If you haven’t seen it, check it out! Also, you might be interested in my latest article, which details the social networking aspects and internationality of the program:

http://www.childrensmediaconsultant.com/
get-out-your-passports-its-time-to-sail-to-panwapa-island.htm

Let me know what you think!

I completely agree with Academama that given the way our economy is set up and the lack of will to invest public money in non-commercial things for kids, the corporate sponsoring of sites is inevitable and practically unavoidable. I am aware of a few good non-commercial examples — PBS Kids and National Geographic Kids among them

My problem with Webkinz (and lots of other toys and activities for kids) is that there is a pervasive and powerful celebration of “aquisition” throughout. So as opposed to being a site that encourages the sharing of ideas for their own sake and social networking for the sheer joy of connecting with friends, it’s equally, if not more, about sharing (and acquiring) “things.” The more Webkinz cash a kid earns, the more stuff he or she can “buy” and then invite friends over to the pets room to show off all the cool new stuff. I am deeply worried about our culture’s focus on acquiring things -unneccessary, disposable, fashionable stuff. And I don’t want my kids to think that’s a key or necessary way to connect with others.

I agree that kids could do a lot worse than Webkinz. (Bratz, ugh!) But the presentation of shopping as an activity and a hobby really worries me. It’s just not meaningful or terribly satisfying and it offers false promises (of popularity, happiness, etc). Don’t get me wrong: my kids and I love to shop together — we’ve recently discovered some great vintage stores in our neighborhood that have very fun clip-on earrings and bow ties! I’m definitely not an anti-consumerist.

I was deeply affected by the book “Born to Buy” which is an unbelievable look at the corporate and advertising assault on America’s kids. The forces and finances marshalled to get kids to part with their money and to be committed super-consumers is shocking and dangerous, if not downright cruel. Since reading that, I most definitely have become at risk of taking my own personal backlash against these forces too far (for a year or two there, my poor kids had a few too many unpainted Scandanavian wooden toys — I’ve since loosened up, much to their relief!

Maybe Webkinz isn’t all that insidious, but I feel strongly that there must be a better way to engage kids than through activities that are so consumer and shopping-focused.

Like I said to my good friend who thought she should move her baby to a crib and out of her bed — “It isn’t a problem for you, unless it’s a problem for you.”

As for how good can we expect them to get? You are right - this is one of the challenges in a media enviornment where the end goal is profit, rather than the public good (just like network tv versus PBS, for profit radio versus public radio). It certainly puts the pressure on parents to find alternatives and on nonprofit orgs to create them (and they are working on this, you can find good stuff, for example, through Girls Inc.). But, there are some pretty impressive noncommercial adult sites around (e.g., Craigs List), and I think that as the need is recognized, parents (Imbee was founded by a mother frustrated when her 7 year old wanted to use MySpace and she was (rightly) concerned about safety.), educators, nonprofits, and public agencies will (continue to) respond.

In the meantime, I’m all about the shades of gray where people feel comfortable (under Caveats), and so if Webkinz is a good fit for your family, that’s a great thing. I can’t say how I would feel (we’re pre-Internet right now), on the surface, I would probably be as concerned as Alison, but if I found myself with a child interested in Webkinz versus Bratz — I’d certainly become a member of the Webkinz booster club!

Here’s the thing: I’ve really liked the consumerist aspect of the site that helps her learn how to “earn” KinzCash and make choices on how to “spend” it on food, cards, decorations for rooms, etc. She’s also been able to take care of her virtual garden, weeding it and watering it, so she can grow her own food for her animals.

Obviously this doesn’t account for the whole Site Sponsor issue, but how feasible is it for sponsorless sites like these to exist? Someone has to be footing the bill for it, right? She’s never mentioned any of the ads that are featured, and I haven’t noticed her encountering any annoying pop-ups that advertise other products, sites, or companies. I guess I’m just wondering how “good” can we expect these sites to get without sponsors?