly. In her book Buy Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds, Susan Gregory Thomas explores the widespread and controversial phenomenon of using spokes-characters in advertising to young children.

She describes one study in which toddlers are shown a made-up commercial with a mouse character. The researcher's hypothesis? If the mouse was seen eating a certain kind of cracker, when given a choice later, the child would choose those same crackers.

The study didn't support that hypothesis, but what it did demonstrate is the amazing capacity of young children for character recognition. What surprised the researchers is that many children were able to recognize the mouse later, even if they didn't appear to be paying much attention to the TV screen.

Plethora of Dora

"The chief piece of learning that very young children mastered from watching characters on television was the ability to recognize them," Gregory Thomas writes.

Epstein, for one, is clearly frustrated with this kind of character prevalence. She remembers trying to find a Spanish-language picture book for Max, 11 months.

"Everything was Dora!" she exclaims, referring to the popular Dora the Explorer animated kid's show about a 7-year-old latina girl and her friends.

"I don't want all his books to all be TV characters."

Licensed characters are huge moneymakers for companies. In 2005, Winnie the Pooh earned Disney $6.2 billion in retail sales, according to Gregory Thomas, second only to the mouse.

Verbrugge believes all of this merchandising is the real problem, not necessarily the characters themselves.

"They're trying to sell kids other products, from clothing to bedding...there always needs to be something else that they're striving to buy," she says.

"It scares me when I see advertisements that showcase all these different products that show the child being engaged with a toy," she says.

"They're saying all the right things in the voiceover about baby learning and interactivity...yet you just want to take that baby and turn him around to face the mom and have her play a simple game of patty-cake."

Parents as sitting ducks

All the parents interviewed said they feel targeted by advertisers, and indeed, the desire to make one's child happy is a powerful marketing tool.

Verbrugge, who used to work as a consultant on projects related to children's online activities, says she attended many marketing conferences as part of her job.

"It taught me how sophisticated marketers are in reaching people, and more and more how integrated marketing is in everything we see and do," she says.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: child raising, brands, advertising

Colleen Kimmett is on staff of The Tyee.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What's so dnagerous?
Posted by: eltiki on Nov 5, 2007 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry but the prevailing wisdom that branding destroys our minds is wrong. Bad parenting destroys minds. Branding does not prevent critical thinking, only censoring the dominant reality does. This doesn't mean that I agree with branding to kids, but it's the parents that need education. Talk to your kids about it-- they are intelligent. But don't block reality from them, it will only make it more attractive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» no kids yourself? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: no kids yourself? Posted by: eltiki
» brain damage? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» the money god Posted by: bluebirdella
» Kill your TV Posted by: EJW
» RE: Kill your TV Posted by: eltiki
» RE: Kill your TV Posted by: EJW
» RE: Mumble. Mumble. Posted by: eltiki
» BRANDING means CREATING OWNERSHIP Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Overparenting
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 5, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the day, I'm sure parents were pressured to buy their kids glow-in-the-dark decoder rings, Davy Crocket hats, Betty Boop lunch boxes, and so on. The difference today is that kids are the center of the universe, and advertisers are taking advantage of that.

That corporate-industrial-plastic Winnie the Pooh Happy Meal is not what's going to ruin them. It's mom and dad following them around all day trying to make them happy, be their best buddy, protect them from everything, overeducate them, live vicariously through them, and turn them into little versions of themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» KepStein is lost in the mists of time... Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
the limits of "no no no"
Posted by: hagwind on Nov 5, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Long time ago I was at a small dinner party in Northern Ireland where nearly all the guests were left of center academics. One woman, a socialist and Labour Party activist, was talking about raising children -- her three-year-old son was among the kids at the party -- and especially about the prospect of her kid growing up and doing or believing things she strenuously disagreed with. "I just don't know," she said, "what I'd do if he grew up to be a fascist." My immediate hunch was that her kid was going to do exactly that, or at least he was going to go through a serious skinhead stage.

I lost touch and have no idea how this kid turned out, but I've seen similar scenarios play out over the years. Parents (often mothers) make a huge deal about not letting their kids have Barbies or toy guns or candy (etc.) and as soon as the kid is old enough to slip the leash for a few hours a day s/he's indulging to the max. This is not new -- when I was in elementary school, most kids whose moms packed an apple or an orange into their lunchboxes would be trading it for Hostess Snowballs as soon as they got to school.

I'm glad the author (and the commenters above) emphasized conversation and context, but that part doesn't get through to a lot of parents, even the ones who should know better: most of them went through a stage in which they spat out or barfed up everything their parents tried to stuff down their throats, and in some cases the "stage" turned out to be lifelong. "Obey" and "Disobey" are flip sides of the same coin. What we're real short of in this country is people who can evaluate information, figure out what they want and need, and think for themselves -- even when the thoughts contradict what their parents and neighbors and co-workers assume to be true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the limits of "no no no" Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: the limits of "no no no" Posted by: goeswithness
» RE: the limits of "no no no" Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: the limits of "no no no" Posted by: plantsareneat
» RE: the limits of "no no no" Posted by: Zenobia
» RE: the limits of "no no no" Posted by: hagwind
Winnie the Pooh?
Posted by: colinmeister on Nov 5, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a now middle-aged man, I can look back to my childhood in the 1950s with fond memories of Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, and other characters from the classic childrens' books by A.A. Milne. Early on, my mother would read the books to me and show me the pencil sketches, when I learned to read, I read them for myself.

Unfortunately, the heirs to Milne's estate made the decision to sell out to Disney, a company driven solely by filthy lucre. Of course Disney will exploit children, and anyone else - it is their sworn duty to their stockholders to make as much money as possible. I wonder how Milne himself would regard Disney's use of his characters? I don't seem to remember any of the characters in Milne's books being rewarded for greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And watch out for those plush toys
Posted by: war_on_tara on Nov 5, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dan Savage, the sex advice columnist, has provided a forum for the problems of adults in their 20s who now find themselves sexually turned on by plush toys. This phenomenon was news to Dan, who's around 40.

Plush toys have been around since the teddy bear was invented a century ago, and none of us oldsters got turned on by them, so Dan guessed that their sheer ubiquity and commercialism during the last two decades is to blame. We're raising a generation of plush toy pervs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Media Literacy
Posted by: Jo1028 on Nov 5, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my daughter was 8, she did a study unit at school called 'No More Meat!' It posed the question, and the kids had to find nutritional substitutes, create a product, figure out how to advertise and market that new meat substitute. In the course of the project, they studied nutritional values, and advertising methods - she watched food commercials for a week - and after a day or so - she announced - I get it! They just trying to sell you their stuff!! She's never since been a slave to advertising and now is raising three sons to think critically about how they spend their money. We worry so much about literacy, but rarely do our schools pay attention to helping kids learn how to critically analyze the media that pervades their lives. The Center for Media Literacy is a beacon in this fight - check it out; they have developed some terrific instructional materials for schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Media Literacy Posted by: homebrewmike
» RE: Media Literacy Posted by: katfrelov
middle of the road?
Posted by: goeswithness on Nov 5, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My mother bought us basically what we wanted for Christmas and birthdays, but we, by no means didn't get everything on our lists - I think that's an important lesson right there. She bought us the things we wanted, but with a healthy dose of cynicism. She didn't go on and on about it, but she told us that advertising was silly and manipulative, pointed out how the messages are designed to make you want their product so they could make money. It was enough to make us think, while not overdoing it and making us feel like we were missing out on something all the other kids had.

It's hard to know. My neice now loooves Bratz and has one of those Bratz leap-pad books. It's mainly clothes and fashion, just as superficial as you can imagine it being, with just enough "educational" features to count. One was a match game between great and famous women (Sojourner Truth, Marie Curie, Indira Gandhi, etc.) and what they'd accomplished. The information was entirely without context and probably accomplished very little, but I looked over one day and she was playing it. I told her "you know, if those women thought about nothing but clothes and boys, they'd never have been able to do the important things that they did." I hope I wasn't too snarky with her. I want to point out the other side of the story, not slam her for what her interests are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nonsense. Disney can be DEFEATED. Here's how.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 5, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop watching the television and learn both the eastern and western values and pass them to your kids and you'll never regret it. Lastly, NEVER EVER give up on MODERATION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the scariest thing about consumer culture...
Posted by: madaha on Nov 5, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that it creates a LACK of choice by this over-saturation of the market! One has a hard time finding books for kids without tv characters on them? how crappy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong with Disney?
Posted by: WitchyNy on Nov 5, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was five years old I saw the movie BAMBI. The next morning at breakfast I looked down at the slab of beef on my plate and said-"Cows are like deer- aren't they?"
That was it.
Fifty years later-I still don't eat meat. Did not need a whole lot of intellectual college age soul searching and research---I had seen BAMBI after all.

I grew up on the dreams of Disney-PETER PAN-fly way from your parents and have fun and adventure--SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON-build your own alternative housing and life--close to nature-(and they were draft-dodgers-too -by the way)

When my kids were growing up there was POCAHANTAS-complete with an old AIM member Indian-and the beautiful- beautiful POLITICAL music. As well as the feminist message. (and a handsome sturdy husband who builds handsome sturdy walls...)

And BEAUTY AND THE BEST-making fun of traditional male dominant values..."you are a pretty girl -throw that book in the mud-and desire Me-I am a MAN-everywhere I have lots and lots of HAIR!

I could go on forever. What today's American familys need are MORE trips to Disneyland-not less. (I know they can't afford it-that is the point)

Much as Corporations are the main problem with the world today-I would say Disney is one of the exceptions.
Parents could do a lot worse than raising their kids on the values of Disney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where to get your moral values? Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
Worked for me
Posted by: l_m_n on Nov 5, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or, my parents, that is.

I'm almost 20. I was one of those kids who was marketed to relentlessly. My parents had to make a conscious effort to keep me out of the clutches of Disney. There was one simple rule: no wearing of any branded merchandise. No Little Mermaid underwear, no Aladdin light-up shoes, no Winnie the Pooh backpacks.. etc. My friends all had them, and while I remember feeling jealous, I didn't really get what all the fuss was about.

And it worked. I have 0 loyalty to Disney and a lot of disgust for their ability to destroy the imagination of children.

As a side-note, they didn't buy me Barbies, either, although they let me keep the ones I got as gifts. Even at the time (8, 9 years old) I was just irritated by those friends' parents who picked out such things. It was a cop-out. It meant you didn't have to know the kid, or even care about the kid. And it screams of laziness.

I think that's why Disney marketing works so well. From my experience the average parent is not interested in spending the time and effort it takes to really open a kid's brain, and is more interested in the instant gratification of succumbing to the child's wishes and seeing that smile upon their face.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good products don't need advertising!
Posted by: Rohnica on Nov 5, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's up to parents to teach children about marketing and advertising. I started talking to my kids when they were about 5 or 6 about how TV commercials are just trying to get them to buy something - and how they make the products look better and do more than reality. My son got it right away. He understands that really good toys don't need to be sold via commercials -if they are great products, word of mouth marketing will ensure that he knows about them. Now, he is very skeptical of anything being sold on TV and will tell his friends that he is sure the product will NOT work as shown on TV. He is also aware of the economics around producing products in China and the quality of most of those products. He watches commercials with a critical eye and is able to make good decisions with his own money - not because I protect him from the marketers, but because I taught him about the marketers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

black and white
Posted by: in Upstate NY on Nov 5, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I am not a fan of coporate advertising, I find that I cannot divorce myself and my child from the mainstream world. I see it only detrimental to raise him in a bubble. What then happens when he is 18 and knows nothing of the mainstream or believes that everything/every person/every practice therein is suspect?

I am the child of immigrants and know the hardship of being brought up outside the mainstream. I also know the hardship of being taught to be suspicious of the entire culture around me.

On the other hand, the corporate adverising, although wrapped up in snuggly spokes-characters, is hardly innocuous.

Rather than being suspicious of all the branded characters around us, my husband and I thought that the pervasiveness of electronic media is actually the problem on two levels. One is definitely the adverstising. I can still sing jingles from 40 years ago. The other problem with pervasive media is that it can interfere with actual living, and it also promotes a false sense of direct knowledge of the world. (I don't know how many times I have thought, "They didn't do that in the '50's," to be brought up short with the idea that my only "direct" access to the '50's is through "Leave It to Beaver.")

For children especially, electronic media impinges on their creativity, and drains the real world of its vibrancy. TV and electronic games are overstimulating, making the real world seem but a pale imitation.

So we opted for a compromise and unplugged from cable TV; the availability of electronic media was relegated to Prime Time: after 6 p.m. This would force our child to engage with others, the physical world and books. On the other hand, he would still be aware of what was engaging other children he met.

And finally, we engage him and pay attention to how he sees things as well. Although we did refuse to buy him gameboys, etc., I did not stop him either when he saved up or earned his own money to shell out for those (wasted) products. It took some ingenuity and patience on his part to come up with $150.

He is almost 12 now, and at some point in time soon he will be an adult and have to live by his own values. With any luck, he will not reject everything we taught him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: black and white Posted by: EJW
» RE: black and white Posted by: in Upstate NY
» RE: black and white Posted by: EJW
It does backfire on them at times
Posted by: arborman on Nov 5, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like when the marketeers produce humorously titled books like
Cooking with Pooh. Seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

setting the stage
Posted by: bluebirdella on Nov 5, 2007 6:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My youngest child (who has learning disabilities and at the age of 8 still has trouble with beginning reading) could identify corporate logos almost as soon as he could speak. Which leads me to believe that he could read if English were in pictograms. Meanwhile, if I were to do it all over again, I wouldn't have had a television, my kids wouldn't have seen all those cartoon characters at home, and I would never have let my children know there was such a thing as a toy store until they heard about it from someone else. I would have refused to take them to McDonald's (which is what my mother did with me) and would have insisted upon a vegetarian household full of organic cotton clothing made in America by well-paid workers. Well, I didn't do all that, and now it's too late. The cat's out of the bag. Part of the problem is that anyone not comfortably middle class is limited in what they can afford - the best options are often the most expensive. In retrospect I'd say it's probably a good idea to limit a young child's exposure to consumer culture in all its forms, including grocery shopping trips to mainstream supermarkets lined with sugary cereals that are being pimped to kids by cartoon characters. The marketing messages are everywhere. Even at the school Book Fair, "Scholastic" trots out dozens of books about cartoon and video game characters - everything going on out there is about merchandising to kids, selling toys, and most of all selling the message that more is better. It's not that cartoons are bad, it's how kids are marketed to constantly, systematically - just like the rest of us. They see the stuff, they want the stuff. It's kind of unavoidable. If they don't know it exists, so much the better, but sooner or later they will find out. I try to talk to them about what getting Things can and can't do for them - as well as where it comes from, and how marketing messages work, so they can be armed with that knowledge going in. We're not mainstream, and our kids will be critical thinkers to the extent they come from a minority home culture where not everything they see in the larger community is a given. They are predisposed by us to ask questions about what is outside the norm for them. In the end, "do as I say, not as I do," just doesn't work. How we live our lives will communicate more strongly to them than anything we might explain or argue. The harsh reality is my relationship with money and stuff is about the same as my parents'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Market models and such
Posted by: talkville on Nov 6, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're way beyond the point of branded and brand-free kids (or adults); the wily marketeers in think tanks far and wide are already well entrenched in newer 'concepts' such as: the kid IS the brand because the kid IS the commodity. Buck nekked or fully clothed, at home or at the play-ground, in school or on the soccer fields, wherever and whenever, once one is of "the Pepsi Generation" there's an oddly coherent and vaguely IDENTIFIABLE quality to the ways of those kids! They can recognize themselves amongst the crowds. They can 'relate'. They're in on the same 'fads', the same 'trends'.

They'll grow up, sippin' on a Pepsi product at different times, and enter the work-force and interview and hire each other based on subtle recognitions, much like the "Harvard or the Princeton, or the Yale Ties".

It's been going on a while, at least since the late '70's. Today, the Commodity Parents (and even Grandparents occasionally!) are raising Commodity Kids, equipped with brands like "Life-style" and "Image" inside the vast, dizzying, swirl of another brand called "Choices". We buy and sell in the vast "Market" both brands and Brands, exchanging, distributing, producing and consuming ourselves and our things, moment by moment, day by day, year by year. We are IMMERSED in Utopia, and there's nothing outside it.

Then again, maybe no-body will Buy this. Oh, well. I AM just one brand, there's a world out there of others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW!
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 6, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A sitting member of Congress is introducing a measure to impeach the vice president of the United States and the story isn't visible on Alternet. This should be the leading story on a website that bills itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream. Some alternative! More like left gatekeeper.

For those who are interested in doing something constructive about our current state of affairs, please call your representative and urge them to support Mr. Kucinich's bill. The Capitol switchboard is:

1-800-828-0498
1-800-862-5530
1-800-833-6354

Just ask the operator for your representative's office. If you don't know it, tell her/him where you live and she/he will look it up. Once transferred to your representative's office, politely tell the person who answers the phone that you urge your representative to support Kucinich's articles of impeachment against the vice president. You will probably be asked for your name and address.

I just did this. It's the first time I had ever called my representative (Rodney Frelinghuysen in NJ). It was easy and I felt better after doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DOCUMENTARY TO WATCH: Corporations in the Classroom
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Nov 7, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations in the Classroom

from "MakeBelieve Media":
Corporations in the Classroom is a one-hour documentary film investigating the upside and the downside of increasing corporate influence on public education in North America. When public education funding was slashed in the 1980s, America opened its doors to corporations’ deep pockets. As Canadian schools faced budget shortfalls a decade later, most of the country followed suit.

With virtually no regulation in place the line between corporate social responsibility and back door marketing opportunities is blurring. As these grassroots philosophical battles erupt on our nightly newscasts, this timely film asks the question:
should our schools be a sacred place where we educate our future citizens free of commercial messages?

Or should it be a microcosm of the outside world where access is sold to the highest bidder?
Corporations in the Classroom, directed by Jill Sharpe (Girls Don’t Fight, Culture Jam) & produced by Lynn Booth (Paris Stories, Secrets) aired on Global Currents with Kevin Newman on April 7, 2007 at 7pm.

===
We have taken our eyes of the powerful corporate backed government for too long.

Politicians have allowed a federal free zone for corporations to use the education landscape as a new wild west where lawlessness is viewed as enterprise and crossing the line is viewed as courageous entrepreneurialism.

So now corporations have anesthetized our senses to allow mind control and guerrilla consumerism to infect the virgin minds of our children. Schools are being turned into thought factories and assembly lines are the format for ideas



DOCUMENTARY VIDEO


BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian.com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Babies learn young
Posted by: John Sawyer on Nov 9, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree with most of the ideas in the article, I have a small bone to pick with the "revelation" that "The chief piece of learning that very young children mastered from watching characters on television was the ability to recognize them". I hope this would happen--if a kid watched a character on TV and didn't recognize it later, I'd be worried. I remember being in the crib and picking up on these things. We've long known that kids pick up on things from an early age--the more the better--we're little learning machines from the start. I think this part of the article is merely stating the rediscovery of this fact by the researchers, in a scientific setting, which is the only setting some people seem to believe. We need to keep awareness of these things in the culture, so we can act on them sooner, instead of waiting to have them rediscovered by researchers. But I'm not knocking the research or the researchers, who often find other facts that aren't as obvious in a non-controlled/scientific study.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good and bad
Posted by: John Sawyer on Nov 9, 2007 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people point out that some of the ideas pushed by many companies, in their products, ads, and in some branding in general, can be helpful--after all, they're selling things we use, like cars, etc. There's a post above that points out that Disney has promoted, over the years, some good values, and not just products. To a certain degree that can be true, but the bottom line is that their concern is to sell to us, and not necessarily to sell us the things we really need, work the best, last the longest, are the least toxic, etc.--their concern is to sell to us. That shapes everything they do. And so we get many things that break easily, don't work well if at all, make us sick, and in many ways, influence our thinking in unhealthy ways. And many companies know that a good hook is to mix decent values in with their company's products--many car ads promote the values of family, "hold on tight to your dreams", etc., while selling you on a big hunk of steel that, while it can help you with some of those goals by being a mode of transportation, actually doesn't go any farther than that--but they try to make you think it goes beyond that, and that’s where the warpage starts.

Companies try to make us think that everything they have to sell, is of some value. While most people aren't taken in by the nonsensical part of their output, many people are; at the very least, it makes for a somewhat unpleasant source of background noise we have to filter out. That's our concern, and it's not theirs--they don't care since those are their chosen tools. Walt Disney had some decent goals, and implemented many of them (and had a few less-than-decent aspects as well, some of which may have influenced his company's output), but he knew the value of pure commercialism as well, and it's our job not to welcome that aspect into our lives along with the better stuff they produce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]