CCFC Takes On The Good Night Show

The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) is in the midst of a new initiative, calling attention to PBS Kids Sprout's The Good Night Show, a television show that (despite massive evidence to the contrary) promotes itself as a sleeping aid for toddlers. I posted about this same show last December when they held their Christmas Eve "Snooze-a-thon", and many of the same arguments I outlined then can be directly applied to the regular nightly program as well. Anyway, here's an excerpt from the CCFC press release

The Good Night Show which airs every evening from six to nine on Sprout, consists of popular cartoons like Thomas the Tank Engine and The Berenstain Bears, interspersed with original sleep-themed content. The original segments feature Nina, the host, and a puppet named Star, who take on the role of parent and child respectively. Sprout claims The Good Night Show "helps preschoolers wind down after a busy day."

"Parents trust that programming on PBS and its affiliated networks will be beneficial to children," said CCFC's Director Dr. Susan Linn. "Sprout is exploiting that trust by implying that its programming will ease children into sleep when research suggests that screen time before bed undermines healthy sleep habits."

For children three years and younger, television viewing is associated with irregular sleep patterns. Studies have also found that older children who watched TV at bedtime were more likely to have difficulty sleeping. The Good Night Show may also have the unfortunate consequence of encouraging parents to put televisions in children's bedrooms, a practice which has been linked childhood obesity and poor academic performance. The National Sleep Foundation calls television a "sleep stealer"and urges parents to avoid making television a part of their bedtime routine.

The CCFC also highlights the importance of "bedtime" as a nightly bonding ritual between parents and children, and that television is a poor substitute for the interpersonal contact, storytelling, songs and conversations that would/could otherwise take place while putting children to bed. I especially like the quote they include by Robert Kesten, Executive Director for the Center for SCREEN-TIME Awareness, who aptly states: "When television programmers and marketers assume that they know more than doctors and educators about what is best for our nation's children, we all lose." The initiative is just now gaining momentum, but has already received a bit of backlash press coverage (for example, Friedman's MediaPost article uses a sarcastic tone and claims the CCFC is criticizing the show because it "lulls kids to sleep"...talk about missing the point completely, yikes!).

You can get more info about this initiative and other projects over at the CCFC website.

Sprout Promotes TV as Sleep Aid

Hoping to fuel their own new Christmas tradition, PBS Kids Sprout -- the much debated 24 hr television network for toddlers and preschoolers -- will be airing an 11 hour long "Snooze-A-Thon" this Christmas Eve, aimed at building brand loyalty among toddlers, though the network is calling it "helping kids fall asleep" on that most exciting of nights. Here's the description from the press release:

From 6:00 p.m. ET on December 24 straight through to 5:00 a.m. ET Christmas morning, Sprout will air the "Snooze-A-Thon," an 11-hour, uninterrupted block showcasing popular nighttime host Nina and her puppet sidekick Star from The Good Night Show snoozing comfortably on the set, along with clips of beloved characters from preschool favorites like Sesame Street, Dragon Tales, The Hoobs, Pingu and Berenstain Bears catching some zzz's. So, no matter what time of night the kids are up checking for the sound of reindeer hooves on the roof, parents can tune into Sprout to show them that even their favorite television friends are fast asleep waiting for Santa to arrive.

Sure it sounds cute and all, but the idea of actually encouraging parents and kids to use television as a sleep aid (one that also just so happens to prolong kids' exposure to some of the most heavily commercialized brands in their cultural environment) seems irresponsible. Especially considering all the research that's come out showing that kids with TVs in their bedroom aren't getting a sufficient amount of sleep at night.

I'm thinking in particular of research conducted over the past few years for the Kaiser Family Foundation. For example, in 2003, Rideout et al. found that 26% of toddlers (under 2 years) and 43% of 4-to-6 year olds had a television in their bedroom. This study was followed up more recently by a review conducted by Frederick J. Zimmerman, who looked at studies linking heavy media use to sleep deprivation among children and teens. As Zimmerman writes:

Concern about media use and sleep in children dates at least to the 1970’s, and probably much before. A 1981 study of middle-class children in Indiana found a significant association between TV viewing and both shorter daytime naps and shorter nighttime sleep among toddlers. Such results have been replicated subsequently and seem to have grown stronger with time. Three recent studies of elementary-school children found that the amount of television viewed per day is significantly associated with lower total sleep time and with a general measure of sleep disturbance.

An equally strong predictor in one study was bedtime viewing, but the strongest predictor was having a television in the child’s room. The fact that a TV in the bedroom was significantly associated with sleep problems, even controlling for parentally reported total viewing time, raises the possibility that having a TV in the bedroom makes it possible for children to watch before bedtime without the parents’ knowledge. Sleep quality has also been related to media viewing. A recent study of infants and toddlers found that the amount of television viewing is associated with both irregular naptimes and irregular bedtimes.

These findings have been supported by a variety of sleep experts and pediatrician studies, including this one and this one.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that children in general are not getting as much sleep as they used to. As Zimmerman describes:

Recent research in the United States suggests that most children do not regularly get an amount or quality of sleep that would ensure optimal development and health. A 1981 study of children ages 1–5 in the U.S. identified average total sleep times of 11.5–13.5 hours. Twentyfive years later, a 2005 study of a similar sample of 1–5-year-old children identified average total sleep times of 9.5-11 hours. [...] Yet another recent study found that children ages 1–5 sleep an average of 8.7 hours per night. While the amount of sleep that would be judged adequate for this age range is unclear, it is almost certain to be more than the reported amount in this study.

In addition, it's estimated that between 20 and 30% of young children have some type of "sleep problem". This has lead some analysts to wonder if the relationship between media use and lack of sleep is really all that causal, or if it is perhaps correlational...i.e. kids who can't sleep end up using more media. But even with this added wrinkle (which reproduces the same argument that is eventually launched against any media effects research), there is absolutely nothing to suggest that media use in any way helps kids fall asleep.

Of course, empirical research doesn't always (or usually) have all that much influence on cultural practice when it comes to families and media use, and it seems to be no different here. According to Rideout et al.'s 2006 Media in the Family report, 30% of parents who put a television in their child's bedroom did so because they believe it "helped them sleep". Rideout et al. write:

Most parents don’t put their children to sleep to the TV (67% don’t have a TV in their child’s bedroom, and of those who do, 40% say they "never" put their child to bed with the TV on). However, as noted above, sleep crops up several times in the survey as among the reasons that many parents decide to put a TV in a small child’s room. Among parents with a TV in their child’s bedroom, three in ten (30%) say one reason they put a TV there is that it helps their child fall asleep, and about two in ten (19%) say they did it to try to get the child to sleep in his or her own room (instead of in the parent’s room). Among children with a TV in their bedroom, 37% (or 12% of all children) go to bed with the TV on half the time or more.

Parents also tend to see TV as having a generally calming influence on their children. In the same 2006 report, Rideout et al. describe:

Just over half (53%) of parents say that TV tends to calm their child down, while only about one in six (17%) say that TV gets their child excited. The rest of parents either say: TV calms and excites their child equally (9%); it depends on what the child is watching (8%) or on the child’s mood or time of day (3%); or they don’t know (10%). Television’s effect on children does not vary reliably with the child’s age or gender. Children who watch mostly entertainment shows are more likely to be calmed by TV than are those who watch mostly educational shows (72% vs. 50%).

This is likely part of what supports the idea that some parents have about TV helping their kids fall asleep. On the other hand, is "calming" the same as sleepy? Research would suggest not.

Another big issue here is the question of whether or not these findings are consistent across age groups. There are various and quite significant differences between children depending on age, maturity level, habitus, etc., both in terms of how media impacts them, how well they understand the content, and how media consumption makes them feel. And Zimmerman has found that although TV can be relaxing for "children of preschool age and older," it is quite possible that this is not the case for toddlers. Differences in cognitive processes between age groups, as well as the lack of research into toddlers' responses, are both good reasons to use caution when making generalizations on this issue.

This is also true of "television programs that have been specifically created to calm children down and help them fall asleep, and are promoted to parents as such." Just like the Baby Einstein scandal, where it was eventually uncovered that there was NO research or evidence to support the company's claim that their products assisted children's development...a fact made all the more troubling when contrasted with the growing amount of research demonstrating that media exposure can actually have various harmful effects on toddlers and babies...there is no research to suggest that "calming" shows are more or less effective than other shows among this particular age group. I agree with Zimmerman's conclusion that "More research is required to assess the effects of different types of content on children’s relaxation and alertness at different ages."

Habbo Gets Ready to Rumble

A news item that caught my eye this week was the announcement that World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) has formed a promotional partnership with the popular teen virtual world Habbo.com. From Cynopsis! Kids (Jan. 24 edition):

World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Habbo.com have teamed to promote WWE's Royal Rumble on the teen-targeted website. While the actual Royal Rumble takes place January 27, live on PPV, the Habbo Royal Rumble began this week, as Habbo members vote for the top 30 WWE wrestlers they think will make it into the big event this weekend.

Upon reading this, I immediately started thinking about a great article I found a few months ago in the Business & Society Review by Shanahan and Hyman. The article argues that WWE (still called the WWF at the time the article was written, back in 2001) broadcast programming should be deemed a program-length commercial based on the FCC criteria, and that the WWE "is a major violator of the strictures on host selling and program-length commercials." What are they selling? Well, according to Shanahan & Hyman, they're selling themselves...in the form of pay-per-view events. The article goes on to provide a political economic analysis of the WWE brand, and a well-constructed argument that WWE broadcasts are pretty much hour-long advertisements that hook viewers into a narrative that can only be followed properly if the pay-per-view components are regularly viewed/consumed as well.

The stats they provide on the WWE are humbling esp. when considering that -- although they are now quite outdated -- the brand remains immensely popular among young boys and adolescent males. For example:

With more than 5 million viewers, RAW IS WAR, the WWF’s weekly flagship program on the USA network (but recently moved to TNN), is the highest-rated program on U.S. cable television; Smackdown, the WWF’s weekly program on the UPN network, draws almost 5 million viewers. On average, the 35 million U.S. fans of the WWF and rival WCW (World Championship Wrestling) watch 15 hours per week of wrestling programs. Although WWF broadcasts attract an audience that is 70 percent male, viewers belong to many demographic segments (e.g., women are the fastest-growing segment). The three largest audience groups are 6 to 17 year olds (especially 11 to 15 year olds), 18 to 44 year old men, and 18 to 24 year old women. Pre-teens constitute more than 15 percent of the audience. To accommodate these younger viewers, the WWF tempers the violence and sexual innuendo on its weekend morning programs. The WWF’s more than one-half million U.S. fans part with $30 million a month for its pay-per-view programs, such as King of the Ring.

The broadcast programs promote the pay-per-view by creating week-long hype for the weekend PPV events. According to Shanahan & Hyman's study, the average two-hour RAW IS WAR program contains only 36 minutes of actual wrestling. The rest is dedicated to developing soap opera-esque storylines through interviews, grudge match announcements, interruptions by surprise visits from other wrestlers or wrestlers' girlfriends (or boyfriends for female wrestlers)/spouses/children or enemies, etc. The storyline, interviews and all the rest build up intricate plotlines that promise to find resolution only during the PPV event:

All pay-per-view tournaments are scheduled immediately after the Sunday evening program HEAT, which is used to promote the event; tournament results are announced the next night on RAW IS WAR. Unlike many pay-cable programs, these tournaments are never re-broadcast on U.S. stations such as USA, TNT, or WTBS. Still photographs are used to promote a pay-per-view re-broadcast of the event the following night (Tuesday; a non-wrestling night for the WWF). The winner of King of the Ring is touted as the newest icon in professional wrestling’s upper echelon. Of course,“winner” is somewhat of a misnomer; in 1989, Vince McMahon admitted, while under investigation by the New Jersey Gaming Commission, that the matches are scripted.
[...]
Because viewers are highly involved with wrestling programming in general, the WWF can work pay-per-view programs into the storyline in the guise of matches to resolve grudges fostered during weekly broadcasts.

The shows also contain numerous other examples of host-selling for sponsor products, which are often also advertised between programming, theme music (each wrestler has a theme song, which can be purchased on a CD promoted during broadcast). The study found that even advertising students (university age) had trouble identifying all the examples of host-selling contained within the programs - this truly seems like an early example of the immersive advertising that has now become so popular online.
There are also problems with the disconnect between ratings and the actual age of audience members. As Shanahan & Hyman explain:

The FCC defines a child as someone under the age of 17, yet RAW IS WAR, Smackdown, and HEAT are rated TV-14. As the largest viewer segment for professional wrestling is 6 to 17 year olds, this inconsistency is meaningful. Although the TV-14 rating means that parents could block children less than 14 years old from viewing these programs, 14 to 16 year olds, who fall into the largest segment of wrestling fans, would not be excluded. So, contrary to the Children’s Television Act of 1990, the WWF is host selling to children.

I think much of the same arguments could be made in relation to this new development, which will surely have some "unintentional" overlap in terms of age groups. Habbo.com is already so heavily commercialized, I doubt that this new development will raise too much of a fuss (sadly), but I think it's nonetheless worth to note how easily the program-length commercial can be digitized. The arguments made by Shanahan and Hyman also provide a good foundation from which to analyze future WWE promotional efforts, and I think provide some good grounding for arguments against advergames and immersive advertising generally.

Here's an additional link to the full article (subscription is required).

Free Comic Book Day 2010

©Ted Naifeh, Courtney Crumrin and the Night Things FCBD edition, May 2003

Tomorrow is Free Comic Book Day - wherein, on the first Saturday of May, comic book stores across North America do their part to spread love and appreciation of comic books/graphic novels by giving away selected free issues to anyone who comes into their stores. The annual event is geared toward expanding readership by introducing people to comics (generally) and by introducing comic readers to new titles. This is a wonderful event - one that I have benefitted from enormously in previous years, through free issues introducing me to indie comics/titles (including my beloved Courtney Crumrin, as depicted above), different distributors, titles I had heard of but never taken a chance on, etc., etc. Check out the official website for the locations of participating stores near you.

And if you're into it, I definitely recommend:

a) making a day of it, by doing a comic book store "crawl" (different stores will be giving away different titles, so visit as many as you can)

b) GETTING THERE EARLY!!!! (seriously, even less popular locations can sell out fast)

c) while you're there, don't be afraid to ask the clerks for recommendations about other (non-free) titles that may be of interest - these people generally know A LOT about comics and graphic novels and Free Comic Book Day presents the perfect opportunity to get in there, break the ice, and get some advice.

d) a good way to try out additional (non-free) new titles while you're there, without spending too much money, is to buy some back issues - although a small few titles gain in value over time, many many DO NOT - if you're willing to delve into an older (not 1st, but older) issue, they're often available at a fraction of the cost of a most recent issue

I'm sure there's a lot more I could list here, but these are some good basic starting points.

Enjoy!

Wonderful World of Disney Gets Back to its Roots: Product Placement

Back in the mid-1950s, Walt Disney came up with an ingenious idea about how to promote his upcoming Disneyland theme park via the then new medium of television -- product placement! His first attempt, simply entitled Disneyland (1954-1990?, ABC), combined animated cartoons with documentary footage of the Disney studios, clips and behind-the scenes footage of recent and upcoming Disney film productions (e.g. 2000 Leagues Under the Sea and Sleeping Beauty), and "sneak peaks" of the theme park itself.

The show won several Emmys and continued on (in one form or another, and under various names) until 1990 (says imdb)... Although as we all know, the Sunday night Walt Disney Presents tradition is still alive and well on ABC, CBC and various other networks around the world. The most famous Disneyland spin-off The Mickey Mouse Club (1955-1959, ABC) is widely cited as first ever example of "program-length commercials." Like its predecessor Disneyland, Lynn Spiegel writes, The Mickey Mouse Club was "created as one big advertisement for Walt Disney’s theme park" promising children that the fantastic "never-never land" setting of the show could be theirs if they could just persuade their parents to bring them to Anaheim, California.

Flash forward fifty-four years and the House of the Mouse is still up to its oldest of old tricks. Watching Finding Nemo on last Saturday's installment of The Wonderful World of Disney, I was shocked at the intensity and sheer number of the "bumpers" (short, usually network-produced segments that appear before and/or after the ads during a television programming block) included in the programming, heavily promoting Disney's upcoming animated film Wall-E. Through bumps and ancillary marketing, Disney was able to stretch a 100 minute film into a three hour cross-promotional extravaganza...don't "we" (not sure where I should situate myself here - I was watching an American channel through a Canadian service provider) have restrictions on this kind of thing?

Well, sadly, yes and no. Because Disney was using the program to promote another film, and not to promote Finding Nemo DVDs or tie-in toys, it doesn't technically count as a program-length commercial. And those annoying "bumpers" are actually required by US media policy...originally meant to provide a separation between content and advertising, but as McAllister and Giglio point out, "Although their existence is mandated, bumpers can become tools for, rather than against, 'connected selling' in a medium dominated by corporate branding."

Unfortunately, last week's display was not a one-time deal. ABC has similar "events" planned for the duration of the summer. Here's the schedule (courtesy of Cynopsis!Kids):

* Monsters, Inc. (June 14, 8-11p) - hosted by John Goodman (the voice of Sulley), who will be promoting Pixar, by way of animated shorts, as well as Pixar movie-themed attractions at the Disney parks.

* Camp Rock (June 21, 8-11p) - hosted by the Jonas Brothers, who will promote an array of Disney offerings, including the upcoming High School Musical: Get in the Picture, the Cheetah Girls and the One World music video. They will also promote themselves, by premiering their new music video Burnin' Up, complete with a "making of" promotional documentary....let's call it an adumentary. Camp Rock is gearing up to be the High School Musical of 2008, so this is definitely one to keep an eye on.

* The Haunted Mansion, Saturday June 28 (8-10p) - featuring a behind-the-scenes adumentary of Miley Cyrus' new music video 7 Things, along with, of course, a premiere of the actual video.

* The Princess Diaries 2 (July 12, 8-10p) - in conjunction with lots of promotion for the 50th anniversary DVD re-release of Sleeping Beauty, via an adumentary which will examine the restoration processes that went into getting the film (a beautiful piece of animation, by the way, and the last Disney feature to use hand-inked cells) ready for HD.

* Freaky Friday (July 19, 8-10p) - hosted by Jamie Lee Curtis (who stars in the movie), who will spend a couple of hours promoting her new Disney movie (and serious WTF inducer), Beverly Hills Chihuahua.

* Peter Pan (August 2, 8-10p) - hosted by Raven-Symone, who will be promoting her new animated movie (and Peter Pan spin-off) Tinker Bell...and I would guess the tie-in MMOG Pixie Hollow as well.

I like how they're using the term "host" to describe the actors hired to do the cross-promotions during these programming blocks...it makes them that much more susceptible to accusations of "host-selling". Host-selling, by the way, is defined by the FCC as "any character endorsement that has the effect of confusing a child viewer from distinguishing between program and non-program material." We have a similar rule in Canada (Which states that "Puppets, persons and characters (including cartoon characters) well-known to children and/or featured on children's programs must not be used to endorse or personally promote products, premiums or services" and that "puppets, persons and characters may not handle, consume, mention or endorse in any other way the product being advertised"). Sounds like a good description of Disney's summer line-up to me!

Media Panic Kills Rule of Rose

The UK release date for Rule of Rose has now come and gone, in the midst of a Europe-wide (media-produced?) controversy that has effectively killed any plans to release the game in the EU. Online news publication Ars Technica has a great article on the controversy and ultimate "canning" of the game, as does Matteo Bittani's Videoludica, with backgrounders here and here. The Ars Technica article has some particularly good stuff to say about the press' misrepresentation of the game's content, including exaggerations and all-out-inaccuracies:

This is starting to become something of a standard by which games with odd or questionable content are talked about. Bully was described as a "Columbine Simulator," and many groups used the title as a talking point against games as a whole, even though the game was rated Teen and has very light scenes of violence, and in fact can be seen as being anti-bullying. The truth of the game, which came out when the press and the ESRB played the game, did nothing to stop the bad and exaggerated press from saying surprisingly inaccurate things about it. When the mainstream press gets a hold of a story about the game with the possibility of sensationalism, truth seems to get thrown away very quickly, as does the value of actually sitting down and playing the game.

The end result of all the bad press? 505 Games has made the decision to cancel the game’s release. So far, no news has been released concerning any other publishing houses being interested in releasing the game in the UK or Italy. This isn't a big loss for gamers on the surface—the game simply isn’t worth all the talk it has inspired—but it does create a bad precedent. With a few talking points and by misreporting the content in a game, it is possible to exert enough pressure to block the game from being released. This is the strange case of the sensationalist press being able to sell a story that anyone could prove was wrong by simply playing the game—and no one listened.

So, I finally got what I was anticipating - a big "hoopla" around Rule of Rose - though to pretty dismal results, unfortunately, as the game has been banned and pulled in European markets. In terms of my study, however, this development has further significance, because it just highlights even more the lack of any such attention in the US.

p.s. For some historical context on this, read this awesome Gamasutra interview with the creator of Night Trap, one of the first games along with Mortal Kombat to attract massive political controversy.