Anti-Marketing Misfire?
In recent days, we've heard the terms "Acts of War," and "Retaliation" repeated regularly. But there's a war being waged that isn't receiving 'round-the-clock news coverage or incessant deliberation in the Oval office. Some believe the outcome of each battle could impact society in profound ways, so they're taking action to topple their malicious enemies. If only their enemies knew they existed.
It was the morning of September 10, 2001. It seemed as though the members of the Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children Coalition (SCEC) were determined to keep the whereabouts of their Summit hidden, but after scouring three floors of conference rooms in midtown Manhattan's Grand Hyatt Hotel, I finally tracked it down. The motley army of rebel mothers, protectionist professors, student soldiers and citizen vigilantes was holed up in a bunker far off from the glitz of the enemy camp where their adversaries would soon be receiving prized Golden Marble Awards, "celebrating excellence in children's promotions."
There Oughta Be a Law
The SCEC is fighting to accomplish a number of goals, some of which seem more feasible than others. They include making schools commercial free zones, getting federal funding for research into the psychosocial and health consequences of marketing to children, reinstating FCC regulations that prohibit linking children's TV to promotion of products, uniform age-specific rating standards across all media and spin-off products including toys and the elimination of marketing to children under age 8.
The small room was lined with chairs, most of them filled. Velma La Point, associate professor of child development at Howard University took the mike. "We know that youth are victimized, that they are bullied, that they are robbed, that they are assaulted and that yes, even murder occurs," stated La Point in a matter-of-fact tone, as the crowd clicked their tongues with vigor. The last bit about murder referred to kid-on-kid killings over expensive brand name sneakers. She continued to vilify commercial clothiers for putting "pressure on youth to obtain money for these dress items - asking, begging, nagging parents or family members." This wasn't the last time we'd hear about advertiser reliance on the so-called "nag factor."
Meanwhile, the villainous brigade of branders were busy hoarding their golden spoils of war, most likely planning their next nag attack on unwitting children and victimized parents. BBDO NY was recognized in the "Best Snack Food Commercial" category, The Geppetto Group walked away with a Gold for "Best Overall Campaign," while Leo Burnett garnered a Golden Marble Certificate for a Nike ad which doubtlessly spurred youth-on-youth bloodshed. Little did they know that the fearless guardians of their target market were just down the hall revealing their counterattack strategy.
At five-minute intervals, the speakers morphed, one into the next. Each had his own specific agenda, to which the subject of marketing to kids was applied. One blamed the rise of obesity rates among American children on the irresponsible promotion of junk food in schools. One opined that the lack of public school funds resulting in increasing reliance upon corporate dollars, as well as negative psychological effects on children, are direct extensions of the computer marketing "hype" so many educators have "bought into." Another represented the European Union, explaining that in Sweden, advertising to children under the age of 12 is prohibited, in Italy, ads are banned during TV cartoons, and in Greece, commercials advertising toys are prohibited. (After visiting there this summer, I think deodorant commercials might be outlawed, too.)
Green Tongues and Tolstoy
The sleepy-eyed troops perked up as Jean Kilbourne, an author and visiting research scholar at the Wellesley Centers for Women, commandeered the podium, ready to strike with an arsenal of projected slides. She was strident as she fired off facts exposing tobacco and alcohol marketers for irresponsibly targeting kids. Joe Camel is as recognizable to six year olds as Mickey Mouse. And young children just love those Budweiser frogs, she assured the audience.
"What's the best way to appeal to young people?" inquired Kilbourne knowingly. "One way of course is to present the product as strictly for adults. Take the industry's moderation messages: 'Don't drink or smoke,' they say, 'that's for grown-ups.'" She concluded sarcastically, "That's a sure way to make sure that kids never touch the stuff." As the audience giggled smugly, I wondered, can nothing satisfy the alcohol and tobacco combatants short of a complete ad prohibition? Something tells me the mere availability of these products will always be cause for uproar.
Not only do marketers tempt kids with reverse psychology and "cute cartoon characters," according to Kilbourne, they devise alcoholic beverages that she believes are "clearly aimed at young people," which combine liquor with "ice cream, Jello, popsicles, and punch." Referring to a Jim Beam product which apparently comes in yummy fruit flavors and colors the drinker's tongue, Kilbourne declared facetiously, "this is certainly aimed at the mature set, wouldn't you say?"
As an apparently unsophisticated adult who regularly watches cartoons and even eats fruity gelatin products, I find blanket statements like these to be close-minded and somewhat misconceived. It's as if the only types of products that could possibly be made exclusively for adults must look at home beside a glass of cognac and a rare copy of Anna Karenina. Anyone who believes that cartoon illustrations, sugary sweet beverages and general frivolity are intended for malleable-minded youth only ought to read Chris Ware's Acme Novelty Library comics, check out Cartoon Network's Samurai Jack, take a look at the coffee menu at the nearest cafe or count the number of full-grown adults in line to ride the new Nitro coaster at the Six Flags amusement park.
It's the adults who ultimately must stand guard, though, and Enola Aird, director of The Motherhood Project, Institute for American Values will lead the fight. With passion Aird thundered, "There is an out and out war between advertisers and marketers and mothers and fathers in this country and in this world…. Marketers are aggressively competing with parents to raise their children…. They are a most formidable match for us in our overworked households and in our fragmented communities."
She alluded to the bane of frazzled parents, an advertising weapon known as the "nag factor." Marketers are "in the business of creating family stress, of maximizing the chances that tired mothers and fathers will be worn down by their children, making sure that family tensions and conflicts are exploited fully to the benefit of their advertising clients."
If anything, this victim mentality only serves to lessen the impact of Aird's message. There's little doubt that marketing efforts contribute to children's nagging. However, rather than playing the role of market martyr, parents must take responsibility for their children's behavior. It's much easier for parents to blame a faceless corporation for their lack of control over their children than it is to deal with reality. After all, Ronald McDonald isn't wielding a gun at the drive-thru counter forcing mom to shut her kid up with a Happy Meal, she's choosing to do so.
Chemicalooza Bamboozle
There are places in which parents have far less authority, yet are obliged to send their children. These are schools of course, and marketers have progressively gained access to the captive audience of nascent-minds who attend these facilities day in and day out. Cola corporations, text book publishers and food manufacturers have all infiltrated the hallowed halls of learning. Andrew Hagelshaw, executive director of the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education (an organization that I have donated to on a personal basis) is out to crush the insurgence of in-school marketers. During his speech, he spoke of the backlash against Channel One, a company that provides free televisions and ad-laden "news" programming to classrooms.
"Advertising disrupts the learning process," stressed Hagelshaw. Hey, and all this time advertisers have thought that education disrupts the branding process!
Besides driving Channel One away from some public schools, his organization has assisted students and parents in squelching contracts between school districts and soda companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi. McGraw-Hill has supposedly succumbed to the pressure by claiming they'll change their math texts which currently mention brand name products. Even educational book publisher, Scholastic withdrew from its Golden Marble Award endorsement this year.
"Companies wanna do this on the sly," he added in reference to Scholastic. "They don't want people to know about it. They don't want the bad PR that comes from this. They want backroom deals that allow them to exploit kids."
Following Hagelshaw's lead, Nell Geiser, a Colorado high school senior who also works with the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, confidently approached the podium. Clad in army pants, with long hair flowing, Geiser provided a glimpse into the world of today's high school student, noting the ubiquitous presence of cola logos and sponsored teaching supplements like Dow Chemical's Chemicalooza video. Geiser was a testament to the student uprising against in-school marketing.
"If advertisers want to maintain their edge at this point, they can't let us become cynical about our role as submissive consumers," she said emphatically. "They have to integrate their message into every part of our lives. That means becoming an accepted part of every environment in which we operate."
She also relayed to listeners her view of Channel One: "Teachers and principals are having to become enforcers, making kids watch Channel One. They can't get up and go to the bathroom; they can't turn their desks around; they can't mute the commercials - they are becoming marketers for these corporations." I wouldn't be surprised if this type of behavior were occurring in a handful of schools, but I have trouble believing that this is the norm. Plus, no matter what information teachers try to instill in their students, there's no way they can guarantee absorption. My empty head is living proof, believe me.
The Truth About Hosers
To some, the notion of desensitizing youth to commercialized in-school programming may be a pleasant one. Desensitizing them to violence, on the other hand, is not especially desirable. According to Diane Levin, professor of education at Boston's Wheelock College, much of what's marketed to the wee-ones as harmless toys could do just that. Armed with a war chest of visual aids, Levin launched her campaign against the marketing of violence to youth. The audience groaned in disapproval as images of pro-wrestling dolls flashed on the screen. Al Snow holds a severed head. B.A. Billy Gunn wears tights covered with pink lipstick smooches, one of which is placed conspicuously over the doll's anatomically-incorrect crotch. The Sable Bomb doll is dressed in painted-on black leather, and comes complete with a whip and chair. Levin's distress was apparent as she told the audience that these dolls are recommended for kids aged 4 and up.
Even some very liberal parents would not allow their four or five year old to play with a replica of a severed head. Still, I found it difficult to take Levin's argument seriously after being confronted with another example she provided of naughty toys supposedly aimed at the young'uns. She pointed to a slide of an action figure set featuring Bob and Doug Mackenzie, the two Canadian beer-guzzling goofballs popularized by the comedy show SCTV which ran during the late '70s and into the '80s. This Macfarlane Toys item, which centers on characters that would probably be unrecognizable to anyone under the age of 25, is "for kids 13 and up," according to Levin. She lamented this fact with great disappointment, claiming that this toy promotes alcohol use to minors.
First of all, Levin mistakenly referred to this action figure set as "Spuds Mackenzie," which not only indicates a lack of knowledge about the product she so willingly denounced, it completely defames Canadian brew by putting it on the same level as Budweiser. What a crime, eh? That's beside the point, though. These characters were popular 15 to 20 years ago. They're aimed at the adult toy collector, nostalgia being an obvious selling point. Levin may as well have showed us an ad for the "pot brownie" model Easy Bake Oven. "I'm not being alarmist," she assured us at one point in her presentation.
The Smell of Patchouli in the Morning
Following nearly three hours of lecturing, a little fresh air and non-violent protest was in order. All were welcome to grab a sign and join the procession through the Hyatt hotel. From the looks of it, the majority of the audience grabbed signs, which doesn't say much for the amount of objective press or non-affiliated parties in attendance at the "summit." Talk about preaching to the converted. Ever the non-participant, I lagged behind, and later caught up with the protest march in full-swing across the street from the hotel.
The turnout was modest, but a few onlookers stopped to take in the spectacle of marchers moving in a ridiculously small orbit, carrying signs that read, "Happy Meals are not a part of the food pyramid," "My eyes are not dollar signs," and "Mothers say: Back off! Let us raise our children in peace." An SCEC panel speaker spoke to a legless hand-puppet who yelled obnoxiously, "I gotta have Nikes! I gotta have Nikes!" Speakers decried the Golden Marble Awards as shameful and irresponsible. A man in a pin-striped shirt sauntered by and proudly declared, "I won one!" Squeaky-voiced grrrls with acoustic guitars sang of womyn turning into TVs and proclaimed that "there's no reason a seven year old girl (or any girl for that matter) should be shaving her legs." A cop looked at me quizzically and asked what this demonstration was all about as a whiff of patchouli caught my nostril.
Soon, it was time to present the SCEC's "Have You Lost Your Marbles Awards." "The Hypocrisy Award" went to Teletubbies and itsy bitsy Entertainment for "creating toy promotions with McDonalds and Burger King and claiming to be a leader in the fight against childhood obesity." Reebok and its agency, Bartle, Bogle, Hegarty, LLC received the coveted "Distortion of Teen Body Image Award" for an ad campaign titled Classics "which uses synthetic sexuality to sell sneakers to teens." Accepting the awards in place of the company CEOs (evidently they were invited) was a chick in a hideous, furry, gray rat suit. The fake furred corporate mascot, named Goldie the Weasel, leaped with joy as it grabbed the award. At that moment, besides being embarrassed for the woman in the rodent costume, I became embarrassed for the entire SCEC congregation.
It got me thinking. Many of the panel lecturers seemed bent on zealous proselytizing. And the protest march itself had become a joke. If any of the Golden Marble ad agency execs and advertisers were to see Goldie the Weasel or hear about how sneaker marketing causes murders, would they possibly take these people seriously, or would they write them off as deluded extremists?
A Call to Charm
And that leads me to the crux of my point: like it or not, appealing to the general public is not enough. The SCEC must attract the attention of the advertising industry and corporate advertisers if they are ever going to be truly effective. Why didn't the protest march invade the Golden Marble Awards themselves? Or better yet, why was the SCEC Summit a one-sided event? The word "summit" often implies a diplomatic meeting of people representing various sides of an issue. However, the SCEC Summit was more like a comforting, closed-door session. At the very least, there should have been signs promoting the panel discussion throughout the hotel, not only to assist those who planned to attend in locating it, but to attract those present for the Golden Marble Awards. A few outraged account execs and defensive creative directors would have really livened up the stale discussion.
For other stories, I've conducted several interviews with people who develop marketing campaigns aimed at kids. If there's one thing that has constantly come up in those discussions, it's that these people love kids. They have an exuberance for what they do, and many of them truly believe that they're enriching children's lives through the products they're promoting. Call it justification for a phat paycheck, but a lot of these people seem entirely forthcoming. It's obvious that the SCEC and its sympathizers love children, too. That means that there's a common bond among these seemingly alien groups.
Next year, conducting a summit in the true sense by inviting the SCEC as well as members of the marketing community could not only spur some interest and respect among advertisers, it could provide the SCEC with valuable insight into the minds of those people. After all, if marketers employ psychological tactics in the wars they wage on youth, perhaps those same strategies could work on them.
For more insight into the ongoing movement against marketing to kids, take a look at
last year's Lowbrow Lowdown coverage of the Golden Marble Awards protest.
