MA House Bill 489 - efforts to end school commercialism

Exciting news! The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing two weeks ago, on May 30, 2007 on Massachusetts House Bill 489: An Act Relative to the Public Health Impact of Commercialism in Schools. This is ground breaking bill that would prohibit nearly all advertising on school grounds, as well as prohibit any and all promotional material and gifts that carry a brand name or mark (unless it's a primary product - for example, a bag of Doritos can keep the Doritos logo). This is the strongest anti-school commercialism legislation in the nation and would set a huge precedent if it were to pass. It would make Massachusetts schools K - 12 commercial-free spaces.

A number of people testified at the hearing in support of the bill, including Elle Goldberg (Massachusetts PTA), Diane Levin, Ph.D. (CCFC co-founder, Professor of Education at Wheelock College), Susan Linn, Ed.D. (CCFC co-founder, author of Consuming Kids), Juliet Schor (author of Born to Buy, Professor of Sociology, Boston College), Mary Ann Stewart (parent, Lexington, Massachusetts) and Lin Vickory (parent and activist against Channel One, Lunenberg, Massachusetts). All of their testimony is available in full text on the CCFC website (or by clicking on their name above).

And if you would like to read more about Stewards and Vickory, two Massachusetts parents supporting the bill, the Worcester Star-Telegram published an article about their efforts.

Also, a piece by Steve LeBlanc covered the story, including thoughts from some opposing the bill.

State Rep. Brad Jones, the House Republican leader, said it's unclear how far the ban would go, whether it would bar posters for colleges or the military or T-shirts with rock band logos. He also said the ban is unnecessary.

"It's like the thought police," said Jones, R-North Reading. "Any school district that has a problem can choose to ban ads anyway."

For my perspective, however, the bill is a statement by the state that advertising in schools is unacceptable, as well as a pledge to support schools in their efforts to combat commercialism and provide the highest level of education possible.

How it will all turn out is still to be seen, but I am reassured and encouraged that a bill like this exists at all. I think it’s a sign of change pushing in the right direction.

Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom

I watched a very interesting film the other day entitled Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom. It originally came out in 2003 from Media Education Foundation, but it's quite good and still very relevant. By way of brief summary:

For marketers who wish to reach the lucrative youth market, the relatively uncluttered medium of the school environment represents the final frontier -- access to a captive audience of millions of students. Meanwhile dwindling federal, state, and local funding for education has left many schools vulnerable to the advertiser's pitch. As a result, commercialism has steadily increased in America's public schools in recent years, often with little or no public awareness.

If you'd like the TAKE ACTION and watch the film, be aware that it can be difficult to get a hold of, in that it is not sold to the public, but only to institutions (at prices the average Joe or Joanne can't afford). But, sometimes local video stores that specialize in documentaries may have it. (For example, in Chicago, Facets Multimedia often has hard to find material.) Another option is that many colleges and universities have the video in their circulating collection for card holders. So find a university faculty, staff, or student, and hop to.

But, by way of a sample, here's the trailer:

Bus Radio taking over the airwaves

The marketing "brilliance" of Channel 1 is no longer reserved for classrooms, but now the company Bus Radio has taken the "captive audience" scheme to school buses. In exchange for providing buses with radio equipment (including GPS for emergencies), every hour of programmed music (primarily pop and r&b) contains eight minutes of advertising and two minutes of sponsored contests.

Bus Radio describes themselves saying,

“Every morning and every afternoon on their way to and from school, kids across the country will be listening to the dynamic programming of BusRadio providing advertiser’s with a unique and effective way to reach the highly sought after teen and tween market.”

According to their website, they “will take targeted student marketing to the next level.”

Comments from WFMU's Beware of the Blog said the following:

I've been to the website and I've heard the media clips. They are playing music that is cleaner than regular radio and they still have fewer commercials than regular radio. Who cares if the kids are seeing commercials? You can't turn on Saturday Morning cartoons without being bombarded. I think it's a better alternative and my kids love what they've heard so far. I just don't see what the big deal is.
Posted by: Sarah W. | December 14, 2006 at 04:18 PM

The big deal is that this amounts to compulsoary commercials that children cannot avoid (similar to channel one). In your home you control whether your children are or are not advertised to... that is a *CHOICE*. I've seen the promotional materials that channel one uses to attract advertisers and the pitch goes something like "Johnny doesnt like watching tv anymore and when he does he skips the commercials. He's on the internet and out w/ his friends so how can you guarantee he'll see your message? At school!" Perhaps the culture of "Urban Span"/"Ad Creep" has gotten to the point where people dont see this sort of thing as a problem but one would hope there are still at least a few lines that shouldnt be crossed when it comes to advertising and I would argue that mandatory viewing/listening of advertising at or on the way to school would fall into that category.
Posted by: doron | January 01, 2007 at 08:53 AM

While some don't really see it as a big deal, others are up in arms. Unlike the comment above, some citizens, like those at Obligation, Inc., are very concerned over radio content including song lyrics, band personas, "news" content, and so forth.

Yet others are concerned that kids have no commercial-free zones left. Bob Hill of the Louisville Courier-Journal says (with more than a little sarcasm),

It’s a grave national crisis. Our children can see and hear commercials aimed at them before school, after school and during school. Saturday mornings are a special treat for our little consumers with 30-minute commercials disguised as entertainment.

Weekday afternoons and evenings children again are massaged with television and computer advertising. Yet there it was—that yawning, school-bus electronic chasm when young people without access to proper ear gear could be denied eight minutes of commercials per hour. All they would be left with were themselves, possibly opportunities for wider friendship, shared experiences and frank discussion.

Disgusting.

In response to the rise of advertising to children, 40 organizations and 64 children’s advocates jointly endorsed letters to the 100 leading national advertisers and the top 50 advertising agencies, asking that they commit themselves not to advertise with either Bus Radio or Channel One. To read the letter in its entirety as well as read the list of signees, click here.

If you are interested in TAKING ACTION, Commercial Alert offers the opportunity for you to email top officials in a number of large corporations, requesting that they stop advertising with Bus Radio and Channel One. There are also a number of additional activism options available through CCFC.

What now?! Is Channel One encouraging youth to smoke?

It seems that since Channel One was first introduced into classrooms it has been embroiled in controversy. Some things never change. Since its introduction into schools in 1989 nearly every major national organization concerned with education has come out with strong dissention against the news organization, including the following groups:

• American Association of School Administrators
• American Federation of Teachers
• National Association of State Boards of Education
• National Council for the Social Studies
• National Council of Teachers of English
• National Education Association (NEA)
• National Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
• National School Boards Association
• National Association of Secondary School Principals
• National Association of Elementary School Principals

For those who may not know, the Channel One Network leases audio-visual equipment to schools in exchange for a guarenteed captive audience each school day. The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education provides a telling overview of many citizens qualms with Channel One. To give you an idea of Channel One's reach, the Center says,

Every school that shows Channel One signs a contract, essentially promising to deliver a "captive audience" - as Channel One promotional materials call students. Most schools must air Channel One on 90 percent of school days and in 80 percent of the classrooms.

Students and teachers cannot change the channel, turn off the program, or turn down the sound - an ideal environment from an advertiser's perspective. In exchange for this irresistible opportunity to market to a captive audience, Channel One can charge advertising rates of up to $195,000 per 30-second ad.

Channel One reaches 12,000 classrooms a day, which serve approximately 30% of American teenagers. Each broadcast is 12 minutes in length, and contains approximately 2 minutes of direct commercials. In addition, many lambast the network for airing fluffy material that serves to do little more than to advertise other products and materials in the guise of news.

And it's important to note that students watching Channel One on a regular basis are disproportionately poor and of color. The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education says:

But a University of Massachusetts-Amherst study found that schools that can afford to say no to Channel One do say no. The study found that the program is disproportionately shown in schools located in low-income communities and communities of color. Channel One is found where the least money is available for education, where the least amount is spent on textbooks and other academic materials.

This raises additional questions concerning lack of school funding and how many districts are turning to corporate contracts as a result.

In addition, in September 2005, Gary Ruskin, the executive director of Commercial Alert, published a report entitled Smoking Class: How Schools and Channel One Promote Tobacco to Students in which he showed that 60% of movies advertised on Channel One portray smoking and that research has shown that students who see a significant amount of smoking in films are three times more like to start the habit than students who see less smoking on the big screen.

Mind you, Channel One's own website features a testimonial from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, stating:

"Channel One is an important and valued ally of the Campaign... Thank you for standing with kids in demanding healthy lives."

That can make it difficult to know what to believe. So, look around and read stuff for yourself. Then decide.

If you decide you would like to TAKE ACTION, Commercial Alert offers an online letter than can be sent to your local governor and state legislators requesting that Channel One be pulled from schools due to their promotion of smoking with youth.

Does Pizza Hut's Book It! program contribute to a nation of fat kids?

I fondly remember the days of my youth when I participated in the Pizza Hut sponsored Book It! program. I LOVED the idea that if I read enough books, I could get "a whole cheeze pizza just for me!" (I also liked Home Alone.) But as concern over childhood obesity has risen, a growing concern about the health implications of this program have also grown. Sarah Senghas outlines the argument in her Associated Content article "Critics Want to Can Pizza Hut's Book It Program: Read the Book, Eat the Pizza. Is that so Wrong?"

On one hand the program gets overwhelming support from some parents. (These are comments to Senghas article.)

Rhonda J. Rains 03/17/07:
Kids THRIVE on getting rewarded for something they did and it build their self confidence.... it also can prompt a family night out to a restuarant now and then. It's good to get out with the family for dinner once in awhile and I for one am so busy it's hard to imagine the long drive (we live in the middle of nowhere) there and back so we rarely go out. However when it's for a reward I then feel I need to make sure she gets that reward and in turn we have a fun family night out.

Tracie 03/24/2007:
C'mon- this obesity argument is getting a little out of hand- there is nothing wrong with things in moderation- as long as the children eat a generally healthy diet and combined it with daily activities there is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging and rewarding them on a job well done!

I absolutely understand these perspectives and agree with them to a limited extent, yet at the same time I agree with these points too (from the CCFC website):

“BOOK IT! epitomizes everything that’s wrong with corporate-sponsored programs in school,” said Dr. Linn, author of Consuming Kids. “In the name of education, it promotes junk food consumption to a captive audience of children; turns teachers into Pizza Hut promoters; and undermines parents by positioning family visits to Pizza Hut as an integral component of raising literate children.”

"If I were trying to design a program that would undermine children's interest in books, lead them to read in a shallow fashion, and convince them to avoid challenging texts, I honestly don't think I could top Book It!,” said Alfie Kohn, author of Punished by Rewards and The Schools Our Children Deserve. “Dangling pizza in front of kids as a reward for reading, much as one might use treats to house-train a puppy, reflects a completely discredited theory of motivation. Indeed, by teaching children that reading is just a means to an end, the program is likely to be not merely ineffective but positively harmful."

Developmentally, Kohn is right. People aren't dogs, and behaviorism does not instill an intrinsic motivation to do anything. If children only read to get a prize, that's a problem. Even so, I remember my Book It family nights as pretty special. Yes, I had a button, and I wore it and it's little gold stars with pride. But, maybe that's proof of Pizza Hut's real purpose - to get people to buy pizza. There's no shame in that. Pizza is there business. And yippee that they're interested in encouraging kids to read. But what are the implications for a nation in health crisis?

When we know the following, it easy to understand why this rewards system is perhaps not the best health decision for children in a nation already struggling with weight related health issues:

BOOK IT! rewards students with certificates for a free Pizza Hut personal pizza when they reach certain reading goals. A Pizza Hut six-inch personal pan pizza has 630 calories and 27 grams of fat. With a topping, it can have as many as 770 calories and 39 grams of fat. For children ages 3-5, a Pizza Hut personal pizza can contain more than half of their daily caloric requirement, as well as their entire fat requirement.

(And yes, Pizza Hut does have a Book It! Beginners program for preschoolers.) Good memories or not, we must be conscious of what eating habits we are building in our children. Maybe reconsidering this program is part of that process.

If you'd like to TAKE ACTION, you can check out this fact sheet and action suggestions from CCFC.

"Cathy's Book" - opening the door to direct marketing to youth through novels

Speaking of books, last September (2006) a youth adult novel came out from Running Press called "Cathy's Book: If Found Call (650) 266-8233." The book is an interesting cross-genre piece in which readers are given phone numbers and websites that they can actually call and visit as they read the book itself. But it has also caused a huge stink, both before and after publication, because it is one of the first in its genre to feature product placement in print for youth.

Motoko Rich's article from the New York Times last June explained that Proctor & Gamble, the parent company of Cover Girl, signed a marketing partnership with Running Press such that Cover Girl cosmetics would be featured in the novel's plotline in exchange for promotion of the book on BeingGirl.com. Sweet deal, eh? Well, until you think about questions of whether this blurs the lines between pleasure reading and marketing material more than is appropriate...

Running Press defended the book saying,

"It's always disappointing when people feel the appropriate response is to suggest that a book be banned, boycotted, or not read."

and I think that's totally valid, but I also think my freedom of speech entitles me to say I don't think a child's interest in reading should be exploited to sell product. Is the sanctity of reading for the sake of reading too much to take? Is this even still classified as reading or is it a great big ad? I don't know. And I have concerns of how this opens up the world of children's literature even more to marketing ploys. (I mean, we're already selling M&Ms to children learning math and Cheerios to babies learning to count.)

Annys Shin of the Washington Post does a nice job giving voice to both sides of the situation as well. It's a tough call, but it's not a product I can stand behind and I'm not very excited it's available for youth. What are we trying to do to young women?! Apparently they need a lot of stuff to be beautiful.

In response, the Association of Booksellers for Children (ABC) and CCFC organized an email campaign asking Running Press to remove advertising from the book. While the book is now available, you can still TAKE ACTION and write a letter of you want to share your thoughts with the publisher.

Bratz suck -- Tell Scholastic to get 'em out of our schools!

Over the past several years Scholastic have come under increasing attack for marketings commercial toys and media to children. (You remember Scholastic, right? They probably did all your book fairs and book orders in elementary school.) Most recently they are getting slammed for continuing to sell Bratz merchandise through their book orders and book fairs.

Josh Golin talks a bit about the situation in an article from the journal Mothering in Jan. 2007.

An increasing number of parents and educators are concerned about the products sold at fairs organized by Scholastic, Inc., the nation's leading book fair company. They note the presence of non-book items such as posters, key chains, toys, fashion accessories, and electronic media. It's a little hard to figure out how bracelets, videogames, or whoopee cushions (I'm not making that up) promote literacy.

Even the American Psychological Association have sited Bratz as a a source of "societal messages that contribute to the sexualization of girls" and harm both healthy self-image and development.

Especially as the Bratz movie prepares to come out this summer, it's important to work to get such sexualized images out of schools. (Bratz merchandise, in and out of schools, are being marketed to kids as young as four. Dude, six year olds don't need badded bras. Nor do they need books from a brand that says they do.)

To get a taste of what pissed off parents are saying, check out TheMomSquawkBlog.

And to TAKE ACTION, there is an email drive being hosted by CCFC. You can send an online letter to Scholastic asking them to stop selling Bratz merchandise to children.