Google’s YouTube Kids is Saturated with Stealth Ads

Posted on April 11, 2015 at 3:37 pm

In February of this year, Google launched the YouTube Kids app, specially designed for “little thumbs” to get kids hooked on devices and videos as soon as they can hold an iPhone. They assured parents that the app was completely safe to use and that all content was family-friendly.

I support the policy of the pediatricians’ association of no screen time of any kind under age two and strictly limiting it thereafter, but I recognize that there are times when it can be handy to have a way to distract and entertain a child. And I can appreciate how important it is for parents to have some way to allow kids to get what’s best on the internet without the risk that a search for say, “dolls” or “spanking” will bring up something disturbing or inappropriate.

Unfortunately, Google and YouTube Kids have saturated the app with commercials, including channels devoted to brands like McDonalds, Barbie, Fisher Price, and LEGO. A detailed complaint filed by a coalition of public interest groups representing children and consumers calls on the Federal Trade Commission to give parents the same kinds of protections that they have imposed on television programming directed at children, requiring a bright line demarcation between advertising and programming, for example.

YouTube Kids is a long way from that now. Much of the advertising is “native” and completely integrated with the other content. While some ads on the app have disclaimers noting, for example “compensation provided by McDonald’s,” this is a problem in an app for kids, who are (1) too young to understand what “compensation provided” means, (2) too young to comprehend the difference between sponsored and un-sponsored content, and (3) TOO YOUNG TO READ.

I was quoted in this SFGate article about advertising on YouTube Kids. “Google has said they are curating material they guarantee is OK for children, so they have to do better than this.”

Google says that they need advertising in order to keep the app free for all families. I appreciate that. But, as they say, on the internet, if you’re not the paying customer, you’re the product. We should not be selling our children to advertisers, and Google should not be acting as broker. Visit the FTC’s website to file a complaint.

Toys That Impair Imagination: The Over-Licensing of Children’s Toys

Posted on February 25, 2015 at 8:00 am

It’s always tempting to give children toys from the movies and television programs they love, and some of them are high-quality or even educational. But Melissa Atkins Wardy has a very good argument that the licensing of media tie-ins has just about obliterated any other kind of toy. We want children to have toys that help build their imaginations by giving them unlimited fantasy play, not toys that will just encourage them to replicate scenarios they have already seen.

This spells trouble for those of us looking for imaginative, open-ended toys that wait for the child to create the story line and character. Gender balance and diversity will leave much to be desired, as heroes are almost always white males and licensed characters come with easily identifiable gender roles. The negative, myopic influences from Hollywood are now packaged up for our kids. And the flip side is, we get less interesting, diverse media because a consideration for green lighting a series is “Can it sell toys ?” Play time should be an exchange of ideas from child to child, not Hollywood to child.

Related Tags:

Commentary Marketing to Kids Parenting

Children Now Calls on the FCC to Limit Hidden Ads in Children’s Programming

Posted on June 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm

Industry publication Broadcasting & Cable reports that representatives of the advocacy group Children Now met with a top aide to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and other FCC staffers last week “to press the commission to take a stand against imbedded advertising and product placement in children’s programming.”

In addition to asking them to explicitly ban interactive kids advertising, they also said the FCC should “carefully review whether broadcast licensees and cable operators are complying with the requirements of the Children’s Television Act (CTA)” in terms of commercial limits (cable) and educational programming (broadcast TV).

The FCC tentatively concluded back in 2004 that children’s TV shows should not have interactive links to advertising unless parents have opted into such interactivity.

At the time, the commission said it would be premature to make that tentative conclusion into a rule because there was not much direct connectivity between TV and the ‘net.

Children Now argues that with programming being offered on multiple platforms, it is time for the FCC to get ahead of the curve — the group concedes that it is “not aware” of any commercial interactivity in any kids programming. But they argue it is just a matter of time given burgeoning interactivity elsewhere. “In the absence of clear and enforceable restrictions, children’s programmers are likely to start using many of the interactive marketing techniques now being used in programs intended for teen or general audiences,” they told the commission.

They point out, for instance, that Nickelodeon has a Dora the Explorer Facebook page, even though Facebook users have to be over 12. Facebook is currently exploring ways to open the site officially to kids, with their parents’ permission.

Children Now also wants the commission to clarify that FCC ad policies apply to video on demand and prohibit product placement in kids shows.

You can support this initiative by emailing the FCC chairman at: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov

Related Tags:

Marketing to Kids Parenting