Apparently Not even your daughter’s bedroom is safe.

So I was doing some research the other day and I stumbled upon this article:

G.I.A. Takes Marketing Behind Closed Slumber Party Doors

For those who don’t care to read it (or are on a tight schedule) I’ll Reader’s Digest it for you…

G.I.A.  (Girl’s Intelligence Agency) chooses young girls to be “secret agents” that host sleep over parties that feature new never seen products for girls. The “Secret Agent’s” job is to promote certain ones and see which ones she can get her friends to like… meanwhile the whole party is video taped and sold to companies to use for marketing purposes.

CHECK OUT THESE COOL PARTIES:

Heres a link to G.IA.’s site :

GIA HEADQUARTERS

I guess its no surprise to see that Disney is in on it.

I registered… It only took my email, day the world changed (birthdate),  state and “kooky” Zipcode! Such awesome lingo no?

I also took a look at the surveys. Check out some of the questions:

1. How many friends came to your party?
2. How many friends – who were NOT at your party, did you tell about the Disney Princess and the Frog WII™ GAME, the other PRODUCTS, and MOVIE? Which PRODUCTS did you mention to friends?
3. Have you now purchased WII™ GAME and ANY OF THE PRODUCTS? If so, which ones?
4. What do you NOT like about the Wii™ GAME and the PRODUCTS? WHY? (please name specific products)
5. Where do you buy MOVIES/GAMES/BOOKS?
6. . What do you like the most about the Princess and the Frog website – and Why?
7. What would you change about the PRODUCT website – and Why?
8. Please name (3) websites you like to go to regularly?

Got to love it. Just think of what good sales women these girls will be when they switch from Scrunchies to Avon!

I applied to be a “Secret Agent”…hopefully I’m cool and influential enough. (And my Mom said that Secret Agent’s weren’t practical career goals, HA!)

Heather

As the video states, the number of children in society has reached an all time high. They have buying power so advertisers want to get a hold of them at a very young age. There was a really interesting quote at the beginning saying that the consumer embryo develops in the first year of existence and children begin their consumer journey in infancy and that they certainly need consideration as consumers at that time. This was stated by James McNeal who is a pioneering youth marketer.

This next video shows Susan Linn, who is the director of the campaign for a commercial free childhood, talking about her formal complaint to the FTC about Baby Einstein saying it’s not educational for children. First off children shouldn’t be exposed to television that early. But marketers just see young children as fresh bait for advertising because they are so impressionable. It’s really surprising to see that parents allow their children to watch these shows or these dvds without any evidence that they actually benefit the child. It just further enhances the theory of cradle to grave. Advertisers are just looking for a way to make money. Even if it’s at the expense of the child and their development.

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/babyvideos/ftccomplaint.htm

http://commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/lettertoccfc.pdf

-Andrea Lubin

Whether or not a parent gives in to “the nag factor” is not the right question. As this segment from “The Corporation” states, even though parents do not like when their children nag, that does not mean that they refuse to give in 100% of the time.

We live in a culture that puts a lot of emphasis on individual choice; and by the same token, assigns blame quickly based on those same choices. But what puts the discussion into context is the fact that corporations put all their promoting and marketing energy into increasing the effectiveness of “the nag factor” and influencing the spending habits of children and their parents alike; while parents, busy juggling kids and full-time jobs, barely have the energy to resist the pressure from their kids (backed by corporations of course).

Yet individuals can do something if they are aware. One approach that parents could take is limiting their children’s access to advertising if at all possible. Limiting the time that children spend in front of the television is a good first step. Alternatives include reading and good old-fashioned play. Here’s a link that will get you started with ideas to avoid the easy trap of televised entertainment. http://outside-the-toybox.com/good-news/play/

The Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood has a listing of 10 things parents can do to help reduce the impact of advertising on their children, along with other resources.

Another path to change is to work to end the consolidation of corporations, specifically in media.  Currently, media revenues come almost exclusively from advertising, which leads to mindless programming that is geared almost strictly to sell products.  If we support community public access channels such as Amherst Community Television (ACTV), it will not only strengthen our community links, but will also provide educational and informational programming that is a direct counter to the propaganda of mainstream television.

Our children are our most important resource.  We must do whatever is necessary to ensure their education and future.

- Stephanie Lawrence

Regardless of media surrounding youth 24/7 it seems the ADULTS and PARENTS who supervise these children are not helping the problem. Up to a certain age parents and guardians control what gets spent, how much money is given, and WHAT exactly the money gets spent ON. So although the goal of change seems, oh so far away the direction of change can start small and on a base to base cases. THE ROOT of the problem as this video shows is that adults should probably be more aware of how much impact the media can truly have on their children and how exactly they themselves are being enablers.

More and more (even in a recession) parents not only help their kids compete with their friends and peers but they compete too! Adults feel the more they spend on their kids they more they love them and the more “extra” wealth they have to spoil their offspring. If parents could get off their own high horses and focus on what is really best for the next generation, they will realize that “showing off” can only say so much. And while in piles of debt YOU AND YOUR KIDS ARE JUST NOT THAT COOL.

Take for example Princess Sharon. Sounds like a Disney charachter right?WRONG.

Princess Sharon is a grown woman who got her college degree, but spends her time playing pretend with little girls and charging their mothers up the wazoo for pink colored cupcakes, and face painted fairy tales.
PRINCESS SHARON.COM

The first startegy in accomplishing this could be for the government to allow fair advantages to many more companies, thus allowing for much more competition and less “branding”. Many small business owners and entreprenuers today are going out of business or not getting the appropriate revenue to move forward because of the control that these large Corporations have over our choices as a society.

It’s a win-win for the consumer, not only would these mom and pop stores still be able to exist, but more money will come back to you from the community. According to AdBusters post in The 3/50 project, 68% of what you spend in an independently owned local store returns to the community through taxes and payroll. With a national chain, only 43% stays in town. By opening up the country to more products and a wider accepted variety of chioces, not only will small business continue to thrive, but the your community and the economy would recieve a giant boost.

We need Corporations that place the well-being of children OVER corporate profits, giving the children back their youth and letting them enjoy childhood, rather than raising them in this cutthroat world of consumerism. In General, we need to simply stop this advertising to children.  allowing the FTC more control in regulating advertising, they can put a strong focus regarding marketing to children, and create large penalties to corporations that do.

Lastly, we could fund public media services, which would provide alternatives to commercial media programs. Services like PBS, that exist for the sole purpose of children learning. Children would then be watching informing television rather than half-hour slot commercials, slyly disguised as TV programming

None of these changes can take place, however, if we do not act upon them. We cannot just sit back and wait for it to change, because it will only stay the same. If we all take a stand together we can change this hyper-commercialized world and make it a more civil place for us as adults, and even for our youth.

Andrew Catalano