Martini Musing: The Idiot Box Redux
(You might want to pour your TGIF libation of choice before starting to read - it’s one of my longer musings.)
Back when television first started “invading” our homes, there were great cries about the decline and fall of our civilization, damage to our children, etc. etc. etc. I strongly suspect people reacted in the same manner to radio - not to mention the first use of paper, Gutenberg’s printing press, and new, improved chisels for stone tablets. Oh, and comic books were also going to destroy our youth. (I seem to have made it to adulthood just fine, thank you, with IQ intact. I hardly ever throw a towel around my shoulders as a cape and leap around the living room anymore.)
Recently Doc Searls got into a blog discussion with Dave Rogers. Here’s a snippet in which Doc quotes Mr. Rogers:
If we pursue the conflict metaphor here, that “common ground,” (the home) Doc thinks we might defend was lost long, long ago. The demarc between the social and the commercial I’m fighting for is a metaphorical “last stand,” and it exists in the only place left: Inside our heads. Doc and the Cluetrain followers are trying to eliminate that as well.
Hmmm…I think I have a clue and I like trains. (Sorry, that comic book reading may have had more of an effect than I thought.) But, I don’t see any of us - at least not the rational, responsible adults - trying to “eliminate” anything. In fact, many of us - aging baby boomers all - are refocusing on quality of life versus quantity. That means a whole lot less commerce and a lot more simple enjoyment of home, family and scenery. And, if we can enjoy that scenery while listening to Ella Fitzgerald (or Metallica or Fergie) on our iPod, what’s the harm?
Rogers goes on to say:
Before the advent of radio and television, children mostly entertained themselves in play, sometimes with toys either made at home, or made available through commerce. Parents sometimes told stories, or read stories to children. Commerce, our economic life, was once so demanding, that parents put children to work in factories. For many centuries, child labor was an economic fact of life on the family farm. So it’s not as though it was totally unprecedented. But the competitive drive that governs commerce makes children an attractive labor force. In our culture, social and political forces united to check the competitive economic drives that placed children in factories; and productivity enhancements brought about through technology, and expanding markets more than made up for the loss of cheap child labor. But commerce wasn’t finished with children yet.
He then talks about the problems of companies targeting children in marketing. And, I agree that the commercials are ubiquitous, insidious, shameless, relentless and often just downright stupid. However, I’ve also read a lot of history and I’d bet kids (and their parents) back in - say the 1300s - would be thrilled to trade rotten teeth, mud floors, lice, famine, war lords, and the Black Death for some crappy commercials, occasional sugar overloads and shoddy plastic toys.
I’m climbing on my well-worn soap box now: Why do people almost never talk about personal accountability when they denounce evil commerce? Certainly, marketers should operate with intelligence and integrity. But, we the people always, always have control over the button, dial, or on-off switch. And, we can make choices (really). If millions of alcoholics can get and stay sober, despite soul-deep craving - we can surely just say no to Barbie, burgers, and the rest of the junk. General Mills doesn’t hold a gun to people’s heads and force them to feed their kids Cookie Crunch. MacDonald’s doesn’t break down our doors and drag us to stuff down Happy Meals. You never even have to go to the toy store, much less walk down the Barbie aisle. And, you can throw those pizza coupons right into the trash!
I’m sure some would roll their eyes, “Oh, sure, Mary - you don’t have kids! You don’t know how hard it is!” Sorry, that hound won’t hunt, as we say down South. Nothing good is ever easy. And, being a good parent is a very hard job. I know people who work at it and do it well. They read to their children, feed them nutritious meals, take them for long walks to the park - and, last but certainly not least, say “no” and mean it.
Thus, I respectfully say to Mr. Rogers (and the rest of his neighborhood) - get over it already. Why don’t we talk (and do something about) real last stands, rather than metaphorical ones? Say, global warming? Commerce isn’t going away - it’s been around since Oog traded a handful of berries to Loog for a sharpened stick. And, thanks to technology, millions of us can connect virtually about what’s really going on out in the real world, from a cold pizza to a soldier’s view of Iraq. So the old way of pushing ideas and products is rapidily becoming obsolete. (Which is why you see old-time marketing poobahs pooh-poohing things like blogs. And, some of the politicos appear to be going not-so-quietly insane. Their way of life and commerce is ending.)
I live in one of the most beautiful states in the country, so I’m going to climb down off my soap box - turn off all my shiny, flashing, beeping, clicking, talking boxes - choose not to shop - and go live in it this weekend. “See” you on Monday!
For some very different perspective on all this, visit Adrants (Warning: nothing - words, images, or deeds - is considered verboten.)
All my Friday Martini Time posts
Tags: advertising, marketing, commerce , marketing to children
View the Blog Roll
February 20th, 2007 at 4:57 am
I think more of a stand is taken all the time. It requires the concept of consumer authenticity. Some think however that people a.k.a. consumers are wanting to be fooled and not be true to themselves. See the post on my blog: http://sparkers.typepad.com/thinkingsparks/2007/02/authenticity_by.html
February 20th, 2007 at 6:52 am
You have it right, Mary. Parents need to be accountable. I hunger for those good old days, sometimes… but, I’m not really willing to give up what I have. In reality, WE are the media. WE have always been the media. From the earliest focus groups, to the advent of soap opera advertising, to the Saturday cartoons - the public has had complete control over this thing we call media. We’re just more obvious about it now. When folks find it easier to blame the platform, or the tool, rather than their role in using it - I have to laugh.
Have you seen the video on YOUTUBE about social media? It’s great. http://youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE
February 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Mary - You’re raising so many good points in this piece. Targeting children with never-ending ads for never-ending consumption vs. just saying “no” is a tough one, given that the never-ending ads make it harder and harder for parents to just say “no”. And the kids seem to pick up info on “what’s new/what’s hip” through osmosis. One of my sister’s had the childhood nickname of “Po”. When the Teletubbies became popular, I bought her a little Po doll. Her daughter - no more than 18 months old - spied the doll, said “my Po,” and made a bee-line for it. My sister was not even aware the Molly knew who the Teletubbies were, although apparently kids in her daycare were already baby-talking about them. There’s just no avoiding the incessant bombardment!
As for your comments on children in the 13th century. Right on! It wasn’t quite 13th century, but every once in a while my grandmother would decide we were going to have a night of old-fashioned entertainment. We’d sit around her “parlor” singing “Mocking Bird Hill” and “I Wandered Today to the Hills Maggie”, and dread the moment when she’d pull out the poetry book and make one of us read “The Highwayman” or some other 19th century clunker of a poem. We couldn’t get out of there (and back to Donna Reed and Beaver) fast enough!
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Maureen,
And, then there’s the old “When I was your age I had to walk to school barefooted in the snow, for five miles, dragging a dead cow to hack up for lunch.”
Something tells me they don’t have these “problems” with commercialism and children in - gee - I dunno - pretty much any village in Africa.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hi there Mary, I think you wrote a thoughtful piece, but I wanted to disagree with just a couple of things:
“And, we can make choices (really). If millions of alcoholics can get and stay sober, despite soul-deep craving – we can surely just say no to Barbie, burgers, and the rest of the junk. ”
As impactful and successful as AA is, estimates put their success rate at somewhere between 5 to 20%. Even the most generous studies — AA’s random survey of members–shows that only 35% are able to stay sober more than five years.
As for “just say no”, that didn’t work in the drug program. When even the first lady of the US (Betty Ford) is unable to “just say no” — despite all the resources and maturity and responsibility one could have, I believe we cannot expect most adults let alone kids to be able to do so.
Marketing and advertising aims at a part of the brain we have very little conscious control over. These are powerful messages, and we don’t provide *any* training to kids in k-12 or college (other than psych or cognitive neuroscience majors) on how to consider this.
That’s why despite my interest in marketing, I threw out my television 10 years ago. There’s just too much evidence that it’s virtually impossible to ‘just say no’ to the things that short-circuit our normal, logical, neocortex and head straight for the limbic system. Actually, I have an even bigger problem with TV news (and the inescapable — “your refrigerator… can it kil your children? News at 11…”) promos.
Neuroscientist Richard Restak has several excellent books about the brain — including the PBS series he did on it, but the one that tackles the effect of new media on our brains is “The New Brain”.
Like I said, I’m as guilty of anyone — maybe more so — of employing a lot of the techniques we use. I’ve spent the last decade using many of them to try to create better learning materials. I’m not at ALL an anti-marketing person like Dave (he’s admitted publicly he absolutely HATES what I write about–and advocate), but this is one area where I think there’s some compelling evidence to support some of his claims.
Thanks for continuing the discussion (and letting us comment on it).
February 27th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Kathy,
Thanks for commenting. And, you (like Dave R.) make excellent points. You’re both right that it isn’t easy to “say no.” (”just” or otherwise). It’s damned hard, in more ways than one. Certain things are hard wired into our brains as it is, before marketers take a crack at us.
Mrs. Reagan’s campaign made me furious. Standing there, perfectly coiffed, in her designer size 0 dress telling poor children what to do, as if they lived in her tidy, clean prosperous world. If I lived in some of the neighborhoods that I’ve just driven through - I’d have a difficult time turning down drugs too. If you’re in Hell and the only people with money are the drug dealers and the only time you can feel good is with drugs….well…
Of course, Mrs. Ford had a completely different set of problems. And then there was Kitty Dukakis drinking hair spray. The combination of genetic pre-disposition (which I believe exists) and stress can do terrible things to people.
However, you personally prove my point about personal accountability - you chose to throw out your television. Just as I choose to not watch much of it. And, don’t get me started on the so-called “news.”
No, it’s not easy. AA’s low success rate proves that. But, here’s the thing - there is still the 5% to 20% who do say no and stick to it (even though they typically have to try several times before getting sober for good.)
We all (on both sides of the commercial transaction) should be accountable for the impact we have on our fellow human beings and our world.