Lamest Year Yet for Kids Holiday Shopping

Presents!! Who wants presents? Everyone, right? All year long, my kids beg for stuff they see on TV, whine while I whisk them past the toy aisle at Target and pour through catalogs, circling their coveted items with red crayon. My canned response for 11 months out of the year has always been: “put it on your Christmas list.” Well, the time has come. What do they want to see under the tree? Not much.

It’s not they don’t want stuff, it’s just that there’s not much of anything that they are excited about. And as a parent and a children’s marketer, I have to agree. In terms of kids products, this just may be the lamest year yet.

I challenge you: name one hot toy for December 2010. The gotta-have item of the year. Something –anything-- that causes you to drive out of your way or engage in an online bidding war. The one thing that your child just can’t live without.

Yeah, I couldn’t think of anything either. Apparently, neither can my kids.

Back in October, the National Retail Federation issued their top 10 retail holiday trends, one of them being “Kids today are a walking contradiction” though they were referring more to Gen Y habits, not parental spending. Earlier, in July, an NPD study found that spending for young kids is on the decline. And the day before Black Friday, Kidscreen cited more NPD research on 2010 holiday trends.

"Among parents asked what's on their child's holiday wish list, 34% said toys, 15% answered video games, 9% said consumer electronics (with laptops and iPod Touch devices being the most popular), 7% said clothing and 6% answered sporting goods. Other noteworthy categories include footwear, gift cards, books, entertainment and cash.

Among toys, top categories are dolls, vehicles, building sets and arts & crafts. The Top 10 properties specifically coveted are American Girl, Barbie, Disney Princess, Dora the Explorer, LEGO, Pillow Pets, Star Wars, Toy Story 3, Transformers and Zhu Zhu Pets. Within the video game category, Wii and NDS hardware systems are the most requested items, along with the Xbox 360 Kinect."

See anything on that list that you A. haven't heard of before or B. Don't already have in your home?

I asked my kids again what they want for Christmas. The 8 year-old wants socks (socks!) and the 3 year-old wants a digger truck. At least in my house, ‘tis the season for for kids who want so little. In the midst of the chaos of the holidays and the lingering angst of the recession, I'm taking time to appreciate the simple gifts, mainly the intangible ones.

How about you- what's on your wish list?

Social media full circle miracle

Fifteen years ago, when my career was just getting off the ground (read: I had no idea what I was doing) I somehow landed a job at a sexy Internet start up, one of those destined-for-greatness, ultimately positioned to fail ventures buoyed by Microsoft stock options and guys under 30 with Really Great Ideas. I was assigned to spearhead the editorial efforts of FreeZone.com, "the world's first safe online community for kids and teens." We had an online magazine. We had games. We had a homepage builder. And we had a monitored chat. This is all back in 1995 - 2000, which I guess makes me a sort of an Internet Grandma, but whatever. I loved my job at the time and was passionate about creating a safe and fun destination for kids all over the world. But then we got bought and moved everything to Chicago and then we got sold again and I jumped ship to go to work for Fox Kids (only to get sold to Disney two years later). And then, inevitably, there was this:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FREEZONE TO SAY FAREWELL
March 26, 2001

CHICAGO-- After five years of awards and accolades as the safest and most fun community for kids on the Internet, FreeZone.com (http://FreeZone.com) announced today that it is closing its doors. The final day of operation will be March 30, 2001.

I figured FreeZone and its mission were gone for good, along with the rest of the failed start ups of the 1990s. Maybe we were ahead of our time. Maybe we had the wrong business model. Maybe we just didn't "get it." But then I had other jobs - also in youth marketing and children's media - and found myself asking the same questions when ventures failed or changed direction. Is it possible to make money in the kid business and do the right thing at the same time? More importantly, do the children we're trying to serve even notice or care?

Last week, completely out of the blue, I received an e-mail, a social media full-circle moment if there ever was one:

Hello there,

I found your e-mail address on a couple of networking websites after looking up FreeZone (linkedin, scbwi), but this isn't a business related e-mail - instead I come to you just to send a simple thanks.

To give the creepiness of this e-mail some context, I was going through old boxes this weekend and came across a big one of letters when I was growing up and I had one from you. When you had your website, Freezone, operating I was a frequent (addicted is probably a better term) chatter there.

Even though it has been so many years since then, it really made an impact on me (both your letter, and my hours and hours of time in chat). I was a completely isolated kid and it was great to have a safe place to 'go'. I also met great people in the chat who I do continue to have periodic contact with after all these years. So, for whatever it may be worth to you now I wanted to extend again my thanks for really having an impact on who I am today even though we don't even know each other. I'm working towards doing things in my own career that I can only hope make the same kinds of difference.

All the best,
Crystal
(aka "Burn")

"Burn" and I have since corresponded via e-mail and we're now connected via the latest social media sites. She's 28!!! Which makes me feel very old - it's the same age that I was when I was running FreeZone. That time feels light years away yet fresh in my mind. Her note serves as a wonderful reminder that well-intentioned acts do make a difference, and that we have a tremendous responsibility as content providers and marketers in how we ultimately shape the lives of kids and teens who consume our products.

How is your children's media business impacting the lives of real kids? I'd love to hear your stories.

Preschool TV execs battle it out as kids watch way, WAY too much TV

According to Nielsen, the company that tracks television viewership, preschool children between the ages of 2 and 5 years old are watching an average of more than 32 hours of TV each week. This alone should cause a concern-- or at least a raised eyebrow or two, but I’ll get to that later.

The recent buzz has been about Disney’s new preschool channel, Disney Junior, which is scheduled to launch in 2012. According to last week’s article in the New York Times, Disney Junior to Focus on Social Values:

“Mothers want preschool television to be more about teaching children social skills and less about pushing clear academic goals – at least that’s what Disney executives say new internal research indicates. For decades, most preschool programming has been built around an educational curriculum, whether that is numbers and letters (“Sesame Street”), language skills (“Dora”) or even math (Nickelodeon’s “Team Umizoomi”). Disney’s “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse” incorporates problem-solving and counting. The reasons for the educational focus vary, but the approach serves one major goal: reassuring mothers about plunking their wee ones in front of the TV screen.”

This has lead to a quasi turf war among television executives. Not over how much kids should watch (or when – data now suggests that parents are demanding kids programming not only during the morning hours but also during prime time and evening, from 5-11pm) but what kind of programming. According to the Wall Street Journal’s The Turf War for Tots

"Executives at Walt Disney Co., preparing their latest push for this audience, say that some TV for tots favors curriculum over storytelling. They argue that it's sometimes too much work, not enough play. They're offering themselves as an alternative to Nickelodeon's Nick Jr. channel, which emphasizes learning. Disney says that today's parents are ready for a change. In an age of video games and iPads, kids can learn their ABCs anywhere. What's missing are good, old-fashioned stories that kids can repeat to others, pretend to be the characters, and watch again and again."

And yet, a new study released by Seattle Children's Research Institute and the University of Washington demonstrates Preschoolers are Watching WAY too much TV. According to the MSNBC summary, "nearly 70 percent of the preschool-age children exceeded recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for limiting screen exposure (including TV, DVDs, computers and video games) to one to two daily hours. The recommendation is based on research linking screen time with adverse effects, including language lags, obesity, possibly aggressive behaviors and decreased academic performance, according to study researcher Dr. Pooja Tandon of the Seattle Children's Research Institute and the University of Washington."

There are other options for those of you who aren’t convinced that the Disney/Nickelodeon/PBS Kids food chain is the only option out there. Full disclosure: these are my clients.

Ameba TV is a set top box company out of Winnipeg, Canada with a content library full of thousands commercial-free, educational shows geared towards kids 3-8. Parents control the content; kids get a customized remote. Ameba has plans to update their site to include a subscription-based streaming service. Soon, you will also be able to subscribe to Ameba via Roku, a digital media player.

The Mother Company, out of Los Angeles, is producing a series of DVDs based on social and emotional learning, with a gentle, stylish approach (think Mister Rogers, only the shows are lead by a delightful creative-inspiring host named Ruby). The company is run by a group of "mamas on a mission" who are driven by a passion to redefine screen time.

Dr. Tandon of Seattle Children's also offers tips for limiting screen time:

* Use DVDs or on-demand television, because when the show is over, it's over. "The problem with television is it keeps going," Tandon said. These media also eliminate advertisements, which tend to promote unhealthy foods, she added.
* Set rules for screen time early in children's lives.
* Turn off the TV during meal times.
* Take TVs out of bedrooms. (Tandon mentioned research suggesting a certain percentage of preschoolers have TVs in their rooms.)
* Watch television with kids, and discuss the shows and the messages put forth.

As we live in an increasingly media rich world, parents should be mindful of what their kids are watching, how much and when. How do you limit screen time in your home?

A lesson in educational children's content

One of my favorite people in the whole world is David Kleeman, President of the American Center for Media and Children (hi, David!) With over 25 years in children's media, the man knows his stuff. His column in this week's Huffington Post is so right on on so many levels. When it comes to "educational" children's media, it's a claim that we all want to embrace, yet it's too often become a term that is misinterpreted and even abused.

Says Kleeman: "The gap between producers' claims of educational efficacy and a consistent standard for assessing those claims, especially for preschool media, is today's primary battleground in children's media. Every parent wants their children's investment in screen time to be worthwhile, so producers are happy to say their TV, DVDs, websites, toys and software are intellectually enriching. Sometimes, those claims reflect deep and thoughtful work to infuse beneficial content into a developmentally-appropriate format. Sometimes, they're little more than bait for busy, guilty parents."

Did somebody say busy, guilty parents? Whoops, I digress.

At any rate, Kleeman suggests what I think is a brilliant idea: a list of ingredients! "Responsible producers would detail their vision of the target audience, the developmental or cognitive elements they intended to address, their philosophy of how best to teach them, and how those elements are expressed in their creative approach. Parents could then evaluate whether the focus suits their child's specific needs, interests and abilities; whether the interface and presentation sound engaging and match their values; and whether the technology is worth the investment."

Honestly, I couldn't agree more. What do you think?

Ready for Generation Z?

Today’s MediaPost features an article in their Engage: Teens column that admittedly I found a little disturbing. Three Predictions about Generation Z purports that this up-and-coming group of teens are like a super-powered version of their Generation Y predecessors (I can’t help think of the scene in Eclipse with the “newborn” vampires are coming out of the water, stronger and feistier than their elder vampire counterparts).

Anyway. These forthcoming uber teens (who are younger than preteens, the offspring of the X Generation, ages 5 and under) are apparently 1. More technologically savvy than any other generation, 2. Adverse to criticism, and therefore likely to sabotage a brand or a marketing campaign and 3. Will continue to find loopholes so that they can access information more quickly. Numbers one and three I’m totally fine with; it’s just number 2 (excuse the pun) that stopped me in my tracks. These kids are barely potty trained! It's quite the stretch to predict that with "one slip of the tongue, they're likely to stomp on your foot, leave the room, and start an empire quicker than you can say Facebook." Yeah, maybe that's because most of these Generation Zers are still in preschool and therefore tantrums are not uncommon.

When it comes to generational trends, I prefer Penelope Trunk's Generation Z summary of predictions. She gives us some historical perspective but doesn't make any big claims. And really, as youth marketers, do we really need to start focusing on Generation Z now? Unless you've got an early learning program, children's book series or family-friendly movie coming out soon, I think not.

The Key to Kids and Healthy Products? Collaborate with a Licensed Character

Surely it will come as no surprise that a recent study found that children’s consumption goes hand in hand with effective merchandising, licensing and marketing (Yale University: Licensed Characters on Food Packaging Affect Kids’ Taste Preference, Snack Selections).

But onions? Sure enough, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article about Shrek’s recent promotion with Vidalia onions.

The anecdote about the three year-old who threw a fit until his mother dropped a bag full of onions into her shopping cart pretty much sums it up. What parent hasn’t been there before? Not with the onions, I mean. The toddler pitching a fit in the grocery store over a licensed character.

This same mom went home with her onions, chopped them up into a casserole and the tot gulped them down. “It was like a toy in a cereal box,” said the mom.

Now, I’m not advocating marketing to children merely for the sake of marketing, but when it comes to stuff that is “good” for kids but not always an easy sell (healthy foods, educational products, etc.) the challenge is always this: how can you make it as fun and rewarding as a toy inside a cereal box? Sure, of course you can partner with a box office hit like Shrek and sit back and watch your sales rise… or you could do something even more fun and engaging.

If Shrek can sell onions to kids, what can you do for your brand?

TV and Todders: What’s the Real Scoop?

We all know that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than two hours of “screen time,” (i.e. television, videos, DVDs, online games, handheld games, movies, virtual worlds…) for children, and no screen time for children ages 2 and under.

So what happens when toddlers and young children watch more than their daily-recommended allowance? They are linked with later problems in life, according to a new Canadian study cited in last week’s New York Times:

For those children, each hour of extra TV exposure in early childhood was associated with a range of issues by the fourth grade. Compared with children who watched less television, those with more TV exposure participated less in class and had lower math grades. They suffered about 10 percent more bullying by classmates and were less likely to be physically active on weekends. They consumed about 10 percent more soft drinks and snacks and had body mass index scores that were about 5 percent higher than their peers. While it may be that children who watched more TV also had less involved parents, the researchers said they controlled for factors like a mother’s education, whether the child was in a single parent family and other parenting concerns. The findings suggest that the differences were strongly linked with television exposure, not parental care, and that excessive television is not good for a developing brain.

Indeed, children’s brain development is a critical factor at this age. Everything they see and do and experience creates connections that have a long-term affect. So – why didn’t the study look at the kinds of television that children were viewing in addition to how much? I think this is a critical piece of missing information.

According to Dimitri A. Christakis and Frederick J. Zimmerman, authors of "The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television Work for Your Kids "At its best, TV can educate and inspire. High-quality documentaries offer insights into history that no book can equal. Children's educational shows have the proven ability to help children learn to read to be kind, and to share. In short, when used appropriately, television has the power to expand horizons and help children's cognitive, social and emotional development."

Similarly, according to University of Massachusetts psychology professor Daniel Anderson, an internationally known expert on television and early childhood development, “I am absolutely firmly convinced of the power of television for serving positive developmental ends. Well-made television that’s designed to benefit children really does benefit them.”

What do you think?

Marketing to girls: pink stinks. Really?

“You need to buy me a new jacket.”
“Why? It still fits you. There’s nothing wrong with it.”
“It’s too girly.”

Actual conversation between my daughter and me last week.

She’s 7.

And then there’s this Time magazine article Not So Pretty in Pink: Are Girls' Toys Too Girly? about two London moms who recently launched the advocacy group Pinkstinks, which they hope will "spark a shift in a popular culture that they say puts girls "into a pretty little box" from birth, offering them toys that emphasize the importance of looking good and being feminine, while the boys are allowed to go exploring and get dirty."

Which is fine… I suppose, if it weren’t such a tired feminist argument that really has nothing to do with consumer marketing, gender inequality or unfair stereotypes.

Here’s the thing. The reason why all the girl clothes and toys are pink and purple and princess-y is not because the toy and fashion industries are sexist. It’s because that’s what sells. And it’s what the girls want… up until about age 6 or 7. And then it changes. Just go into any major retailer or department store and look at the different sections. Toddler/preschool clothing and toys are extremely segmented by stereotypical gender colors and genres, but merchandise for older kids (ages 7 and up) is not. It's not a conspiracy. It's just plain old market economics.

However, as a feminist and women's college graduate I do know that there are plenty of parents out there who are fed up with the mass merchandise and uninspired consumer products targeting our young children. They want products that are fresh, new and different. As a mother to a daughter who up until a year ago would only wear pink, I also know that it's frustrating to buy clothes or toys that simply don't get used.

The London moms (mums) behind the Pinkstinks campaign have launched a sister website where kids can participate in the discussion.

What do you think?

Tampon advertising that pokes fun at tampon advertising (pun intended)

I nearly laughed out loud when I saw this latest (brilliant) “Break the Cycle” campaign targeting women 14 to 21 from U by Kotex, courtesy of JWT in NYC.

The ads poke fun at advertising, market research, out-of-date marketing concepts-- and prudishness. According to Tuesday’s New York Times article,

One spot which will make its debut next month, opens with a woman strolling confidently toward the camera. “I’m a believably attractive 18- to 24-year-old female,” she says. “You can relate to me because I’m racially ambiguous. Market research shows that girls like you love girls like me.”
The sense of an ad somehow deconstructing itself continues, as she says, “Now I’m going to tell you to buy something. Buy the same tampons I use. Because I’m wearing white pants, and I have good hair, and you wish you could be me.” Screen text near the end of the spot asks, “Why are tampon ads so obnoxious?”
A print ad, meanwhile, shows a woman driving a convertible with this text: “I tied a tampon to my key ring so my brother wouldn’t take my car. It worked.”

And so does the ad.

In another TV spot (see it on YouTube), a young woman in her 20s says “How do I feel about my period? I love it. Sometimes it makes me want to run on the beach!" while showing images of women running on the beach and dancing. The clips mocked in the spot are actually from Kotex commercials, believe it or not.

The result is a campaign that is fresh, different, authentic and terrific on so many levels. Online on UbyKotex.com visitors can sign a “Declaration of Real Talk,” vowing to defy societal pressures that discourage women from speaking out about their bodies and health. For every declaration, Kotex will donate $1 to Girls for a Change, a national nonprofit based in San Jose, Calif., that pairs urban middle school and high school girls with professional women to encourage social change.

According to MediaPost, a study conducted online in August 2009 by Harris Interactive on behalf of Kotex, among more than 1,600 North American women ages 14-35, 7 in 10 women believe it's time for society to change how it talks about vaginal health, yet less than half (45%) feel empowered to make a difference.

“We’re really out there and we’re trying to touch women and say we care about this conversation,” said Mr. Meurer, of Kotex. “We’re changing our brand equity to stand for truth and transparency and progressive vaginal care.”

Talk about breaking the cycle.

What is your brand doing to shake up preconceived notions when it comes to girls and health?

Gaga over product placement

Here’s a modern day “telephone game”: See if you can count how many product placements are in the "Telephone" Lady Gaga video. Now, count the ones that are paid for. Pass it on.



According to AdAge,

"The most-talked about aspect of Lady Gaga's Beyonce co-starring, Jonas Akerlund-directed music video for "Telephone," which premiered Thursday night, was not the singer's flagrant partial nudity, girl-on-girl kissing or mass-murder sequence in a diner featuring Tyrese Gibson.

It was the product placement.

At least nine different brands make appearances in the nine-minute music video, from Gaga's own Heartbeats headphones to a "Beats Limited Edition" laptop, from HP Envy to "telephone" partner Virgin Mobile, and from Miracle Whip and Wonder Bread to Diet Coke."

But how many of these product placements were actually paid for? Not many, according to Gaga's manager. They were simply her ideas.

Put in pop-culture historical perspective, it's interesting to see how much creative license (or not) Gaga takes in her videos. They're definitely edgy but not necessarily original. Like my previous blog post on YA plagiarism, it appears to me as if Gaga is simply taking creative references from a variety of different sources and pulling them all together in a new way. Maybe I'm aging myself here, but all I see is a younger, next generation version of Madonna.

So who is the true material girl?

For YA novelist, plagiarism is the new promotion

Today’s New York Times article “Author, 17, Says It’s ‘Mixing,’ Not Plagiarism,” tells the perhaps not-so-surprising story of Helene Hegemann a 17 year-old German author who’s debut novel “Axolotl Roadkill,” shot to bestseller status in the span of just a few weeks. The Times states that German newspapers and magazines “heralded the novel far and wide as a tremendous debut, particularly for such a young author.” So hey, it must be a good read.

The interesting thing about it is that Hegemann admits to lifting material from a lesser-known novel, “Strobo,” by an author writing under the nom de plume Arien.

Ah, the plot thickens. Says the Times:

Ms. Hegemann finds herself in the middle of a collision — if not road kill exactly — between the staid, literary establishment in a country that venerates writers from Goethe to Mann to Grass, and the Berlin youth culture of D.J.’s and artists that sample freely and thereby breathe creativity into old forms. Or as one character, Edmond, puts it in the book, “Berlin is here to mix everything with everything.”
A powerful statement, but the line originally was written by Airen, on his blog. The plot thickens, however, and shows that perhaps more than simple cribbing is at work. When another character asks Edmond if he came up with that line himself, he replies, “I help myself everywhere I find inspiration.”

In a final “gotcha,” the controversy does not at all seem to be hurting book sales – for either Hegemann’s “Axolotl Roadkill,” or Arien’s “Strobo.”

So here’s my question. In the era of “mixing everything,” of re-tweets and re-purposing content and blogging about bloggers and multichannel marketing and content aggregate sites and yours truly lifting a paragraph from the New York Times about plagiarism in order to make a point about plagiarism… is there any originality anymore? Perhaps not. A trendsetter for sure and perhaps wise beyond her years, Hegemann says “There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity,” in a statement released by her publisher after the scandal broke.

… and this little cookie launched a major viral marketing campaign

The Girl Scouts have grown up a lot since they launched their lackluster “Girl Scout Cookies Venture Into Cyberspace” PR campaign a mere three years ago.

This year, the campaign is terrific. Why? Because it isn’t about the cookies. It’s about building a strong Girl Scouts brand, which is at the forefront of the messaging:

Every Cookie has a Mission: to Help Girls Do Great Things

This week’s BrandChannel “Brands We Love” column reports that this most recent Girl Scouts campaign is a precursor to an overall rebranding plan that will be unveiled later this spring, focusing on how scouting builds leadership, helps teach girls how to manage money and how cookie sales help drive philanthropic efforts locally and abroad.

Now that you know all of that… don’t you feel justified in buying a few more boxes of Girl Scout cookies? I know I do.

De-incentivizing socialization among children

"One of the things I've seen over the last decade is that we've become so successful at creating incentives for online socialization that I think we have unintentionally de-incentivized face-to-face socialization for kids."

Wow. Did he just say that? Yes. In today's Seattle Times. Meet Jordan Weisman, CEO and founder of Smith & Tinker, creator of the interactive Nanovor game primarily targeted to young boys which includes the accompanying offline Nanoscope(tm).

Weisman goes onto say "kids are still human so they still desperately want to be in the room with the other 10 year-old. They just don't know what to do when they get there."

Excuse me? Are you trying to tell us that 10 year old children don't know how to interact with each other? And that your products are part of that solution? Apparently so. This is what the Smith & Tinker homepage has to say:

Reinventing play for the connected generation

We see a future in which unconnected products like toys, games, books and movies will not be able to compete with the dynamic and exciting world of the internet.

Maybe I'm the only one raising her eyebrows at this. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that an offline children's brand is still a thing to behold and that online brands depend upon offline marketing and distribution channels just as much as offline brands need online marketing.

It also begs the question: whether you have an offline brand or an online brand or something that falls somewhere in between, what are you doing to promote face-to-face socialization among children?

Haiti donations pour in from Gen Y

As of yesterday, $27 million has been donated to Haiti relief efforts via text donations. (CBS News). The Red Cross mobile campaign - texting the word "Haiti" to 90999 is simple and ingenious. According to Peter Dunn in a recent MediaPost article, The Red Cross has "cracked the code to Gen Y giving."

What made the campaign all the more successful was how quickly the viral and PR efforts took off. Facebook certainly did their part. As have the major news networks. There hasn't been a day that's gone by that I haven't seen the "Text Haiti to 90999" on multiple TV stations. Talk about free advertising!

The Red Cross isn't the only organization that has seen an major influx of donations of course. But they definitely have the best campaign and I'm sure marketers all over the globe are taking note. Or getting on the bandwagon. I Heart Daily posted today that Gaia Online, an anime-themed site for tweens and teens, will match Red Cross Donations submitted by members.

What is your brand doing to support relief efforts?

A brief history of cartoon animation

Happy Birthday Popeye! (80) Scooby-Doo! (40), The Simpsons! (20), Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner! (60). You all look terrific, you haven’t aged at all. You’ve got what they call... timeless beauty. And a good story to tell.

Yesterday’s Seattle Times picked up the Toledo Blade’s recent retrospective of classic cartoons (and their 2009 birthdays) and I couldn’t help but smile. Regarding ancient classics like Felix the cat (90!) when cartoon shorts were just getting their start in the silent film era, Andrew Farago, curator of the Cartoon Art Museum in San Francisco, said “I don’t think the Disney empire could have happened without him.” (Was it a game of cat and mouse? Sorry—couldn’t resist that one.)

It reminded me of an Animation exhibit I attended earlier this winter at the Pacific Science Center where kids got to experience first hand the art of animation, including drawing, video and special effects.

One thing always leads to another. Yet as we go into 2010 and view new animated films – like the Princess and the Frog, getting back to the Disney magic minus all the bells and whistles or Avatar, and its breakthrough special 3D effects – I wonder what the next decades will reveal.