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?