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?