| Author |
Message |
    
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:18 pm: | 
|
I thought this was a well written book review (by a 5th grade Milwaukee teacher)from the web journal, "Rethinking Schools" on a topic I don’t see discussed much in detail. I’ve always felt it is important to educate children to be resistant to media influences, but these authors think that will only go so far to prevent media manipulation. They both make a case for stronger regulations. to “de-commercialize” childhood.
BOOK REVIEWS
Commercialized Kids/Born to Buy
Winter 2004/2005
By Bob Peterson
Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood
By Susan Linn.
(New Press, 2004)
288 pp. $24.95 hardback.
Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
By Juliet Schor (Scribner, 2004)
276 pp. $24.95 hardback.
A few years ago an incident occurred in my classroom that made me realize the extent to which commercialism had taken control of my 10-year-old students. I had an unexpected visitor—an Australian teacher-union official—and hadn't done any prep with my students. After observing my students doing a role play, the visitor asked them what they knew of Australia. I had expected a chorus of "kangaroos and koala bears," but instead, the most enthusiastic response came from a number of students who called out, "Foster beer! That's where Foster beer comes from."
I was dumbfounded, not because the students showed a brazen lack of brand loyalty to the beers that made Milwaukee famous, but that they knew anything at all about Australian beer. "How do you know that?" I blurted out before my guest could even respond.
"TV. Haven't you seen those really cool commercials?" one student explained, while several others nodded in agreement.
This is just one small example of what Susan Linn calls the "hostile takeover of childhood" and what Juliet Schor describes as "corporate-constructed" childhood. Both writers have penned masterpieces that describe the juggernaut of corporate and media influences that are redefining childhood to serve corporate profit.
The two books, Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture by Schor and Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood by Linn, are so stuffed with data and facts that they might convince some people to pack up their kids and move to the Northwoods without a television—or to Sweden, which, Schor explains, has banned advertising directed at children under 12 years old.
Both books are "must-reads" for teachers, parents, media reform advocates, and policymakers. Either one would make a wonderful holiday gift for a friend or relative who struggles daily to limit their children's consumption of media.
Schor, an expert on consumerism and economics who teaches at Boston College, has conducted her own research and draws on a myriad of other studies to demonstrate that children are indeed "born to buy" in the United States. She looks at the problem from several vantage points, with chapters on the history of children's consumption, the content of commercial messages, the omnipresence of advertising, the commercialization of public schools, corporate research, and the impact of advertising on children's health and well being. She concludes with a chapter that explores how we as a society might start de-commercializing childhood.
Linn, an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is co-founder of the coalition Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children and was recently featured in the popular documentary The Corporation. Linn starts off describing her experience of spending 36 hours at the fifth annual Advertising and Promoting to Kids Conference and then covers much of the same ground as Schor. Linn has a whole chapter on what is called the "Nag Factor" by marketing researchers. According to Linn, advertisers spent $15 billion last year getting kids to nag their parents to buy products—including "adult" products like cars. Linn titles one chapter "From Barbie and Ken to Britney, the Bratz, and Beyond: Sex as a Commodity" where she relates the statistic that 64 percent of the sexually active teens name the media—not parents, friends, or teachers—as their source of information on sex.
Linn also goes after the alcohol and tobacco industries, pointing out that in 2001, alcohol companies spent more than $31 million for ads during 13 of the 15 most popular shows among kids ages 12 to 17, including Friends and That Seventies Show.
Schor and Linn both convincingly argue that things are qualitatively different than just a few decades ago. The purchasing power of young people has exploded, and the amount of money corporations spend on advertising directed at children annually is $15 billion compared to a mere $100 million in television advertising spent in 1983. The impact is noticeable. Kids spend most of their non-school/non-sleep time watching TV, playing video games, and shopping. As Schor writes, "marketed leisure has replaced unstructured socializing, and most of what kids do revolves around commodities."
In addition to increased disposable income and advertising money directed at children, another more subtle change has occurred: Lines between childhood and adulthood have blurred. Today's children have earlier and more frequent exposure to the adult world—from the sexually explicit antics of MTV performers to the sexual innuendoes in car commercials and most sitcoms. Media assumptions that "kids are getting older younger" has pushed violent and sexual media content down to younger and younger children.
According to Schor, "Kids can recognize logos by 18 months, and before their second birthday, they're asking for products by brand names. By three or three-and-a-half, experts say, children start to believe that brands communicate their personal qualities, for example that they're cool, or strong, or smart . . . Upon arrival at the schoolhouse steps, the typical first grader can evoke 200 brands."
There are also the inside stories. Both Linn and Schor have managed to attend marketing conferences and have had very frank conversations with marketing experts. What they have to share can be described as nothing less than frightening. A vice-president of marketing at Nickelodeon stated, "Product preferences develop at a much earlier age than anyone had ever thought. . . . As people begin to understand this, to see how brand loyalty transfers to adulthood, there is almost nothing that won't be advertised for children."
A former food marketer told Schor, "I think there are some [products] out there that are downright offensive and disgusting, that just offend me with what pure unadulterated, unapologetic crap they are. But we have products to sell and money to be made and there's definitely a market for these things."
What Can We Do?
Both Schor and Linn admit that changing the current crush of commercialism will be difficult. Schor acknowledges that "global corporations may continue as the primary architects of children's futures." But, she hastens to add, "a different future is possible too." She says, "Parents and children might come together to recapture childhood from the global giants and put in place a culture that is captivating, healthy, and empowering."
Linn cautions that while "media literacy" is "essential to functioning in the modern world," it's far from a solution to "marketplace manipulation." She believes a focus on media literacy "places the onus for protecting children on parents, teachers, and children themselves" and lets the marketing experts "off the hook."
Specific regulatory proposals by both Linn and Schor deserve support from individual teachers, parents, and policymakers, but even more importantly from parent organizations, teacher unions, and religious and community organizations.
The media reform movement that has gained currency in recent years would do well to see the protection of children as a way to build broad support for reforms that ultimately need to be made to protect everyone. It's hard to say whether such reforms are possible. It's important to acknowledge that it is not just a problem of "market manipulators" or "marketing experts." Economic life in our society is built around the market's quest to achieve the highest rate of profit possible. Because corporate control of childhood is an inherent impulse in this system, organizations need to build that awareness into their organizing. These two books are essential resources that will strengthen efforts to protect children from commercial exploitation.
Bob Peterson is a Rethinking Schools editor and teaches fifth grade at La Escuela Fratney in Milwaukee.
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/19_02/comm192.shtml |
Mayor McCheese
Citizen
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 182
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
I'm kind of split on this. Part of me thinks it's pretty sick that all this advertising preys on children. The Foster's example is not good either, I could see a 16 or 17 years old knowing Foster's, but 10?
On the other hand, the writers of this book are just exploiting the adults who now view this as a problematic pattern. So, the advertisers exploit the children, the authors of these books target and advertise to adults. It is an endless cycle. The next authors will make money on publishing books about those who exploit the adults through mentioning the exploitation of the children.
Still, it is sad how some of this advertising affects children.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 523
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Our national pastime is shopping, and a visit to any NJ shopping mall on a Saturday or Sunday should be sufficient indicators, so we can't wonder that children pick up quickly on ad content.
They are already very "brand conscious" by the time they are half-way through elementary school. They accompany us adults on shopping excursions to the mall and watch as we pick through what we want, or watch and take lessons as we overdose on catalog and website shopping.
If children and their adults stayed away from shopping malls and from website purchases for a two week period, we would probably throw the economy into a panic, so inured have we become to the "beneficial effects" of constant spending.
It'd be nice if our children grew up without feeling that "shopping" for "barely necessities" wasn't a part of the routine.
Sorry about the rambling thoughts. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 950
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
I don't like commercials pushed on children, but I also don't like these studies that neglect to include theparent's role in shielding children from advertising.
Foster's ads aren't run on PBS or Nick, why are the kids watching TV shows that have liquor sponsors?
I'm all for "protecting the children", but adults are just as vulnerable as children to advertising. I venture that children who aren't a bit suspicious about ads live with parents who feel the same way.
|
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:39 pm: |
|
There's no doubt advertising has a profound impact on children. When my son was 5 he asked for something at a store. When I said it was expensive and we didn't have enough money he said "Go to H&R Block and get a RapidRefund!".
It was funny, but apalling. |
ML
Supporter
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Is this all that different from when we were kids? By age 10, I and most of my friends knew that Schaefer was the beer when you were "having more than one," and that Reingold was "the dry beer." Not to mention that we also knew that you could "take Salem out of the country, but you can't take the country out of Salem," and "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should."
btw -- despite knowing all that, I've never smoked, never bought Schaefer, and only once bought a Reingold out of a sense of weird nostalgia. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
ML, I pretty much agree. Some days I think there's just way too much analysis and attendant worry because now folks are doing the analysis...Even when radio was king there were lots of commercials aimed at kids. Just that (IMHO) parents said "no" more and made it stick...and in that, I agree with Lydia.
Ne-ver pick up a strang-er
Don't put your car in dang-er
Ne-ver pick up a strang-er
Pick up Prestone..Antifreeze!
Still remember it after all these years...and I think I first heard it when I was younger than 10. |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
I doubt the authors of these books will earn a small fraction of the annual advertising profit of marketing to children so I don't understand the hostility to their investigations. How can you assume the motives of those that write books is the same as those that work in corporations? Do you think the advertisers would continue to spend so much money if they were not realizing profits? The authors of the books state that they are just looking to start grass roots support for efforts to control what they see as out of control influence.
I also found the responses to this review sort of surprisingly mild considering the some of the statistics presented in the review--
--corporations spend $15 billion annually on advertising directed at children compared to a mere $100 million in television advertising spent in 1983.
--. Kids spend most of their non-school/non-sleep time watching TV, playing video games, and shopping.
---. Media assumptions that "kids are getting older younger" has pushed violent and sexual media content down to younger and younger children.
---64 percent of the sexually active teens name the media—not parents, friends, or teachers—as their source of information on sex.
-- in 2001, alcohol companies spent more than $31 million for ads during 13 of the 15 most popular shows among kids ages 12 to 17, including Friends and That Seventies Show.
Clearly, the focus is much more intense than when we were all whistling about Winston. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
I hear you, nan. But some of those shows shouldn't be watched by younger kids and/or the parents should be doing the censoring/educating.
I've heard the "kids are getting older younger" idea, and I think it's true, too. But I'm not willing to let parents abdicate. I've also heard that traditional toy sales are down because kids stop playing with them at a younger age. So, I agree with with the authors are saying just maybe don't draw the same conlusion regarding regulation.
I'm not one but some parents do eliminate the tv altogether, except as player of DVDs. And also "censor" the music purchased, and the magazines and media that come into the house for these and other reasons. I'm more the type to talk about it with my kid than try to elminate it (though certain CDs will not come into this house). |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 952
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
nan, I agree that marketing to children can be a problem - but it is adults who purchase the toys and junk food for the children and reinforce to their children that the advertisements are valid.
I think there's a trend w/ educated middle to upper-middle class parents towards an overwrought style of raising their children.
There are umpteen studies by experts who identify all the dangers lurking in our schools, in the pages of magazines, and on our TV ready to destroy our children, but very few studies tell parents to simply concentrate more on child rearing.
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:18 pm: |
|
Cynicalgirl & Lydia,
I remember back in the 1990s when I did student teaching in a 3-4 grade class in Manhattan. There was a Russian girl who was failing to learn because her English as so poor and who operated in a foggy self-contained world. The first time I went over to help her with her frustrated attempt to do some school work, she suddenly brightened up and broke out in a huge smile and exclaimed, "Calvin Klein! I LOVE your glasses! They are Calvin Klein that's a good brand!" Considering that the girl could barely read, and seemed to have no interest in learning it was quite a commentary on the power of advertising.
That's the story that came to my mind when I read this review.
I have not yet read either of these books, but just from the review, and other reading I have done, I'd say there are some issues here that are not being covered. Here's a few that come to mind.
1) What about the kids that don't have vigilant, knowledgeable parents? Don't they deserve to be protected from overzealous marketers too?
2) What about poor parents that cannot afford these expensive items? Why should the kids, who don't know any better, be brainwashed to think their parents are somehow inferior if they can't get them the toys that are shown to be appealing and necessary?
3) What about the increased marketing to kids in schools? That's not an area a parent can have control over. Due to funding issues, this is probably going to be an even bigger problem.
4) What does this say about our values as a society? Do we really want to live in a community, with an increasing separation between the haves and the have nots with a huge focus on owning specific branded products?
|
Cathy
Supporter
Username: Clkelley
Post Number: 709
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:19 pm: |
|
I agree that advertising to kids is terrible, but don't see how we could make it go away. (other than instilling a moral backbone in the advertisers, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.)
In the meantime, we don't watch commercial TV in our house. This is a very simple solution, and my daughter (7 yo) doesn't seem to mind at all.
The rules are: No TV at all on school nights. On weekends and holidays, DVDs, videos, PBS kids are OK. (she never watches PBS kids any more though.) Sometimes we watch a good movie on TCM. This probably sounds stuffy, but we honestly don't miss TV at all. |
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I thank God every time my kid sees a Cialas, Viagra, Levitra, Tampax, etc. commercial and does not ask me to expound...
|
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 954
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
Nan,
quote:What about poor parents that cannot afford these expensive items? Why should the kids, who don't know any better, be brainwashed to think their parents are somehow inferior if they can't get them the toys that are shown to be appealing and necessary?
It's my experience that poor parents are often the ones most vulnerable to advertising and spend beyond their means to provide name-brand goodies for their kids.
It's not the fault of poor parents, it goes into deeper economic and social pressures than I can cover in this brief post.
When you don't have anything, brand names can be an unspoken message to the outside world that you have resources and choices.
"Old money" families pride themselves on subtle class cues like old cashmere sweaters and dock shoes that have actually been on docks.
Toys should not be class indicators but they are, and sometimes they reveal the opposite of what the buyer intends.
It comes down to the parents and their values and investment in being parents and not pals.
Explaining that you don't approve of a toy but your child can save up for it is much harder than buying it outright for them.
Harder still is when the toy they saved up for is junky and breaks and initiating a discussion about that.
We had that discussion with both of my girls and it was worth it. My initial impulse was to buy the toy, but now my girls know that most of the toys they see on TV don't provide the same level of enjoyment that the TV kids portray.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Given that children will spend their entire lives as the targets of advertisers, its makes sense to teach them from a young age to be skeptical of what they see and hear on the media.
We give our own children good allowances and generally allow them to save and buy whatever they like. Over the years, we've seen quite a few dollars spent on items we wouldn't have chosen ourselves, but by and large the kids have taken ownership of their decisions and they've become good at recognizing value for money.
Even things that seem grotesquely overpriced (like trading cards or new skateboard bearings) are often quite reasonable when you consider how many hours of enjoyment the kids get from them.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
nan, my thoughts:
2: A lot of us deal with this, right now, and the way we deal with it is explanation. There are many things my family cannot do and buy that seem to be norms around here for a lot of kids. Certain kinds of lessons, trips to Disney World, type of house, etc. I explain money, and career/job choices. And luck. Is my kid happy about it? No, and neither are we, but it is what it is right now and foreseeable future. With diverse schools (economically and otherwise) this will happen, and there's no getting around it. To me, the real issue is not judging each other based on stuff, but rather character, personalilty, talents and accomplishments.
3: I am against the situation where the school gets something for, say, having only Snapple or Coke or whatever. Or even Stonyfields yogurt. That is appropriately within our control.
4: Maybe it will politicize them. Not really joking, but this is the truth of present U.S. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
And this is what happens when children grow up: My cousin and his wife have a guest bathroom in their new house with a Tommy Hilfiger theme (towels, rug, shower curtain, soap dispenser, etc.). I find it very disturbing. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5670
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
So Refugee, your kids already know what those products are for. Or if they don't, they will soon, and you won't be the one to tell them, unless you volunteer to, before they ask. It's uncomfortable, but not telling them is worse than telling them. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Sometimes I can't even tell what they're for! You know, those drug company adds that are kind of vague but show a happy person?
Could be bladder control, sexual dysfunction, depression, heartburn....they just tell you to "Ask your doctor if _____ is right for you." |
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Agreed Tom; however, my daughter is only seven and, hopefully, won't have to deal with erectile dysfunction for many, many years.
It did occur to me that maybe she nevers ask because my wife has already explained the merits of ED drugs... |
algebra2
Supporter
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 3016
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
My son, disturbingly enough, is engrossed by infomercials. He loves Oxi-clean and is a Bare Minerals fan -- "Mom, mom ... come see, there's a NEW kind of make-up!!" -- There's another which he talks about a lot?? He loved the recent car commercial where Lincoln and Washington are sitting on the man's shoulders and he's taking to them -- that was a hit.
He watches lots of On Demand or DVDs but I don't really care if he sees commercials -- it's a learning opportunity. It's good for him to identify WHAT they are selling and I can pound into his head that this is a commercial, it's on b/c the company wants you to go out and spend $$. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page