FTC: Movie Industry Fails at Protecting Kids from Violent Content

Posted on December 7, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission issued its seventh report in ten years on the marketing of violent media to children. While the movie industry is doing better at preventing children who are underage from buying tickets to R-rated films and DVDs, the report shows that there is still a long way to go, especially with the marketing of PG-13 movies.

With respect to PG-13 movies, studios continue to market these films purposefully and directly to children under 13. In its review of marketing plans and ad placements, the Commission found explicit and pervasive targeting of very young children for PG-13 movies. The marketing overview for the DVD release of one PG-13 movie, for example, described the movie’s “#1 Key Demo” as parents 25 and older and kids 8 to 14….The studios’ marketing submissions for the six PG-13 movies showed that all were heavily promoted to children under 13 in advertising on children’s cable networks – “Kids’ Cable” – and through promotional tie-ins with candy, snack foods, kids meals, toys, and other licensed products.

Studios also conducted marketing research on young children, including in one instance children as young as 7 years old. When research results showed that children and parents were concerned about the level of violence in the film, studios sometimes even altered their advertising to make the film appear less frightening, rather than market to an older audience. One studio, for example, copy tested ads for its PG-13 movie on various age groups, including children ages 7 to 9 and 10 to 12. The studio found that 80% of boys in these age groups showed definite interest in seeing the movie but also found that many parents were concerned that the movie was too violent. The written report stated that “parents, in large numbers, complain about the violence in , saying they wouldn’t want to expose their children to that.” The solution proposed by the studio was to “experiment with spots that include less intense action and more humourous/light-hearted moments in order to convince more parents that , saying they wouldn’t want to expose their children to that.” The solution proposed by the studio was to “experiment with spots that include less intense action and more humourous/light-hearted moments in order to convince more parents that will be safe to see. (emphasis added)

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has issued a statement on the report, calling for broader authority for the FTC over the marketing of media to children.

We are pleased that FTC questions the effectiveness of the film industry’s self-regulatory efforts. The report dismisses the MPAA’s much-hyped referral agreement with the Children’s Advertising Review Unit – an agreement the MPAA claimed would address concerns about PG-13 marketing – as “not a meaningful self-regulatory measure.” The report also notes that the MPAA does not consider movie cross-promotions or other marketing tie-ins to be within its purview, despite the fact these techniques are often part of a deliberate strategy to target younger children. In one instance, the FTC found that the target demographic for licensed products was for a violent PG-13 film was boys 3 to 11.

The FTC report also covers the change to the trailer rules I first wrote about in September and the access to “red band trailers” over the internet. Those trailers are shown in theaters only before R-rated movies to assure that they are not shown to children. But online, they are available to anyone.

A new concern in the online venue has been the proliferation of red tag trailers for R-rated movies on websites without adequate age-based restrictions. Mature Audience trailers (for films expected to be rated R- or NC-17) are preceded by a red tag stating that the preview has been approved for “restricted audiences only” and indicating the movie’s rating and rating reasons. Red tag trailers generally contain content that caused the film to be issued a restrictive rating and thus are subject to more stringent time, media, and venue restrictions.

According to the MPAA’s Advertising Administration, red tag trailers on the Internet must be placed behind an age-gate or similar mechanism to ensure that children under the age of 18 will not easily be able to view the material….Five of the six [video-hosting] sites contained at least one red tag trailer for viewing. Two of the websites did not use any age-screening mechanisms before allowing the user to watch the trailers. Even on the three sites that did, the user could circumvent the age gates by hitting the “back” button to the previous page and re-entering his or her age as 17 or older. (footnotes omitted)

The Commission also raised concerns about other issues, including the marketing of “unrated” DVD versions of theatrically released films. I will post additional information about the FTC’s findings on games and music and will also provide updates on any response from the MPAA or other industry groups.

What Was Adam Lambert Thinking?

Posted on November 23, 2009 at 11:02 pm

I was looking forward to Adam Lambert’s performance on the American Music Awards last night because I was impressed with his ability and stage presence on “American Idol.” The show included some of the industry’s biggest stars, but they saved him for the last song of the night and really built it up as something special. Knowing that his first album has been released to such glowing reviews heightened the anticipation.
So it was a terrible disappointment to see the almost desperate gyrations that were not just awkward and vulgar but a distraction from the song he was trying to deliver. Wearing some sort of outfit that looked like a spacesuit from a cheesy 1950’s sci-fi movie, Lambert made the number into a quick trip through a manual of sex acts. According to a slightly stunned Entertainment Weekly column by a committed Idol fan, the song featured:

Adam dragging a female backup dancer across the stage by her leg, as if she were a lace-covered sack of potatoes; Adam grasping the head of a submissive-styled male backup dancer and pulling him into an uncomfortable round of simulated oral sex (while ABC muted the audio to protect us from who only knows what); a tutu-clad woman cupping Adam’s nether-regions; Adam grasping and snapping the leather “bikini area” (for lack of a better term) of a female dancer’s costume; and Adam taking a break from his singing duties for an impromptu game of tongue twister with a keyboardist of indeterminate gender.

Was Lambert trying to get Britney-kisses-Madonna headlines? Was the Idol contestant making up for lost time playing coy about his sexual orientation until after the Idol votes were in and he came in second? Is there any chance it was a genuine expression of some artistic statement by this very commercially-oriented performer?
EW says it was more likely to be the former:

But the bottom line is that Adam’s AMA performance felt less like a genuine expression of his high-octane sexuality (so playfully erotic when he fondled the mic stand during “Whole Lotta Love” this summer), and more like a carefully planned stab at dominating the post-AMA blogosphere/water-cooler discussion. I’m certainly no prude…the idea of saucy boy-on-boy/boy-on-girl/boy-on-not-quite-sure action does not rattle my cage — certainly not at 10:55 p.m. on a school night. And yet, what’s sad is that unlike, say, a J.Lo or even a Rihanna, Adam could’ve had tongues wagging just from his vocals alone. Instead, that golden voice took a backseat tonight at the AMAs, and I’m not sure exactly who was occupying the driver’s seat.

The Parents Television Council has issued a statement objecting to the performance and called on its members to express their concern to the network, Dick Clark Productions and the show’s advertisers.

“American teenagers – and especially teenaged girls – are literally under siege by the entertainment media. It is outrageous that children today cannot watch a televised awards program for an industry that is built squarely on their backs. Teens comprise a huge portion of music sales, yet this is how they are treated? It is beyond contemptible,” said PTC President Tim Winter.

ABC has already received thousands of complaints, which it described as a “moderate” response, according to the Huffington Post. Lambert “told CNN that his kiss was ‘in the moment’ and that if people were upset about it, ‘That’s a form of discrimination and it’s too bad.'”
The kiss was not the problem. And the objections are not discrimination. The star of a top-rated show that is often watched by families chose to pay less attention to staying on pitch and delivering a top-quality musical performance than to a desperate, clumsy, and crude effort to be shocking.
To send your objections to ABC, use this form. You can reach Dick Clark Productions at 2900 Olympic Blvd, Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-255-4600
To speak with a representative from the Parents Television Council, please contact Kelly Oliver (ext. 140) or Megan Franko (ext. 148) at (703) 683-5004.

More on the Eww-ishness of Zach and Cody

Posted on November 23, 2009 at 10:37 am

Slate TV critic Troy Patterson echoes the concerns about the smarmy qualities of the Disney series “The Suite Life on Deck” that Dan Savage discussed in the essay I linked to in June. “On Deck” is the follow-up series that takes real-life twins Cole and Dylan Sprouse. They are the proteges of child stars turned moguls Mary Kate and Ashley Olson. The show is a sort of “Love Boat” for tweens and much of its humor comes from Zack’s precocious ring-a-ding-ding hit-on-everything-in-a-bra personality.

The Suite Life is of course mild in its sexual content, offering double entendres-once-removed and gentle references to oiling up bikini models and such. How did the protagonists’ rock-star father meet their lounge-singer mother? It is strongly implied that she threw her underwear on stage, or so Dad claims. It takes a little effort to get one’s own panties in a bunch over a kids show employing material like that, but it’s a snap to feel unqualified disgust for the way the show giggles at Zack’s crass predations. In one episode, a new passenger turns his head, but he’s turned off by her baggage, her literal baggage. The luggage locks are a bad sign. “That means she’s suspicious and cautious,” he says. “I’m looking for naive and vulnerable.” Cue the laugh track. Elsewhere, he describes part of his philosophy of life to a pal: “There is nothing–nothing–better in this world than an unhappy hot girl.” In watching eight episodes of the show, I haven’t seen Zack achieve any romantic success, but nor have I seen him receive any proper sanction. Thus do I eagerly await Walt Disney’s presentation of a feature-film spinoff titled Zack & Cody’s Rockin’ Roofie Frat Party.

According to Patterson, this is the number one television program for children 6-11. It is hard for me to imagine that parents — or Disney — find this charming, funny, or appropriate.

Disney Admits that Baby Einstein Does Not Help Babies

Posted on October 26, 2009 at 8:00 am

Disney, which had to drop the word “educational” from its marketing of Baby Einstein DVDs following complaints from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), has now had to back down further and offer a refund.
The New York Times reports that the $200 million a year business, which is predicated on the idea that DVD-watching is beneficial to infants even though the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time of any kind, television, DVDs, or computers, before age 2, is so pervasive that as many as a third of all American babies have seen at least one of these DVDs. In what the company is calling an “enhanced consumer satisfaction guarantee” and the CCFC is characterizing as capitulation, the company will refund $15.99 for up to four “Baby Einstein” DVDs per household, bought between June 5, 2004, and Sept. 5, 2009, and returned to the company.
I have been a furious opponent of Baby Einstein and the other DVDs for infants since I published the one of the first exposes of them as a racket in the mainstream media, a 2005 article in the Chicago Tribune. When I was working on the article, a company representative’s absurd response to my question about academic studies showing no benefits in learning from their products that their DVDs were “not research-based.” The New York Times story reports that even though they had to remove the word “educational” from their literature following CCFC complaints and a Federal Trade Commission investigation, the website still promises “number recognition” and introduction of shapes. And, of course, the name itself implies that the products increase knowledge or intellectual capacity.
The academic studies show that what infants learn from watching a family member once takes them four times as long to absorb in a DVD. And the very act of watching a DVD with the pulsing refresh rate of the screen can be at the same time soporific and stimulating, making it more difficult for them to get restful sleep. The only thing they learn from these DVDs is how to watch television. Susan Linn of the CCFC was a terrific resource for me in my work on this issue and I am delighted to see her success in bringing to parents’ attention how useless these DVDs are.

Ludacris at the National Press Club

Posted on October 25, 2009 at 10:00 am

My good friend and fellow critic Tim Gordon and I went to hear hip-hop artist/actor/philanthropist Ludacris speak at the National Press Club on Friday. He was there to talk about his foundation and the work it does in Atlanta and around the world to help provide opportunities, guidance, and inspiration for young people. His opening remarks were impressive as he described programs that provided 20 cars to people who needed them in order to do their jobs and take care of their families and described his goal: “Not so much to see what nobody has seen as to think what nobody has thought about what everybody sees.” He spoke about his family’s “deep-rooted tradition of service that underscores the responsibility we all have.” He was grateful that his own commitment to giving back was underscored is his first job, working for Radio One. Boss Cathy Hughes insisted on community service from her employees each week, establishing a precedent for what Ludacris would do after he became a successful recording artist.
The best part was his responses to the questions from the audience, which included local teenagers and fans as well as seasoned reporters. He told the audience not to attribute violence to hip-hop but to ignorance. And he spoke of the way the hip-hop community came together in a matter of hours to help him when one of his projects needed support. My favorite moment was his answer to a question about the most important lessons he learned from his mother, Roberta Shields, who now serves as president of the foundation. He said he could not count the important lessons he learned from her but he would tell us one. He always did well in school, especially in math, but she would give him extra work to do and he did not like it, especially one annual assignment to write down his expectations and goals. He hated it at the time, but Ludacris (born Chris Bridges) attributes his success to her insistence that he be specific and concrete and accountable for his aspirations. He learned from that to “stop quitting.” If he did not achieve the previous year’s goals, he had to think about why he did not and how to do better next time. I looked over at her and saw her beaming with pride.

Related Tags:

Actors Parenting