First, commenting on Shrek’s outrageous full throttle marketing blitz and near complete ownership of the Macy’s Day Parade, she goes exploring at amazon and finds:
Books (1,469)
Toys & Games (539)
Apparel (321)
Home & Garden (287)
Health & Personal Care (98)
Video Games (64)
Jewelry & Watches (51)
Sports & Outdoors (50)
Everything Else (48)
DVD (48)
Baby (46)
Office Products (34)That’s over 3,000 Shrek-branded products, folks. And I left some out.
The Shrek machine, especially in food brand extensions, has been criticized and made fun of.
So, Shrek really is an ogre. The video linked at the end of Lisa’s excerpt (where it says “made fun of”) shows all the Shrek food (well, “food-like items” is probably more accurate) available. Sweet Jesus, do we really need Shrek painted on our frozen breakfast waffles? Go ahead, google Shrek waffles, they’re real.
What next? Advertising on produce? Oh wait — that already exists. Maybe you weren’t lucky enough to get bananas with the Curious George the Movie stickers, but I did (extended eyeroll). And this week? A DVD release announced via canteloupe. No. I’m not making this up.
Why on the cantaloupes and not on the cucumbers? Oh, right — it was a family film. Was that it?
Tell me, oh scary marketing people. I mean you, you doing the invasive ethongraphic market research and you, doing the freaky neuromarketing research, what is it that differentiates the cantaloupe consumer? What does the cantaloupe connote? Why not the pomegranate? Certainly, they would reach the oh-so-elusive demographic with disposable income. I think pomegranate eaters are early adopters. Tap in. Sell me a volkswagen on my pomegranate.
Market research freaks me out because so much of it is good. And by good I mean horrifically manipulative - playing on our every unfulfilled wish and the latent images we nurture of who we wish we could be. They know more about my subconscious than I do. See this fun-ny blogger’s take on her Disney vulnerability.
Speaking of Disney, which I do way way too often for a 36 year old professional…
Lisa’s second post drew on a Wall Street Journal article addressing the 4 billion dollar princess franchise. I was glad that she pointed to this article so that I could feel happy. And by happy, I mean completely defenseless and miserable. The whole article can be found here, but for effciency’s sake, here are the highlights:
Tomi-Ann Roberts, a professor of psychology at Colorado College, complains that the princesses have become more sexualized, with more skin showing and bigger heads, eyes and breasts. “The ever increasing marketing to younger and younger girls of an adult sexualized version of the princesses is concerning,” says Ms. Roberts, who co-authored a report on the sexualization of girls.
Other critics worry that encouraging young girls to obsess about being a princess sends the wrong message, with too much focus on being beautiful and not more substantive achievements.Disney doesn’t see that as a problem, and says most parents understand that Disney Princess is simply a role-play phase that kids go through. “For every mother that sees an issue, there are a million that don’t,” says Mr. Mooney, who adds that even beyond the target age group of 3 to 6, “girls do princess in private.”Still, many parents of princess-obsessed daughters notice they abruptly drop the brand at about age 6.
In an attempt to keep girls enchanted longer, the company launched Disney Fairies, a slightly edgier group of characters (including Tinker Bell) aimed at 7- and 8-year olds. Mr. Mooney estimates the Fairies franchise will generate $750 million in retail sales this year.The ultimate aim is to waltz girls from one franchise to another well into their teens. After fairies, Disney is attempting to hook them on “Kim Possible,” “That’s So Raven” and “Hannah Montana,” all playing on the Disney Channel, and then serve up “High School Musical” for older kids. “Then they come back to us as brides and mothers,” says Mr. Mooney.
Blech. I feel so dirty. But wait, here’s my favorite.
A gaping hole was babies. Mr. Mooney says mothers are highly gender aware these days (he estimates at least 80% elect to know the sex of their baby before it is born). Disney had historically sold gender-neutral characters like Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh in the infant market, but mothers surveyed have shown more interest in gender specific products, selecting princesses for a girl and “Finding Nemo” for a boy. Disney has both in the works.The key for the princess infant line was to make sure it didn’t damage the core business — something they tried to get around by making it a more subtle, less character-driven design. Mr. Mooney says, “We don’t want to turn off the older kids.”
A gaping hole was babies? A gaping hole was babies? Riiight. Better get on that. The scary thing is that they will and it will work. I can hardly wait to see how the Ariel seashell pasties look on a 5 month old.
Guess how many Disney Princess items Lisa found at amazon? Over 7,000. What the hell haven’t they liscenced? Do they make snow white tampons yet? Those, I would buy.
And as I type, dh tells me that Thing 1 asked tonight if she could get some princess books “like Janie and Carly.”
Sometimes it just seems impossible. I want to win a little, but how much energy can I possibly continue to invest in fighting this? My first thought was to start looking online for princess books that aren’t Disney and maybe offer some WordGirl like behavior in fancy dresses, but I’m getting tired.
Look at how they’re taunting me. I always said I wouldn’t forbid. I’ll say maybe a couple times and see if it goes away. Tomorrow I’ll find the energy for this again. In the meantime, I think I’ll go to the corner store and see if I can find a Shrek-free bag of cheetos to soothe my soul. If you know of any pretty dress heroine books, do share.
Damn you saturation marketers.
