Favorite

Our children are victimized by corporations who want to sell products to them. 

Branding Kids for Life

If you are the parent of a newborn, beware. Fourteen to 18 months from now your child will be programmed to nag for a new toy or a snack every four hours, "branded for life" as a Cheerios eater or a Coca-Cola guzzler and placed in the loving care of a market researcher at the local day-care center. That, at least, was the view of early childhood development presented by the 400 children's-market honchos at the third annual Advertising & Promoting to Kids Conference, held in New York City this fall. Conference-goers attended sessions on topics like Building Brand Recognition, Marketing in the Classroom and the Fine Art of Nagging ("40 percent of sales of jeans, burgers and other products occur because a child asks for the product"). They cheered winners of the Golden Marble Awards for best breakfast-food and video-game commercials. The marketing confab was held as the government released a report documenting the growing commercialization of public schools, and also as the Federal Trade Commission blasted media companies and the advertising industry for deliberately marketing violent films and products to children. Although kids have been targets of marketing for decades, the sheer amount of advertising they are exposed to today is "staggering and emotionally harmful," says Susan Linn, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, who studies media at the Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston. Linn and other child psychologists, educators and health-care professionals led a protest outside the Golden Marble Awards to draw attention to the effects of the $12-billion-a-year kid-ad industry, including the epidemic of obesity in children and increasing violence in schools. "It's appalling that creativity is being rewarded in the service of manipulating children," Linn says. "We hope that this is the beginning of a national movement to challenge this." In fact, this fall has been a good one for grassroots opponents of corporate commercialism. The Madison, Wis., school board voted in August to terminate its exclusive beverage contract with Coca-Cola, making it the first school district in the country to cancel an existing marketing deal. The board cited "overwhelming public opposition" as the reason for its decision. That action came hard on the heels of successful campaigns to stop proposed school-marketing deals in Oakland and Sacramento, Calif., Philadelphia, and the state of Michigan, where a cola contract involving 110 school districts was shot down. In October, the American Dental Association passed a resolution urging its members to oppose the marketing of soft drinks and junk food in schools. The American Psychological Association, under pressure from many of its members, agreed to form a task force to examine whether it is unethical for the psychologists to advise companies that market to children. Meanwhile, ZapMe!, the in-school marketing company, abandoned its educational business after failing to convince enough schools to accept its offer of free computers in exchange for delivering student eyeballs to advertisers. "We're seeing a dramatic increase in local resistance to all forms of corporate marketing to kids," says Andrew Hagelshaw, executive director of the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, in Oakland. "The issue has finally hit critical mass with the public." Hillary Rodham Clinton has jumped on the bandwagon. Citing a "barrage of materialistic marketing" aimed at young children, the newly elected Democratic senator for New York has said she wants the government to ban commercials aimed at preschool children and to prohibit advertising inside public elementary schools. Anti-corporate activists welcomed Clinton's proposals but said they don't go far enough. Opponents of a New York City school board plan to finance free laptop computers for students through in-school advertising say her proposals won't protect millions of high school students. Nor would the proposals apparently affect the commercial in-school TV program Channel One, whose market is primarily middle-school students. Corporate lobbyists already are putting the heat on members of Congress who might support legislation reining in children's advertising. Hagelshaw believes the real battles will take place in local school boards and state legislatures, which may be more receptive to anti-commercial arguments. There's never been a better, or more important time for local activists to step up the pressure on corporate exploiters of children. Steven Manning is a free-lance writer based in Brooklyn, N.Y., and is writing a book on schoolhouse commercialism. This essay first appeared in The Nation magazine. Opinions expressed on the Back Page are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Style Weekly.
Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

  • Re: PHOTOS: Monument Avenue Commission Meeting Brings Out Heated Discourse in Richmond

    • I'm willing to bet that the neo-Confederates in these pictures (and comments) aren't actual residents…

    • on August 15, 2017
  • Re: Faith and Elected Leaders Gather for Solidarity Rally in Richmond Following Violence in Charlottesville

    • This is the kind of demonstration that should have taken place in Charlottesville, not bricks,…

    • on August 14, 2017
  • Re: Dominion's Chief Executive Wants to Redevelop the Richmond Coliseum

    • The city's doing well, right now. Maybe that's BECAUSE our omniscient central planners haven't managed…

    • on August 11, 2017
  • More »
  • Latest in Miscellany

    Copyright © 2017 Style Weekly
    Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
    All rights reserved
    Powered by Foundation