So by now most of us have seen the newest installation of the Star Wars saga, The Return of the Sith. I wasn't terribly impressed with George Lucas's final piece of the inter-galactic plot, but it was better than Episode I & II. However, that is not what I want to address in this month's article. What I want to address is the criticism from many sectors, but particularly child advocates, that the film had some pretty gruesome violence scenes. What many people are upset with was a scene near the end where Lord Vader has his legs cut off near the lava river. He then catches on fire and his flesh burns causing him to scream at the feet of his former master. It was pretty harsh and I can't help but think that might be a bit much for young audiences. Yet, that is not what I found most objectionable with the last chapter in the Star Wars saga. What I think is more dangerous to our culture, and particularly to children, is the increasing amount of marketing.
In this sense Star Wars is a good starting point for some elaboration on what I see as a major problem that confronts all of us. Just look around and see how much merchandize is being thrown at us at every turn that is connected to the Star Wars film. I remember seeing full page ads in the GR Press as the film was being released by Cingular, featuring the black helmeted Darth Vader himself. Then there were the Burger King ads and toys that came with every meal, squirt guns and wind-up toys. Play Station was featuring new games, Legos has a Star Wars edition, and Kellogg's features Yoda on the front of their cereal boxes as if to say eating corn flakes makes you one with the force. As you are reading this issue of Recoil, the Hollywood rendition of the late 60's cartoon the Fantastic 4. This is another film with all sorts of spin-off merchandise. Even during the NBA finals in June ABC mixed Fantastic 4 promos with basketball, sort of a cross promotional technique. Now some may argue that all this marketing is not new, and in some ways that is true. What is different now than say 10 years ago, hell even 5 years ago in who the focus of much advertising is directed at.
It used to be that adults were the primary target market, people with jobs and money. Now marketers are targeting increasingly younger audiences for two reasons. First, children are spending money like never before. According to Juliet Schor in Born to Buy, children between the ages of 4-12 made $30 billion in purchases in 2002. Second, advertisers are looking at developing what they call brand loyalty amongst younger audiences. If they spend enough money in a variety of ways, they can increase the likelihood that when youth are old enough they will buy certain brands. So, how young are the children that advertisers are targeting? According to kids marketing guru, psychologist James McNeal, “At six months of age, the same age they are imitating simple sounds like mama, babies are forming mental images of corporate logos and mascots.” Some advertisers even refer to children online as “Cybertots.”
One company that has embraced the idea of developing brand loyalty in recent years is Anheuser-Busch. Beginning with their Spuds McKenzie campaign Anheuser-Busch has utilized a whole series of cartoon-like characters that gets the attention of children. Whether it's horses, dogs, lizards, mice or ferrets the infamously watered down beer company has been very effective at targeting young audiences. You may remember in the late 90's they even used 3 frogs that sounded out the brand name, bud-weis-er. It was their version of phonics, but kids were getting hooked on something else.
Tobacco companies have been at this for sometime now, targeting underage audiences. With the release of many tobacco company documents, we now know there was a conscious effort to go after kids. In one memo Philip Morris says “Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens…The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris.” Lorillard Tobacco, the makers of Newport cigarettes said this “…the base of our business is the high school student,” and US Tobacco has this gem “Cherry Skoal is for somebody who likes the taste of candy, if you know what I mean.” More and more you can see cigarette brands in major Hollywood films. Dr. Stan Glantz has been monitoring the amount of tobacco use in films on his website. Glantz is the guy that the 1999 movie The Insider is loosely based on.
Films have been a huge venue for increased amount advertising, what the industry refers to as product placement. Next time you sit through a movie try to identify any branded products that are used. We've done studies at GRIID which you can check out online. One aspect of product placement that has changed is that products are not just used as backdrop, they have become integral parts of the plot. Take a film like I Am Sam, the first 5 minutes of the movie has Sean Penn's character arraigning Starbucks cups, straws and other coffee related items. In the 2002 remake of Mr. Deeds, Adam Sandler's character makes a stop at Wendy's in a helicopter. Later in the film he asks one of the guys who was along if he's still thinking about those Wendy's frosties.
This hyper-marketing is not just limited to movies and TV, but has crept into every imaginable medium. In May several video game manufacturers announced that they were increasing the amount of contracts with companies wanting have their products used in video games. In the game Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, some of the characters use a Sony Ericsson cell phone. Besides utilizing the more youth oriented electronic mediums such as the internet, movies and video games advertisers have also invaded non-traditional venues to target children, particularly schools.
One company that specializes in help advertisers reach children at school is Lifetime Learning Systems. Talk about Orwellian. In there promotional literature they state “Kids spend 40% of each day in the classroom where traditional advertising can't reach them. Now you can enter the classroom through custom-made learning materials created with your specific marketing objectives in mind. Communicate with young spenders directly and, through them, their teachers and families as well.” This has translated into companies like Exxon creating environmental materials for teachers and textbook companies inserting branded products in classroom books and even book covers. Where students used to count dots or apples, not they count M&M's or Oreo cookies. The cost of Nike shoes have even been used in mathematical word problems. That might not be a bad idea if the problem asked how much Nike profited by using sweatshop labor.
Assuming I have made my point about the pervasiveness of advertising that targets children, the next question is what do we do about it? First, I think we need to make teaching media literacy a priority in our educational systems. This means nothing more than teaching critical thinking skills about the media we consume. You don't teach children to read by throwing a book in their lap, so why do we teach children about TV by just sitting them down in front of it. We need to teach them how to read media.
Something else we could do would be to put limits on where advertising invades our lives. Do we need every flat space in our communities covered with an ad. Heck even men's bathroom urinal drains have ads on them now. Please let me pee in peace. Most European countries don't allow commercials to run during children's programming. They think it is unacceptable to target 4 year olds with products. Ah, those wackie Europeans. We can also engage in anti-branding activity. Check out www.AdBusters.org, www.Stayfree.org, www.howtheychangeyourmind.com for some ideas and may the marketing free force be with you.
