Before You Download that “Educational” App for Your Baby

Posted on August 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission charging that “educational” apps for babies do not have any documented value. This is the same group that made the charges against Baby Einstein that led to a settlement that had Disney offering refunds to consumers who relied on their claims that the DVDs were beneficial to babies. CCFC says:

The false and deceptive marketing by Fisher-Price and Open Solutions creates the impression that their apps effectively educate infants when time with tablets and smart phones is actually the last thing babies need for optimal learning and development. Both companies claim that their mobile apps will teach babies skills and information-including words and numbers- but neither company offers any evidence to back up their claims. To date, not a single credible scientific study has shown that babies can acquire language or math skills from interacting with screens. In addition, screen time may be harmful for babies. Research links infant screen time to sleep disturbances and delayed language acquisition, as well as problems in later childhood, such as poor school performance and childhood obesity. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends discouraging screen time for children under two.

In their cover letter, CCFC notes that “According to a 2012 report by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, over 80% of the top-selling apps in the “Education” category of the iTunes’ App Store target children. Sixty percent of the top 25 apps target toddlers and preschool children—more than double the percentage that target adults.”

The companies charged are Fisher-Price and Open Solutions, whose apps like “Laugh and Learn” purport to teach babies counting, words, or motor skills. Studies show that babies learn far more effectively from interaction with people than they do from machines. To add your name to the complaint against companies making unsubstantiated claims that their products benefit babies, visit the CCFC site.

Hijacking the Tooth Fairy

Posted on July 20, 2013 at 8:00 am

The tooth fairy is one of childhood’s most treasured myths, a lovely tribute to a bittersweet rite of passage that allows each family to create their own traditions. (Our tooth fairy left books.) There’s an awful movie with The Rock, a disappointing movie with Isla Fisher, and a pretty good assortment of books (my favorite is The Real Tooth Fairy), but until now no one has shamelessly exploited the legend of the tooth fairy for toys.

Susan Linn of the very worthy CCFC writes for the Huffington Post about a massive new marketing campaign for tooth fairy dolls. Watch this video — aimed at investors, not parents — with highlights of the marketing plan to get little girls hooked by “leveraging the brand” of a biological guarantee. It’s a “massive opportunity!”

Linn writes:

By harnessing the Tooth Fairy, The Royal Council of the Real Fairyland, LLC (also known as The Real Tooth Fairies, LLC), wants to “leverage and define this rite-of-passage moment” and literally profit from each tooth a child loses. The company is already selling VIP memberships, deluxe Real Tooth Fairy Collections, and more. Participation in Real Fairyland doesn’t come cheap. “Give your girl the gift of everything Tooth Fairy,” the website exhorts. A Real Tooth Fairies Birthday Party Collection costs $379.

…

Yanover pushes what the marketing industry calls an “immersive” Tooth Fairy experience, including a virtual world, toys, games, clothing, accessories — and a creepy “interactive” component where girls can “communicate” with their Tooth Fairies. Plans for licensing include, “toys, oral care, party & greeting card, & more.” According to the company, “This world was built for licensing; it’s a character that everybody already recognizes and is engaged with.”

The Real Tooth Fairies swaddles its product in virtue, claiming that its goal is to empower girls and promote kindness. But its target audience of girls as young as 5 are disempowered when a free-ranging, child-driven vision of Tooth-Fairyness is reduced to just six sexualized options, largely preoccupied with appearance, shopping, boyfriends –and leg hair! And it’s unkind to millions of girls, and the women they will become, that the “villain” in Real Fairyland, and the butt of its jokes, is a hairy-legged, buck-toothed, roly-poly, glasses-wearing fairy-wannabe. At present, the site’s target is mainly 5- to 10-year-old girls — but lest you’re wondering why boys have been left out of the marketing equation, they haven’t. Heavily-armed, superhero, Tooth-Fairy-counterparts are in development.

It is a shame that these people cannot support the imagination and empowerment of children rather than “leveraging” a character and, worst of all, turning her into just another perpetuation of the idea that appearance and buying things is all that matters. If you want to send a message that this is not appropriate, sign here.

And the Winner for Worst Toy of the Year Is….

Posted on December 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm

..the Fisher-Price™ Laugh & Learn™ Apptivity™ Monkey. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has once again put the worst toys of the year to a vote, with nominees that are designed to promote commercial brands or media rather than performing the core function of toys: to entertain, to expand imagination, to teach, and to promote exercise.

With 33% of the vote, the stuffy with an iPhone in its belly squeaked past LEGO Friends Butterfly Beauty Shop (30%) to win the 2012 TOADY (Toys Oppressive and Destructive to Young Children) Award. The O ball (21%), the 7-11 Slurpee Maker (10%), and the Put Me In The Story app (7%) were the other runners-up.

The Apptivity Monkey succeeds the Vinci Touchscreen Mobile Learning Tablet as the reigning TOADY winner, illustrating mounting concerns about the push to get very young children hooked on screen media. CCFC member Teresa Lewis voted for the Apptivity Monkey, “because it is in clear violation of pediatrician and professional recommendations to keep babies and toddlers under 2 away from any screens at all.” She added, “It’s more like the Capptivity Monkey.” Noted Jennifer Long, owner of a child care center, “It’s bad enough that most toys for babies are battery operated and flashy/light-up, but now they are encouraging screen time as part of a toy. I’m sad for the sweet little babies that get an Apptivity Monkey this holiday and for the unknowing parents that buy it thinking it’s good for their baby.”

But other nominees had their “fans.” Voters were especially irked by LEGO’s marketing for the Butterfly Beauty Shop, which encourages girls to “get primped and pretty and have some serious salon fun” and “gossip out on the bench by the scenic fountain.” Kate Snyder said, “While I know there are lots of ‘bad toys’ to choose from that fall into that same category of gender marketing gone crazy, I was particularly disappointed to see LEGO going that route.” About the 7-11 Slurpee Machine, Casey Hinds said, “Toys should inspire the imagination instead of creating a desire to drink sugar water. I consider this the toy that keeps on giving…obesity, diabetes and bad health.” And Sarah Hellman succinctly explained her choice of the smartphone-enabled TheO ball: “Since when does a ball require instructions or technology?”

In the end, though, the Fisher-Price Laugh & Learn Apptivity Monkey wins the distinct dishonor of being named Worst Toy of the Year. It joins the Vinci, Nickelodeon’s AddictingGames.com, and the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader Barbie in the TOADY hall of shame.

Related Tags:

Parenting Preschoolers

Happy Screen-Free Week!

Posted on April 30, 2012 at 10:25 am

Nationwide Screen-Free Week begins today through May 6.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has a list of some of the hundreds of activities planned by Screen-Free Week organizers:

Read Boston has asked 4,000 students in 12 partner schools to take the screen-free pledge! Children who return their tracking logs after break will receive a prize pack with items that promote fun (and learning) without screens.
Screen-Free Kansas City and the Early Years Institute in Long Island have both partnered with local businesses to offer discounted and free fun activities every day of Screen-Free Week!
Unplug and Play in Bozeman, Montana has organized daily events including free admission to the Museum of the Rockies, a Bike Rodeo, and Family Science Night at the Children’s Museum.Portland (Oregon) Parks and Recreation and Kaiser Permanente are offering activities including a tea party for young children, Family Game Night, and Messy Art!
St. John Lutheran Church in Fargo, ND is offering a Screen-Free Fellowship with games, nature activities, invigorating conversations . . . and ice cream!
The children’s department at the North Tonawanda (New York) Library is hosting events every evening including a Scavenger Hunt, a Craft Night, and Plant a Seed for Spring.
First Five Inyo County in Bishop, California is celebrating life outside the box. Families who send a picture of their child 5 or younger doing a screen-free activity win a free toy or game from their treasure chest! The Inland Preschool in Calimesa, CA is hosting a Screen-Free Week Trike-a-Thon.
Oakland Steiner School in Rochester Hills, Michigan is hosting Screen-Free activities all week including a Scavenger Hunt, Table Talk Dinner Game, Play with a Box Day, and a May Day celebration! The Francis Parker Afterschool Program in Chicago is asking parents and teachers to sponsor a student for charity; the longer the student goes screen-free, the more money raised!

CCFC’s List of 101 Screen-Free Activities includes:

Listen to the radio.
Write an article or story.
Paint a picture, a mural, or a room.
Write to the President, your Representative, or your Senators.
Read a book. Read to someone else.
Learn to change the oil or tire on a car. Fix something.
Write a letter to a friend or relative.
Make cookies, bread, or jam and share with a neighbor.

Related Tags:

Parenting

Marketing Legos to Boys and Girls

Posted on March 13, 2012 at 8:00 am

Thanks to my friends at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood for pointing me to this look at the different way Legos are marketed to boys and girls. I love the way the website lets you make your own mash-up.

I understand that children and teenagers can exaggerate gender differences to establish a margin of safety as they attempt to understand the complexities of gender and culture and advertisers and their clients want to appeal to them. But as shown most vividly in the viral video of the little girl who was furious that Toys R Us seemed to think she would only want toys that were pink, marketing this way reinforces a lot of stereotypes that are not appreciated by today’s children.

I like this commentary by CNN’s Mark Joyella:

The new range of girl-targeted Lego toys (by which I mean figures and accessories in addition to the classic blocks that date back decades) features such forward-thinking concepts of what girls want in a set of plastic blocks as a beautician, a pop star and a “social girl.”

I’ll admit all I know about girls is what I’ve learned from my daughter over the last eighteen months since her birth. But the idea of forking over any amount of money for toys that limit her vision to 1950’s stereotypes? C’mon, Lego. You can do way better than that.

As Bloomberg Businessweek’s Brad Weiners reported this week, “now, after four years of research, design and exhaustive testing, Lego believes it has a breakthrough in its Lego “Friends” … a full line of 23 different products backed by $40 million global marketing push. ‘This is the most significant strategic launch we’ve done in a decade,’ says Lego Group Chief Executive Officer Jorgen Vig Knudstorp.”

Four years of research to create a Lego beautician and a “social girl”? Didn’t Barbie pretty much cover that ground sometime before 1960?

These ads give families a good opportunity to talk about how commercials try to trick us into wanting and even thinking we need things and about the importance of asking ourselves who the messages are coming from and what the messages are.