Thanks to Lisa, over at Corporate Babysitter for these two gross posts that have my anti-childhood commercialism mind reeling. ARGH.
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.
Jess
November 27, 2007 | 10:43 pm1
Brava!
I found you via BitchPh.D. and am resisting the urge to demand to know who you are. (I too am a feminist social scientist in the northeast with a pair of young kids).
Here’s one webpage about feminist children’s books:
http://www.socwomen.org/index.php?ssss=47
Keep on keeping on. Great post.
mom
November 27, 2007 | 10:57 pm2
Hi Jess.
You actually do know who I am, you just don’t know you know.
If you think you can guess, email me at my professional email address. You know that too
Lisa @ Corporate Babysitter
November 27, 2007 | 11:00 pm3
Two words: Princess Smartypants (by Babette Cole).
Don’t give up!
Neuromarketing
November 27, 2007 | 11:12 pm4
Aww, marketers aren’t really scary, are they?
I don’t buy into the stories about manipulative ads that turn consumers into drones. We are simply too different from each other, even at the brain level.
And think of the potential of using neuromarketing not to design better ads, but better products.
Roger
mom
November 27, 2007 | 11:23 pm5
Is that what you’re doing, making us all happier through better products? Funny, because the princess toys I’ve seen seem to be the same moulded plastic crap they were 20 years ago.
And I don’t think we’re drones either.
Audeince + Text = Meaning
We’re half of the equation. Living beings who interpret, react, and critique.
But I know two things:
1) Young children do not have the same abilities to discern persuasive messages as adults
and
2) Corporations invest astonishing amounts into advertising for a reason. If it were ineffective, you would be out of a job.
Midodok
November 28, 2007 | 12:02 am6
This post was great! I must admit, I’m one of those people who will buy a product just because it has a cartoon character on it. But, man, enough is enough. It’s completely wrong that these characters are used on so many unhealthful foods targeted to kids!
Dreamworks goes too far with that Shrek property. A lot of people in the animation community don’t even like Shrek, ha ha! In Korea, McDonald’s had a Shrek milkshake (which was quite good) and the employees had to wear Shrek ears (which was fun for me as a customer). I guess this is because the overseas market is so important for a film’s success now.
I think there is a proper place for cartoon characters in consumer culture. It just has to respect its audience. I think the best way to respect your audience is to create content that has meaning to them and their family in the first place (good films, fun cartoons, exciting stories). Then the audience will want to consume beyond just the original property on their terms. But it seems a lot of merchandising is just created to promote unproven properties.
That drives me nuts! It leads to countries like Mongolia then ending up with the reject toys that nobody else wanted in more developed countries. So they end up with Fish Tale plushies. No kid deserves that!
The Secret Ingredient
November 28, 2007 | 12:13 am7
Yup—the canteloupe with the sticker advertising the new “2 disc set” of Disney’s re-release of The Jungle Book. Wouldn’t have bought the damned thing had I noticed the sticker in the store (amazing they weren’t all mandated to be facing UP).
The princess crap is so pervasive, that it is even making its way into OTHER licensed characters, which previously had NOTHING to do with princesses! My daughter pointed out a new “Dora” book where Dora is somehow transformed into a freaking mermaid. Then another one where Dora becomes a princess. Yes, the little bilingual Mexican girl who goes on adventures, is now a princess. Funny, my 5 yr old who was SO OVER Dora two years ago(”she’s for babies!”), suddenly is drawn to this book because Dora is suddently in a bikini top and has fins for legs. BARF. I guess they figured they were losing their audience—and kindergarteners were a “gap” for them. Bring on the princesses!
The Modesto Kid
November 28, 2007 | 8:25 am8
For every mother that sees an issue, there are a million that don’t
Is just a hilarious line. It’s accurate but does not communicate exactly what the speaker is intending it to.
Sylvia got a Shrek chia-pet from her grandparents when we visited them for Thanksgiving, and was very excited about it, which seemed kind of strange to me given that she is not really “into” Shrek that I can see — she might have seen one of the movies on video and probably read the book at some point — it seemed more like just generically having received a Disney marketing object that was fun to her, than the specific instance. We seeded it up and are watching and waiting for it to sprout.
Lisa @ Corporate Babysitter
November 28, 2007 | 9:49 am9
Roger, Mom’s right. Kids don’t need “better” products. A puzzle is a puzzle, blocks are blocks and books are books. Adding pink sparklies to anything does not make it “better.”
Midodok, I think you bring up a great point. There’s nothing wrong with these characters in and of themselves. The problem is targeting kids, who cannot know better, with product upon product upon product. They cannot get away from it.
Not the Mama
November 28, 2007 | 11:47 am10
Ugh, thinking about this fries my brain. I get so frustrated, and then I feel so overwhelmed. I’ve seen the disney stickers on fruit — our local supermarket has packages of oranges that come with disney marketing. They cost more than the regular packages, which just slays me — why should I pay MORE to consume their advertisement? And of course, if you go up and down the center aisles of the grocery store — where the prepackaged foods like crackers, cookies, cereal, waffles, frozen dinners, etc live — you can’t escape the marketing. Everywhere you look, the boxes are covered with animated characters. I steadfastly refuse to buy anything with a licensed character on it. I have an absolute zero tolerance policy. Since we have no children in our home, we have the luxury of creating that policy and not dealing with the conflicts you have. I fear the day I have to deal with this in regard to my own children. Because of course you are right, forbidding things makes them more appealing, so there is a bit of a catch-22.
The increase in Disney infant marketing doesn’t surprise me in the least. For years, gender neutral characters like Pooh have been everywhere in that market. I guess the gender-focused leap was a logical progression. I can’t even express how appalling it seems, both in regards to overwhelming consumerism and also in regards to starting the gender brainwashing earlier and earlier.
Also, this is a little off topic, and maybe it makes me a snob, but I have to say: all that baby crap with licensed characters on it makes me cringe. Tacky, tacky, tacky.
Karen
November 28, 2007 | 11:48 am11
Secret Ingredient, my son had a Dora umbrella a year or so ago–but it wasn’t just plain old Dora, no way–it was “La princesa Dora”! With a dunce cap w/scarf coming out of the point, long dark hair, and a long, long yellow dress. He even asked me, “Why is Dora dressed funny?” At least the “handle” (molded plastic figure) was the normal Dora. When that umbrella bit the dust, he picked out a Sponge Bob umbrella. I’m picking the next one, and it’s going to be a ladybug or a frog.
jessica
November 28, 2007 | 11:56 am12
advertisements on produce? is nothing sacred?
Astoria
November 28, 2007 | 11:56 am13
Found you via Bitch Ph.D. Love your site. I would read back posts if I wasn’t struggling to revise two chapters of my dissertation during the morning while kids are at school. I think about gendering and toys and such a LOT. My kids do too. My 6 year old is striving to make sense of why some of the other first graders are so gendered. He told me he doesn’t feel like a “boy” all the time. Then he told me that he does like “rough” and “spooky” things and that he is strong and fast, but “girls can like those things too, I really think they do, right?” Yes, they do. “And I don’t always like the boy things?” No you don’t, sometimes you do, and sometimes you don’t. So kid, maybe the labels are what’s wrong, not you.
Thanks for being a voice out there. Count me in as a new reader.
Shandra
November 28, 2007 | 12:24 pm14
Hi, new reader too. Did you know Disney has actually extended the princess brand up to adults? (Brides). See this. Sadly it is entirely serious:
http://www.disneybridal.com/
acm
November 28, 2007 | 3:09 pm15
maybe you can buy Thing 1 the book “Paper Bag Princess,” which, while perhaps not eliminating the fixation, at least turns it on its head to a satisfying degree…
mom
November 28, 2007 | 4:38 pm16
Midodok - this is such a great comment. You’re right — animation is delightful - colorful and imaginative and creative beyond belief. That’s part of what I’ve lost — the ability to enjoy it and to gleefully allow my kids to enjoy it. I can’t even imagine if these characters were used only to advertise shows or films…
Modesto Kid - You HAVE the chia!! har har har. Oh, I love chia pets! I prefer mine old school, though. Fun-ny!
NTM - Good for you. “Zero tolerance policy.” Makes me think of you as Rudy Giuliani as NYC mayor. har har har.
Go Astoria! You can do it. What field?
acm - Got it! Thank you!
Must be Motherhood
November 28, 2007 | 5:44 pm17
The Gaping Baby Hole concept gave me shivers too. This is going to sound simplisitc, but I think the only way to fight all of this is to talk about it with our kids about advertising in ways they can understand…one of the most effective lessons I was taught in elementary school involved counting the number of ads for such-and-such I saw during an hour of regular television. Instantly, I became a critic. Educating our kids about the value of money and how much things cost, and taking them to advertising-free environments (the woods? what’s left anymore?) helps too. Continuing the fight/conversation must be key, but if we forbid Disney, Disney becomes more desired. I know you’ve written about this so I don’t want to go on and on. And I know things are different now–marketing is SO pervasive–but I grew up absolutely loving the Disney princesses and by the age of 13 you couldn’t pay me to wear anything with a logo b/c it was uncool to be so unoriginal and childish. That’s what I hope will happen with my own child, anyway.
navi
November 28, 2007 | 9:13 pm18
serve up the princesses along with healthy age appropriate commentary on the way society stereotypes, and non princess alternatives (my oldest tended to have to listen to my sarcastic comments during the movies as well - seriously, Belle wants adventure and is happy secluding herself in a castle, come on). I also associate the word princess with being a good person, rather than beautiful, so ‘princess’ had nothing to do with a preoccupation with beauty in my daughter’s mind.
I had decided I wasn’t going to get her any gender based toys until she could ask for them, and she was leaning towards everything pink before she could talk. So my blue/yellow/green baby stuff turned into pink (I wasn’t fond of the color until after I had her, now it’s a favorite).
Part of empowering your daughter is letting her make her own decisions (age appropriate ones, of course), isn’t it? Denying a girl her princesses is, to me, like force feeding them to a girl who hates them and wants the ‘boy’ toys. Just make sure she’s also exposed to things she likes that aren’t princess-y
twinmama
November 28, 2007 | 9:19 pm19
Keep fighting the good fight, we need you! (I especially need you so I can keep sending my mom your posts so she can “get it” a little more when I start my ranting routine)
The girls got a halfway decent princess book from my SIL that you might check out: Do Princesses Scrape Their Knees? by Carmela LaVigna Coyle.
mom
November 28, 2007 | 9:47 pm20
Hi Navi-
Great comments. Just for clarity, I have never, ever denied my daughter princess anything. Check out the archives for my twisted battles, which have all been between me and the outside world (and, really between me and myself). My daughter is oblivious. I always said I wouldn’t do forbidden fruit — and so, now, well - I’m finally being tested. Do I mean it? Can I let her? She does have a snow white tooth brush.
Even if I do allow some, to avoid making a BFD (to her, anyway, clearly it became a BFD to me a long time ago!!), she’s 4 and a half. I’ve done pur-ty dern well if her peers are any indication.
BUT, I want to make sure that you see the depths of my issue with princess. It’s partially gender, but that was superceded my my concerns about creativity, imagination, and freedom some time ago:
http://outside-the-toybox.com/unchecked-capitalism-and-the-colonization-of-childhood/2007/09/11/
shannon
November 28, 2007 | 11:13 pm21
Audrey Wood wrote a great book called the The Princess and the Dragon. The princess is terrible at being a princess and the dragon is no good at being a dragon so the two switch places. There is also CinderEdna which is about Cinderella’s next door neighbor who doesn’t need a fairy godmother because she saved her money to buy a gown and then took the bus to the ball. I am also a huge fan of the aforementioned Paper Bag Princess and Princess Smartypants.
radical mama
November 30, 2007 | 11:55 am22
The Shrek machine is incredibly annoying. Luckily, my girls were totally bored after the first one and we’ve avoided much of the scam.
My girls do love to play dress-up and be princesses, but they rarely pretend to be disney princesses. IOW, they actually use their imaginations. (Em, actually, likes to be the Prince about half the time, while wearing a dress. How’s that for alternative?)
A. Berkoski
November 30, 2007 | 1:53 pm23
Bravo. Very well done. I commend you for speaking out about the way our daughters are sexualized from such a young age. I worry myself, as grandparents and friends purchased Princess everything for my daughter. You’ve bookmarked now!
MMBF
Tree of Knowledge
December 5, 2007 | 5:39 am24
I’m late to the party, but have you seen these suggested fixes to the princess problem?
http://www.mommytrackd.com/bookshelf/amazon?id=5
http://www.parenthacks.com/2006/09/talk_amongst_yo.html
mom
December 5, 2007 | 4:06 pm25
TREE OF KNOWLEDGE - YOU ROCK!!!!
Erin
December 6, 2007 | 11:00 pm26
One good princess book is Princess, Princess. For one, it’s actually about little girls, not big grown-up princesses, so it seems more appropriate for little girls to read. Two, it’s not preachy or anything, just a story about a pretty princess and some little fairies. It’s a version of sleeping beauty, but without the handsome prince, and the girls are dressed fancy. My little girl loves it.
Michael
December 7, 2007 | 2:50 am27
Only in Japan. No, I am not joking. I would have bought some, if not that I thought it would offend their sensibilities; they were in a store in the World Bazaar (Main Street) at Tokyo Disneyland. I struggle to see what the market is for that.
C'tina
April 9, 2008 | 7:46 pm28
I just remembered…when those info mercials for ‘Flomee’ those gel ball playdoh things, or anything crappy and gimmick-y came on, I used to tell my older son, “They are just trying to get your money” and “there is this saying, ‘buyer beware’… Then for Christmas one year I got all my boys toys here http://www.fatbraintoys.com/index.cfm they even have a “made in USA” section (though I am aware that certain faraway us territories are still sweat shops..) Rosies Hippos http://www.rosiehippo.com/ “What you see in
Rosie Hippo’s selection is the kind of item we offer to our own children
- high quality natural products that appeal to children and which
encourage creative exploration and a more peaceful world.” If my kids ask for something, I say “Not if it’s made in China….” which eliminates 99 % of garbage. They consloe themselves by saying, “They are just trying to get our money”. So I’m raising will be paranoid cynics. They can take out their frustrations with the mini maul. http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_200325119_200325119 20 years ago they were made in USA, no longer
Gay Muscles Videos
August 26, 2008 | 5:55 pm29
ktgl viekdq
Free Young Lesbian Sex Stories
August 26, 2008 | 6:04 pm30
lxuqh wvqymd
Jamie Lynn Spears Nude
August 26, 2008 | 8:50 pm31
jaicen uopvq
Ass In Picture Porn Sex
August 27, 2008 | 10:30 am32
qajylfx cbinq