Posts Tagged ‘marketing to kids’
UK Toy Fair 2010 – Great advert for positive kids!
Whilst we strive for the ultimate in ethics we forget that there is no such thing as ”perfection”. Many will say that being ethical means a healthy or green or cause related product, but I’m not sure; yes these are important but to me they are the symptoms, the result. In my book ethics is about the intention; the integrity of the brand or company; it’s honesty.
No-one or thing is perfect and therefore we should bear this in mind when judging ethics and look at the ethos of the company who is presenting you with a product which they want you to consume.
I have been at the Toy Fair in the UK for the last 2 days and I’m of the opinion that in general this is a great advert for ethics and “doing the right thing” with children and how the industry is marketing their brands.
It wasn’t always so and there are those that still market with a mind to make as much money as possible with no regard to how and are happy to just deceive the consumer. But I couldn’t find much, if any, of that this year and you have to applaud the toy industry for the way it has adapted and grown in the marketplace over the years. Olympia’s show for 2010 was a fantastic advert for the industry. It appears to me that brand owners have matured and are presenting their wares in a positive light, they are developing products with a view to how children will play with them and they are accentuating the positive, rather than hide the negative. I firmly believe that if there’s something to be “careful” of with your product, then be honest about it, don’t hide it; consumers will ultimately thank you and admire you for it. It may mean a more “long term” strategy, but the climate is right for this now, as we climb very slowly out of recession. Brands will have an eye to being strong when the market gets strong and those that build a rapport with consumers now will benefit the most when things get moving.
The UK toy industry is taking a lead in this type of business ethics and I’m delighted to highlight it!
There was even one company who’s product ranges are all “ethical” in some way or another. As I said it is not about being ”perfect” but about making positive strides and distributor Asobiare a great example of what can be achieved alongside the right attitude and owner Thierry certainly has a great philosophy, which is gaining its just reward. Mind you he is a Frenchman who spent many years working in Japan – so work that one out!
As for the rest of the show, I found it a tightly knit community of stands and people, with many familiar faces buzzing around, all stopping for a hello or a chat. It was relaxed, friendly and businesslike, which is just the right mix, and there were some great brands to be seen. My favourite: Kung Zhu from Character, which is a the boys version of their runaway “Hamster” success of 2009. I also think Corinthian’s “Ocean In My Pocket” will be a star throughout this year. My favourite display: Marbz. OK. I’m biased but it did look great:
Marbz, looking great
Role on 2010 and everything it brings; may the honesty continue to prevail.
It’s a shame I’m not going to New York in February as the buzz there is always great and maybe this year it may be a bit special; I’d love to be reporting that for you!
Related articles by Zemanta
- MONOPOLY CITY is GAME OF THE YEAR 2009 (eon.businesswire.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=91d8dce6-7959-4394-85e8-e2ae669dfe0a)
Article in Toys n Playthings Magazine
This link is to my article in TnP
They decided to call me a “Guru”. I like it though!
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1kwrz/ToysnPlaythingsFebru/resources/234.htm
Kids on call: phone firms target tots
I believe it’s time for Networks to face up to the fact that they “target” children even though none of them do it deliberately!
This is an interesting article about what’s happening in Australia: Kids on call: phone firms target tots.
Religion And The Recruitment Of Children – Is This Ethical Marketing?
The Church Of England (COE) is to actively recruit children, with the aim to go as low as 2 year olds.
It has got me to thinking; Is this ethical marketing to children?
Last week the COE used it’s PR machine to promote the message that it has “concerns” over childhood, which was highlighted with sermons on the subject during the ”free advertising” it receives every Xmas on TV. From the pulpit the Archbishop Of Canterbury lambasted marketing and advertising as forcing children to grow up too early.
His message was part of a concerted marketing campaign designed to recruit children into the church, which was highlighted in an article in the Guardian published on 24th December: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/23/church-recruiting-drive-targets-children
If we look at the product that makes up ”Religion” at present it is no surprise that the key brands need new consumers.
Here in the UK it is estimated that only 5% of the population attend church services every month and that this figure is dwindling as the present consumer is ageing and slowly dying off.
It is apparent that religion has no relevance to the other 95% and that the key religions have not been addressing a new consumer and gaining any traction with their audience. The major religious brands (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew and Muslim) are losing market share and are in need of new consumers.
Religion as a consumer category is like soap powder: inside the box, the product, with small variations of the recipe, is essentially the same for all brands (same god, variations of the story). The differentiation comes with the packaging and the marketing. As with all markets the category has its “brand leaders” who are determined to maintain their market share and regularly produce brand messages designed to be attractive to their consumers and to potential new markets – for example the Pope went on a tour of Africa in 2009, which was clearly designed as a recruitment drive for the Roman Catholics.
It’s not my agenda here to suggest why the brands have lost touch with their consumer, but when any brand announces that it intends to market to children we should all take a look at what is being sold and analyse the quality of the product and the honesty and believability of the messages it is delivering.
In essence; is the campaign ethical?
We are continually doing just this for McDonalds, Coca Cola, cereal manufacturers and toy makers, calling them in for the honesty of their marketing messages. So why not religion?
If McDonald’s announced it was to actively target 2 year olds there would be uproar across the world!
In a document revealed in the guardian article, the COE says: “We need to reconsider how we engage with and express God’s love to this generation of children and young people, whoever and wherever they may be,” and goes on to say about the new campaign ”The challenge is how to creatively offer children and young people encounters with the Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ,”
So that’s the marketing strategy and I hope that the use of the word “creatively” doesn’t mean that the COE will act like a dishonest children’s food manufacturer and make false claims for their brand and hide the real product in the packet. In exposing cereal manufacturers I have called on them to be open about the real ingredients that make up their products, to tell us that the levels of salt and sugar are high and not over-accentuate the fact the cereal contains wholegrain, for example. Religion does not have immunity from this moral code and some may argue that, religion, if it is to be believed by young people, should be absolutely squeaky clean, above board, honest and be seen to “do the right thing”.
Maybe this is part of the problem for this category. Has religion become difficult to believe for the consumer? Has the product become tarnished and the brands become untrustworthy?
What has caused the consumer to question these brands? Are the products ethical, are they honest with the target audience? What could be in the product that religions may wish to hide from the consumer, but which is contained within and which may effect the minds of young, vulnerable people ? When we subject the category to scrutiny, what record does each brand have in regards marketing to children? What questions should we be asking of such big brands so that we may feel that our kids are safe with the product?
Maybe:
- Previous history in regards abuse of children in the care of religion
- Past record in abuse of the rights of the child and freedom from forced ideology and dogma
- The rights of children to freedom of speech
- The proposed agenda in regards “recrutiment”
- Promotion of “fear” as a control
- “Demonization” of ideals and dogma opposed to their product
- Openness to other ideas and thoughts
- The freedom of competitive products
- Support and justification for war
- Their record in the fight against AIDS
- Their stand on gay rights
- The promotion of the rights of women
- Record on the promotion of birth control and especially the use of condoms in the fight against disease
These are relevant questions that the consumer has the right to know if they are to trust a brand and allow it to market to children and henceforth to be thought of as “ethical”.
There is no reason to suggest that these huge brands shouldn’t be subject to the same restrictions we apply to all children’s marketing categories. No brand that is targeting the susceptible mind of kids is above the valid scrutiny of their own ethics. There are many pressure groups at the moment wishing to ban all marketing and advertising to children in order to prevent the “brainwashing” of our kids from big brands; will they have the same agenda when applied to religion? I would hope so, otherwise they will have vacated any moral high ground to which they may lay claim. Furthermore, will the Archbishop Of Canterbury in the future, criticise his own marketing as “filling the child’s mind with adult messages and thereby forcing them to grow up early”? Again, I hope so, but alas I fear not.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Rowan Williams says children being forced to grow up too quickly (guardian.co.uk)
- Church of England targets toddlers in youth recruitment drive (telegraph.co.uk)
- I’ve changed my mind about religion | Caspar Melville (guardian.co.uk)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4a9e5727-1750-43c0-87fa-a3decc961065)
Brands Escaping The Clutter – Learning from Kid’s Marketing!
A holiday conundrum for you to ponder over the holidays!
Markets for all brands are cluttered.
Consumers are difficult to reach, they aren’t brand loyal anymore, they are difficult to find, they are fickle, they don’t use media like they used to and they can’t be found in masses anymore!
It was ever thus in the kids markets!
We love the headaches this can cause.
We love the cut and thrust, the flexibility and the “chase” to reach this audience.
Many years of building brands targeted at kids has made it enlightening to see today’s brand owners groaning under the strain of “keeping up” with their audience.
With the “adult” brands tThe techniques which have been honed over many years just don’t stack up anymore. The “science” has gone out of marketing. It’s now much more of an art, brands need to “know” their consumers in an intimate, interactive, conversational and tactile way.
Just like the kids markets!
We have always had to worry about shifting trends, about brands being “in” one week and “out” the next – it’s part of our art.
Our audience have had their own TV stations for decades, they are ahead of the curve with all things digital, they are consumers and consummate influencers in many markets already. We are happy to treat them with respect and to learn from them; not to force things on them and let them decide what goes and what doesn’t.
It surprises us when we hear that other consumers are now behaving the same way and that the brands don’t know how to handle it.
The solution – THINK KID!
Get your head into the “lateral thinking” space; understand “what a kid would do” and how it will affect your brand. Target your consumer as though they are kids; it’ll be enlightening!
Where to find the solution: http://childrensmarketingexpert.com/our-offer/training
Related articles by Zemanta
- How to build a brand these days (slideshare.net)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=80594b2b-9074-4032-9c3a-987da5ccdaea)
Marketing To Kids Ethicallly – Is banning Junk Food Advertising The Answer?
I’m not absolutely sure that the calls to ban junk food advertising will have the effect that many moms and pressure groups expect it to.
There can be no doubt that foods high in fat, sugar, salt (FSS), preservatives, additives or anything, for that matter, unnatural and inorganic, is not good for you if taken in high doses or in levels that don’t fit with other foods in a balanced diet.
It is no surprise that there are many lobbying moms out there who want to rid the world of junk food and feel the best initial step is to ban the advertising of these products.
This week there has been a clammer for the Federal Trade Commission(FTC) in the USA to clamp down on the glut of TV advertising seen by children and the high percentage of promotions seen on kids TV channels in the States, especially on Nickelodeon.
This week they held a conference to discuss the measures that should be applied to manufacturers to curb their levels of advertising to kids and they followed this up with an announcement of new restrictions which will apply to advertisers. The measures are voluntary!
The Twitter world has been aglow with people in the anti camp and we’ve heard very little from the food manufacturers themselves. Groups such as #OCmoms, #Boycottnick, #momblog and the campaign for commercial free childhood (@commercialfree) have been tweeting and arranging petitions against Nickelodeon, in particular, for “brainwashing” our children. The baton has been taken up int he UK by Sustain who wish to prevent junk food being used in product placement or advertiser funded programming.
Whilst I have enormous sympathy for these campaigns I can’t help feeling the objections are slightly over the top and actually mis-guided in their approach. What is the ultimate aim?
Are they addressing the symptoms or the cause? Will these campaigns actually succeed in reducing obesity or in improving the diet of their children or indeed, the holy grail; will they get the manufacturers to change the make-up of their products so that they contain less of what is so bad for us?
Let me say here that I have no sympathy for the food manufacturers and junk food restaurants; they haven’t helped themselves with their behaviour over many years and meanwhile have made $billions by keeping us mis-informed and uneducated about their foodstuffs. They continue to produce foods they say that the “consumer wants” and then hide behind spurious claims for the products that hide the real levels of FSS and hope that consumers won’t notice or they make sure there is no education in order to help parents make wise dietary decisions. This is unethical and I feel they have brought all of their present troubles on themselves.
So, will banning all junk food advertising on children’s TV work?
Assuming that the ultimate aim, in my view, is to reduce childhood obesity, then I say no it will not work. It hasn’t worked in the UK where we banned it a couple of years ago.
There is no advertising in the UK on kids TV channels for foods considered high in FSS based on UK government benchmarks. Obesity has not reduced in the UK and children still crave after a MacDonalds or Burger King. The reasons?
One reason is that there are so many ways to communicate with children and as many people within this debate realise children don’t watch as much kids TV as they do “adult” TV. The cereal manufacturers have simply taken their money out of the kids TV channels and dumped it in larger numbers into Saturday night shows such as The X-Factor (UK’s Pop Idol). The levels of in-school promotions by these brand owners has also increased considerably through Internet “educational” programmes.
However, the key reason this doesn’t work is that children’s key form of communication and the ultimate arbiter of what is cool is the playground, or the after school club, or the bedroom with brother and sister. The only way you’re going to prevent the passing on of these messages is by putting on blinkers and stuffing in earplugs. Children are savvy communicators, they know what advertising is and whilst we all have a duty of care to protect the young, we are not the keeper of their own rights as individuals to know what’s going on and eventually to make their own decisions. In cases where parents dominate and say “they know best” at all times, we have the corollary to Nickelodeon’s said “brainwashing”.
So what’s my solution to this crisis? And I’m not just throwing this word out there, the obesity levels of children with a western diet constitutes a crisis.
As a comparison I point people to the ban on tobacco advertising in the UK. This was intended to reduce smoking and it was felt the tobacco giants would be the poorer for it. Actually the result was no decrease in smoking levels (it went up with young women!) and the nett result was higher profits for manufacturers! It was only when public opinion swayed against smoking that the government then banned smoking in public places and people started to think seriously about their habit and less people have taken it up.
What I’m saying is that it is in the court of public opinion where the changes get made. It is the consumer who ultimately decides the outcome.
A similar case is the one of “drink driving” which for years was considered OK by many as long as not too drunk, but gradually public opinion has made it extremely anti-social to drink and drive and the result is big reductions in conviction levels.
So here is my solution. Let’s make the over-consumption of foods that are bad for you as anti-social as smoking and drink driving. Let’s make it cool to be healthy. If you’re a kid you can still be a rebel, be anti-establishment, inquisitive and uber-cool and not eat too many burgers!
Consumers need to unite against the manufacturers in a different way and attack the cause and not keep putting sticking plasters over the symptoms. Let’s be holistic and force the manufacturers to change their ways.
We need to be “outing” the brand owners and informing everyone of the dishonesty apparent in many marketing camapaigns. This shouldn’t be directed at governments and lobbying them to help as there are too many vested interests here; it is down to us, the consumer, to pressurise the brand owners.
We know this can work as only last month Kelloggs were forced to drop a campaign that claimed cereals were a boost to the immune system and a help in prevention of bird flu!
What the manufacturers are scared of is having to be honest about what is in their products and are fighting hard not to participate in a system we call “traffic lights” in the UK, where key components in foods are given a green (low), amber (OK) and red (high) rating. Categories are fat, saturated fat, sugar, salt and calories. One supermarket int he UK (Sainsbury’s) already applies this to all their own-label foods and I congratulate them for it – It doesn’t stop you buying foods with red lights (I love cheese) but it does make you think about the balance of foods you are buying. (in the States you have GO, SLOW, WHOA)
The manufacturers are scared stiff of such a regulation being forced upon them and will fight extremely hard to prevent it. That must beggar the question why? And the reason is that they won’t be able to be unethical and dishonest any more; cereal manufacturers would have to admit that their products are stuffed full of salt and sugar and not so much of the “wholegrain”!
I believe the upshot of this won’t be eating a lot less cereals, as breakfast is a good time to get this energy, but that moms will be aware that their children should have less salt and sugar in the lunchbox or later at dinner. It’s about balance! The same goes for other “bad” foods; there is no reason to completely ditch them, just understand how often they should be eaten.
We have to apply the pressure to the manufacturers and not hope governments will do it for us. It’ s time to set up a campaign where we publish the information the brand owners don’t want us to and in a way that is simple to follow and which ultimately will get the manufacturers to do the right thing. To do that we must tell each other (and everyone else) the truth about brands and what’s in them.
For my part I am setting up a “real” kids products review blog and web site where we can all send in the truth about kids brands and rate them in a simple and easy to understand way and in a way that will make the brand owners take notice. I’m hoping to launch this soon; Does anyone want to join with me to make this happen quickly?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=505c7dbc-d8aa-419a-894c-81a05ccfd87e)
General Mills To Cut Sugar In Kids Cereals : Eat. Drink. Better.
Here’s a report from USA which is good news for all of us!
I hope they mean it; Well done General Mills
I really hope manufacturers are finally accepting their moral responsibility to the children.
General Mills To Cut Sugar In Kids Cereals : Eat. Drink. Better..
Get Your Products Reviewed By The Expert!
Have you developed a kids targeted Brand?
Have you got a good idea that needs an opinion?
We will review all of your products for you.
Celebrating Kids! – Sesame Street is 40
Hoorah for Sesame Street!
This is something worth celebrating and not just for the fact that there will be a big licensing programme to exploit this anniversary, but for the years of fun and education brought to billions of children throughout the world. We have to thank the originators for a programme that today may not even get made!
- Image via Wikipedia
I have read many articles which point out that Sesame Street is not a “perfect” programme for educating children; that it breaks all the standard rules and that if it was made today it would need to be better targeted and to take into account the educational methods of the 21st century.
But isn’t this just the point?
Sesame Street in the way it has been made and the context it is set within, is by it’s very nature “counter culture”. The characters are lovable, yet urban and slightly anarchic. I always felt that Sesame St was sticking a finger up to education and saying to kids that you can learn with us, we are your pals and we are here to help. Kids love this and respond to it, and low and behold Sesame Street is still here and still educating and being loved by another generation of kids; and long may it continue.
It is certainly true from a licensing standpoint that certain characters such as Elmo demand the limelight and this will be driven by licensees such as Mattel, but this does not take away from the core essence of a brand.
This is one that moms and grandmoms love dearly and they want to pass Sesame Street to their offspring. I hope that the writers continue to bring fun and education. Sesame Street is the original “edutainment”
Here’s to another 40 years!
Related articles by Zemanta
- Happy 40th birthday Sesame Street! (googleblog.blogspot.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e3e290c7-b858-456d-b713-8d96bc9dd027)
Marketing to kids – Dolls – an opportunity!
Mattel is a worldwide smash as a company. Why is this? it’s a simple answer – Barbie!
The history of Barbie is well documented so I’ll let you do your own research but the rise of a phenomenal brand has mapped the rise of parent company Mattel. In the UK we had Sindy, which for nearly 30 years rivalled Barbie on UK shelves, until Mattel started a campaign to dominate the sector in the early 1990’s; it worked, Sindy has all but gone and Barbie appeared to be in a such dominance that “the world was the petite one’s oyster”! That of course was until…
…Bratz. The urban, shocking, big eyed and rebellious brand took us all by storm and beat the living daylights out of the cutesy, fairy-like queen of dolls and we revelled in the competition, but alas it wasn’t to last. It turned out that MGA had “pulled a fast one” and “stolen” the designs for Bratz from under the noses of Mattel. The subsequent spat went to court and Mattel won; MGA has to withdraw Bratz from retail shelves by January 2010 and the way is now open for Barbie to resume it’s hegemony; or so we thought.
Of course there are other players in the toy world and whilst Mattel and MGA fought out their heavyweight battle they were busy developing brands to fill the gap, to try and keep up the competition; keep Barbie on it’s toes and earn some money from the slap to MGA. So what do we get?
Bratz in disguise! We get new models which are borrowing Bratz rebellious streak, the “look” but brought up to date; but is it new? Moxie girls and Liv doll, and any others that may be out there are just filling a gap and producing “me-too” brands. Easy money, can’t knock it, but I still feel there has been an opportunity missed and to be honest that opportunity is still there.
Funny though, when I mention this to toy manufacturers and designers, no-one seems keen to take up the cudgel. There seems to a resigned look, as if to say “we can’t take on Mattel and Spinmaster” ; we’ll leave it to them.
If anyone out there is a designer of toys and wants to work with me on a new girls doll concept, please give me a shout. I expect you to be slightly mad and completely “out there”, but it can be done. We can change the world!
Someone has to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/fashion/08dolls.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=fashion
Related articles by Zemanta
- Moxie Girlz and Liv Dolls Take Aim at Barbie(shoppingblog.com)
- Once Again, Barbie Faces Competition From A New Group Of Stylish Plastics [Hello Dolly](jezebel.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f1848f76-223b-4103-8634-5f2c5c046c0c)
Professional Services
Brands can no longer rely on customer loyalty
It was ever thus in the children’s markets!
See how all brands can benefit from children’s marketing techniques
See how we can help you
At Last!! – BBC News – Dirt can be good for children, say scientists
One for those who think we mollycoddle our kids!
There is a serious tone to this and we should be aware of the fun that childhood should represent. I understand that parents worry all the time about the safety of their kids, but the message really should be that the majority of children have positive childhoods.
BBC News – Dirt can be good for children, say scientists.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a475a123-a00e-4738-a1ac-97ff00dc30ca)
Marketing to Kids Ethically – Part 2
I was asked last week: “Is advertising targeted directly at children correct or not?”
I did think about it but I knew the answer I would give as it is the same every time I’m asked, and it has been asked on many occasions, most especially in recent years.
I believe that all advertising reaches children.
Children are huge consumers of media and contrary to popular belief they do not consume the majority of this watching children’s TV channels! Children are to be found in far greater numbers watching “adult” TV. They are constant companions to soaps, reality shows and entertainment. This doesn’t mean they are not watching children’s shows, especially when younger, and therefore directly targeted advertising reaches them, but they see just as much if not more adult targeted advertising than they do their own brands.
In the UK many food brands are banned from advertising on children’s TV, but this doesn’t mean they can’t advertise to children in huge numbers by advertising in The X-Factor for example. Many advertisers make the most of this and then can claim they are targeting mums and adults and not fall foul of rules governing what children can see. Cereal manufacturers are of course at the forefront of this.
Back to the question!
In my opinion you can advertise to children provided you are not exploiting them. Of course the next question is what is exploitation when marketing to kids.
I’ll get to that in part 3!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=19184b9d-566e-4ff9-8b29-424236b84b87)
Subscribe to this Blog!
