Showing posts with label policy and law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy and law. Show all posts

Monday, January 18, 2010

Canada's Privacy Commissioner Launching Public Consultations Aimed at Understanding Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting

A quick post today to relay an announcement from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, on a series of public consultations that her Office is hosting on issues of online tracking, data mining, data profiling and the targeting of consumers by businesses. A great opportunity to share some of the emerging info on kids' online games and websites, as well as data mining and tracking in general. Here's the description from the department website:
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is hosting consultations with Canadians on issues that we feel pose a serious challenge to the privacy of consumers, now and in the near future.

The topics to be explored include the online tracking, profiling and targeting of consumers by businesses, and the growing trend towards cloud computing.

The aim of this consumer consultation is to learn more about such industry practices, explore their privacy implications, and find out what privacy protections Canadians expect with respect to these practices. The consultation is also intended to promote debate about the impact of these technological developments on privacy, and to inform the next review process for the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The centerpiece of the consultations will be a series of single-day panel discussions involving a range of participants, including representatives of industry, government, consumer associations and civil society. In order to canvass the broadest possible range of views in preparation for these events, we are also welcoming written submissions.

For more info, you can check out:
Today's news release;
The Call for Submissions;
and, in the interests of preserving people's privacy while they participate in the consultations, a Preliminary Privacy Impact Assessment Analysis of the consultation process. Note that they've assessed that the consultations will have an "overall low impact on privacy" - Cute ;)

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Habbo Reveals the Depth of Corporate Surveillance in VWs


Via Emily Claire Afan at Kidscreen online, news this week that Sulake is expanding its already impressive data mining services to advertisers and third-party data collectors, by enabling companies to "track" how, when and why certain topics come up in the everyday "in-world" conversations of players of teen-targeted virtual world Habbo Hotel. The company calls the service "Habble," and describes it as a new "brand measurement tool". What it really does is allow companies to buy access to players' thoughts and peer interactions, through an ongoing and highly context-sensitive tracking of "brand names, slogans or key phrases" in player-to-player chat. The data is then mapped out to enable identification of peaks and drops in the rate at which the word/brand/phrase features as a topic of conversation. The client companies can also contrast these fluctuations with other events, promotional initiatives (either in-game or IRL), measurement variables, players' plans for the coming weekend, etc., etc. As Afan writes:
More than 155 million registered avatars controlled by users 19 and younger are part of the global Habbo community and Habble will enable marketers to measure brand names, slogans or key phrases used over a defined period. Data is updated daily, displayed and analyzed in a chart that maps activity peaks. The tool does not grant access to personal info of Habbo users, but monitors the level of brand mentions and then cross-references them with other measurement data.

As Afan -- and the Sulake press release -- points out, the tool doesn't grant access to the players' personal info...but then again, it doesn't have to to be effective. The fact that the company already knows so much about its players, along with the very flexible ability client companies are given to cross-reference with other measurement data, makes a lack of "personally identifiable info" almost irrelevant. You don't need to know someone's name or address when what you're aiming to find out is whether a particular brand strategy is more or less likely to work on girls aged 12-14 living in the suburbs who spend time in Habbo talking about how much they like both Vampire Weekend and Red Bull. And isn't most market research "anonymous" in this respect anyway? Tracking trends among demographics - groups of people with similar characteristics and/or interests - isn't exactly dependent on individual names and phone numbers.

The tool has already gone through a trial run, back in September, in partnership with MTV International - wherein it was used to track a campaign promoting the MTV European Music Awards. According to the Sulake press release, "After the campaign commenced in September, Habble showed that conversations around the awards were up by 371% in the UK and 762% in the Netherlands." As the press release makes quite clear, however, ad effectiveness is not the only thing companies will be able to measure:
Brands not directly engaging within the virtual world can also use Habble to analyse teen perceptions amongst product categories. This allows brands to see conversation levels related to messages targeted at young people, which could help shape future marketing plans.

Sulake describes Habble as "fly on the wall marketing insight into the hard to reach under-18’s demographic." This is a somewhat innocuous way of portraying what actually amounts to 24-7 corporate surveillance -- spying on players and recording their conversations, all in the aim of finding out more about their preferences, daily habits, and how to more effectively exploit their deepest desires.

Of course, the language used in the corporate materials is much more flippant, calling kids "media savvy" and highlighting their presumably vast ability to identify online marketing. At one point, they describe:
Teens today expect to engage with brands online and are aware of online marketing and advertising campaigns. Habbo research shows that 75% of users accept advertising promotions in Habbo and 56% tell their friends about promotions they have seen; 17% say they do this often.

Note that there is absolutely nothing in there about teens being aware or okay with having their conversations recorded and analyzed to "help shape future marketing plans." And note that the generalization about "teen awareness" ignores much of the research on kids' and teens' online literacy, which can be awesome in some areas, but poor in others -- especially about things like data mining and copyright, which they mostly "learn about" from companies rather than objective third parties. The Sulake argument ignores well circulated studies, such as Turow's research showing that both kids and adults often assume that the mere presence of a privacy policy means that their info will be protected.

Not to mention the clear evidence that the depth and breadth of current data mining practices are misunderstood by even the most digitally literate adults. Which leads me to wonder if we'll hear even half as much about Habbo's new initiative as we do about Facebook selling their (adult) users' information.

Friday, February 08, 2008

CARU Cracks Down

By way of KidAdLaw, news about a number of recent decisions made by the US-based Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU), an industry self-regulatory board which monitors compliance to FCC and FTC regulation on children's advertising. The first involves potentially deceptive advertising aimed at children promoting the Nintendo Wii and Mario Party 8. As the KidAdLaw article decribes:
The Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) reviewed a website ad featuring the game system and the "Mario Party 8" game, advertised as part of a campaign titled, "Wii Would Like to Play." The ad in question featured groups of four people-a family, office mates and young girls at a slumber party-playing Mario Party 8, each with a separate remote control. However, each Wii game console only comes with one remote control.

"CARU was concerned that children watching the advertising at issue could be confused by what is included in the initial purchase of the Wii game system," CARU stated in a summary of its review.

Nintendo said the ad had run its course, and would be pulled from the website. The company also agreed to consider CARU's guidelines.

Interestingly, in the review press release, CARU describes that Nintendo also used industry norms as a justification for the ad in its response:
"Nintendo noted that the advertising at issue was consistent with longstanding industry disclosure practices for marketing of video game systems, games and accessories. However, the company said, it has reviewed its TV advertising guidelines in consideration of CARU’s comments.

This last part is particularly interesting when one considers how industry standards can slowly morph into regulatory standards...which seems to be the underlying argument within Nitendo's mention of this fact in its defense. The fact that deceptive advertising practices are a "longstanding industry disclosure practice" is hardly something to brag about.

The second decision was aimed at kids' sport-themed site called JunkBall, which got a warning about its privacy policy. According to KidAdLaw:
The website, which features promotions and articles on sports products, contained a sign-up feature for "Junk Ball E-News." The sign-up page included the statement that "I am at least 13 years of age," and provided "yes" and "no" options for users to select. A child who clicked "no" was unable to proceed, but he or she could re-select "yes" to register.

COPPA requires site operators to obtain parental consent before gathering personally identifiable information from children who are under 13.

According to the CARU press release:
CARU, in its initial inquiry, questioned whether the Website was properly age screening to determine if parental consent was necessary and whether the site potentially collected personally identifiable information from children without first receiving verifiable parental consent. CARU also questioned whether the operator was collecting more information than was necessary for the e-newsletter.

As a result of its inquiry, CARU recommended that the site tighten privacy controls and better ensure parental consent. It also suggested that the site operator:
...request all previous recipients of the E-newsletter either re-register or be unsubscribed. CARU recommended the Website delete all information for users who fail to re-register.

In response, the site's operators, Little Kids Inc., pulled the e-newsletter feature. However, it sounds like they disagree with the idea of deleting information already collected from users:
The company, in its advertiser's statement, said it disagrees with CARU’s findings, but "appreciates CARU’s observation and suggestions concerning the Junk Ball Website and shares CARU’s goals of protecting children’s privacy."

The third review involved a book published by Discovery Girls magazine, called the Girl's Survival Guide 2007. CARU has asked the magazine to review an ad it had run promoting the book which "urged readers to "order now ... before it's too late" and described the price with qualifiers such as "only" and "just"," asking them to "tone down" their marketing. As described in the CARU press release:
At the outset of its inquiry, CARU questioned whether the advertisement created a sense of urgency for children to purchase the product by employing such language as "order now" and "before it's too late," in violation of CARU's guidelines on sales pressure. Further, CARU questioned the use of the words "only" and "just" to describe the price of the item.

In response, Discovery Girls Inc. has stated that it would accept the CARU's decision and modify their advertising in accordance with CARU guidelines. Of course, as with the Wii decision, it seems that this review may have come a little late...seeing as the book in question is a 2007 "survival guide", which may or may not even be for sale anymore (or at the very least probably isn't being actively promoted at this point).

Is it just me, or does it sound like the children's industries don't really take the CARU's reviews all that seriously? I find that accountability is particularly lacking - it would be impossible for the CARU to review all the relevant ads in its jurisdiction and make decisions about them WHILE the ads are running, so the fact that some ads may have already had their run by the time the review occurs shouldn't mean that the offending party gets away scot free. There really should be some sort of repercussion besides a mere request to "pull" the offending ad(s). Not to mention the ambiguity surrounding what happens if a company disagrees with a CARU finding (as is the case with Junk Ball, and maybe Nintendo, depending on how you read their "industry norm" defense).

If you go to the CARU site, you can also read recent reviews of KoolKids.com (whose privacy practices were questioned, esp. in relation to their "Princes of the Month" feature), BeaconStreetGirls.com (which was also questioned for its loose privacy protection practices), and Hanna Montana site MileyWorld.com (which needs to make it clear that becoming a member of the site will NOT guarantee tickets to Hanna Montana concerts). Lots of privacy infractions going on, making it pretty clear that even though advertising and market research methods are indeed becoming more invasive and subtle, traditional methods are still quite pervasive and need to be monitored diligently.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

"D is for Digital" But Not Educational

****Originally drafted on January 9th****

By way of Josh Golin at the CCFC, an announcement this week from the newly formed Joan Ganz Cooney Center, which has recently completed a report on the kids' (ages 3 to 11) digital media industry. Focusing on educational content and marketing, D is for Digital makes a pretty clear argument for government-driven standards when it comes to digital products claiming educational value. According to the Center's press release:
The 50-page study, the first to analyze the current interactive media environment for preschool and elementary age children, documents how the recent aging down and exponential growth of digital products are shaping how children, ages 3-11, live and learn. Of the 300+ products studied, the paper found that most do not take advantage of available research regarding children's educational needs particularly in a global economy where literacy and learning requirements are fast evolving. Among the findings, the survey yielded only two educational video games (in an industry that generated $500 million in 2006 for the top 20 titles alone) based on explicit educational curriculum design available in the market.

The report also identified influential market trends with strong potential for education; examined the type of informal learning products on the market; and recommended ways to expand the availability of quality educational media for children.

The report also makes a number of recommendations for industry, researchers and policymakers including:

- Better partnerships should be built between research and industry, to foster quality educational products;

- More emphasis should be placed on educational videogame development;

- Intergenerational interaction should be encouraged through product design;

- Evidentiary standards for "educational" products need to be created; -- and here the report refers back to the Kaiser Family Foundation's 2005 report A Teacher in the Living Room?, stating that in the time that has lapsed since the KFF's study, the market has become (as the KFF predicted) "dominated by products that advertise unsubstantiated educational claims." In response, the Joan Ganz Clooney Centre recommends the following "Action Step":
Federal regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission, voluntary industry groups such as The Better Business Bureau, and parent advocates such as Common Sense Media should collaborate on a consumer protection initiative to better describe educational effectiveness in interactive media products for children.

- Policies should be implemented to protect children from digital commercialism; -- a recommendation which the Centre suggests can be achieved by better coordination of regulatory bodies:
Federal regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Communications Commission, and voluntary industry, public interest advocacy, and philanthropic organizations, should initiate the advancement of policies that protect children from commercialism in a digital age. A revitalization of The Children’s Television Act needs to be undertaken to modernize the child protections now called for in a digital age.

The report also offers two recommendations specific to academics:
- A research agenda should be established that addresses the implications of market trends on product development;
Academic researchers need to investigate the implications of the current environment on children’s informal learning, and recognize “what works” in educating children through digital media products.

- Academic research should be made more accessible to industry;
Academic institutions should disseminate research findings to industry through industry publications and events.

There's a fine line between praxis or collaborating for a better media environment, and full-on commercial research, which really isn't addressed here. Read one way, it sounds like a great idea, read another way, it sounds like research for profit, or at the very least enhancing the one-way street that currently exists between academic and commercial research. Academic research findings may usually only be available through journals and academic texts, but at least it's published freely and made part of the public domain. In the world of kids' media, it's the commercial sector who sits on the research goldmine, and I'd like to see these "partnerships" result in a more open and accountable commercial research sector as well.

While the fact that the study was focused on "educational" media explains much of its emphasis on purposive play/media use, I think that an underlying bias for productive leisure is also driving much of the Center's activities and positions. This is clear from the company's mission statement (which describes the Center as "Focusing especially on the needs of disadvantaged children, the Center conducts and supports research, creates educational models and interactive media properties, and builds cross-sector partnerships to scale-up best practices"), and is also pretty explicitly expressed in Michael Levine's (the Center's Executive Director) statements about the report (as quoted in the press release), which included the following:
"Kids today are spending almost as much time with media as attending school, so there is an opportunity to create more engaging educational products than ever before. Unfortunately, most of the new digital products we reviewed, with notable exceptions, do not yet promote the vital literacy, creativity and problem-solving skills children need to succeed. The report documents how industry leaders, working closely with experts in child development and research, can develop interactive educational products that can leverage key market opportunities and promote a new vision for learning and entertainment."

A very fascinating first contribution from the people who brought us Sesame Street -- definitely going into my chapter on kiddie-tech and "educational" play.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Ofcom's New Guidelines for Kids' TV

From the December 13th edition of Cynopsis! Kids, a story about Ofcom's new guidelines for children's television programming, which will apply to programs produced for both kids and teens (i.e. viewers under 18 years). According to Cynopsis!, the guidelines reflect a growing concern about game shows (and reality shows?) that involve / star child participants, following a series of "high-profile game-related debacles in kids programming in the UK this year." She writes, "Ofcom wants producers to make clear to kids and their families that they might lose, as well as explaining they should pay close attention to the related emotional angst and stresses of performing and the various issues that go with that." The organization recommends that it might be useful for producers to consult with a child psychologist for advice in dealing with the potential negative outcomes / experiences that kids might encounter. Sounds like a good place to start, anyway. Along with these recommendations, the Ofcom guidelines ask producers and broadcasters of kids' programming to comply with existing rules set forth by the Broadcasting Code, including (as cited in Cynopsis! Kids):
* Development of clear guidelines for production staff working with those under eighteen;
* Appropriate background checks on a participant's social, family, health and educational circumstances and a thorough risk assessment if necessary;
* Where practicable, ensuring there is a single, consistent point of contact with whom the participant is able to liaise throughout the production to oversee the child's welfare; and
* Careful consideration of the program format and its likely impact on the participant is recommended. For instance, springing high impact surprises on under eighteens in 'live' or 'as live' programs where conflict or highly emotional situations may be involved, could cause harm and/or distress. Similarly, in genres which involve young children in competition with others, performance anxieties and pressure to succeed may be issues.

Now I'm quite curious to find out whether Canada's Code has similar stipulations in place for game shows, reality-type competition shows and kids.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Children's Rights in Teen Second Life

By way of the MAGIC network, another cool example of gamers using machinima for political expression, this time through a 5-week-long initiative led by Global Kids (with support from UNICEF) and taking place entirely within Teen Second Life. Teens from three different countries (Finland, UK and US) participated in the second annual "Camp Global Kids", a virtual summer camp geared towards producing short videos about children's rights, in order to commemorate the 18th anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. The initiative also had an obvious educational imperative, which appears to have hit home with the teens involved. According to one project volunteer, quoted in the UNICEF press release:
"Although the campers knew that children have rights," said Global Kids volunteer Nafiza Akter, 17, "they didn't know what was in the document specifically. After the camp, they really learned about what different rights the document guaranteed children around the world. And I think it made them compassionate, because you realize that children should be having these rights and yet they’re violated."

The end products were screened as part of a "red-carpet affair" that took place on the Global Kids Island (in Teen Second Life), which included a selection of "real-world" short films made by teens involved in UNICEF's "One Minute Jrs" project (in conjunction with the Sandberg Institute). The filmmakers introduced their machinima and answered questions to an audience of nearly 100, each of whom received free virtual popcorn and a child rights t-shirt for participating. The short films covered a variety of topics, from drug use and health care, to media and play, to child soldiers. On using machinima as an educational, political and creative tool, Global Kids' Second Life Education Specialist, Tabitha Tsai, was quoted saying:
"We feel that making machinima is an excellent way to share the kids' work with the public because you don't need to know Second Life to watch a movie or to understand what their message is. [...] [The participants] learned a lot of transferable skills in this camp. They were able to learn how to capture angles, tell a story and raise awareness on a right, while at the same time having fun with it."

The organization hopes to expand the camp next summer, to "include more children from around the world." For more info, you can check out the Global Kids' Digital Media Initiatives project website, Holy Meatballs, or the One Minute Jrs project site. Prepare to be impressed!

Friday, November 23, 2007

The Coolest Girl In School, or Bully w/ a Pink Bow

Another great article from YPulse this week, this time around a new Australian mobile game that's being promoted as "GTA for Girls". Here's an excerpt from anastasia's post:
Do girls need their own GTA? A female Australian mobile game developer thinks they do, which is why she created "The Coolest Girl In School." The game is provoking parental outcry Down Under. [...] [It also] Sounds like the game is full of mixed messages -- being a "mean girl" wins the game, i. e. "lie, bitch and flirt your way to the top of the high school ladder," but according to the article about the game in The Daily Telegraph, risky behaviors, i.e. drinking, drugs, etc. do have consequences. So if the argument is that Grand Theft Auto allows boys to live out their fantasies of mass murder and beating up prostitutes, than the Coolest Girl in School lets "good girls" live out their fantasies of being "bad" and popular?

For more coverage, check out Tweenage Wasteland and this article in The Ottawa Citizen by Misty Harris.

Reading the game's description and taking a step back from the controversy a little, it seems to me that we've seen all of this before...last year, in fact, when Rockstar's identically-themed Bully was released and everyone was up in arms about how it promoted bullying by "rewarding" bullying behaviours. In Bully, the player advances by spreading rumours, rebelling against teachers, pitting cliques against each other, trying to impress the cool kids, fending off constant attacks from larger bullies, dressing to impress the cool kids, going on dates with and/or merely smooching with the right people (girl or boy). If you got caught, you would get punished. Actions had repercussions -- every move you made to fit in with one group put you at odds with the others. Etc. Etc. Now, replace some of the more overt forms of physical violence with emotional or psychological violence, and what you've got sounds a heck of a lot like The Coolest Girl in School.

I played a big chunk of Bully last year for my thesis, along with another controversial game called Rule of Rose. Like Bully, Rule of Rose dealt with bullying, although the fact that it was girls doing and receiving it seemed to be enough to send that game out of the realm of public debate and into the realm of censorship. The game was banned in Europe, and had late releases in the US and Australia because of the controversy around it. Meanwhile, although Bully had originally attracted more public attention, it ultimately sort of came and went without a hitch (well, a Jack Thompson court case, but that was par for the course last year). My own opinion about both games is that not only are they not nearly as violent as most, but that they address violence in a way that could actually be much more meaningful and value-laden for young people (not children, but teens and young adults) than, say, some gangland fantasy or alien killing spree. Both games are attempts -- albeit flawed -- to delve into an enormously significant and serious issue...far from merely "promoting" bullying, they each explore bullying in complex ways that have not been discussed in the ensuing debates, which instead seem to limit themselves to whether or not the games should exist. Which brings me back to The Coolest Girl in School, which finds itself as the newest focus of this same essentializing discourse about whether games are "good" or "bad", and questions of how we can make these bad games disappear.

I'm not saying that The Coolest Girl in School will contain the same depth and intelligence as Rule of Rose, or that it will bring the player through the many layers of moral ambiguity that underlie high-school social hierarchies the way Bully did. All I'm saying is that we can't write a game off outright just because it deals with "unpleasant" issues, or addresses them in an exaggerated or unconventional way. That sort of reactionary attitude is what leads to censorship, and places dangerous pressure on the industry to limit itself to "family friendly" fare, even when designing games for adults or older kids and teens. Let's play the game first, and then have an informed discussion about it afterward.

Update: I just heard about another new game that fits this genre, called Dangerous High School Girls in Trouble. Check out Leigh Alexander's review on Playthisthing.com.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Reforming Copyright Law: A Six-Step Strategy

Head's up on a great article by Anders Bylund posted on Ars Tehnica last week, on Public Knowledge's six-step plan for reforming copyright law to better protect citizen (as opposed to solely corporate) interests. The plan was presented at a New Media conference that took place recently at Boston University, and seeks to address the growing "'disconnect between the law and the technology' of media production and distribution." Said Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn,
"For the past 35 years, the trend has been nearly unmitigated expansion of the scope and duration of copyright, resulting in a clear mismatch between the technology and the law." ...Advances in technology keep making it easier to copy and distribute songs, movies, books, and so on. Meanwhile, the kind of legislation that gets big-money lobby support from content producers makes it increasingly illegal—but not necessarily harder—to use these new powers of information and entertainment.

The article goes on to describe the six solutions that Sohn proposes could be used to establish a more balanced (US) copyright system. Here's a brief overview of her key points:

1) Make fair use reform a top priority: "The US must allow for more incidental and non-commercial media uses; it is currently far too easy to break the law without knowing it."

2) Elevate the landmark 1984 Betamax decision (which acknowledged the consumer's right to record and timeshift media content for personal use at home) from mere "legal precedent" into actual law.

3) Implement and enforce limitations on the DMCA, to keep the number of takedown notices and SLAPP suits to a minimum. Included in this is the recommendation that the DMCA be reprimanded "for "knowingly or recklessly" demanding takedowns without a real case."

4) Clean up the existing music licensing system and create a clear and simple legal framework. This would include equalizing royalty rates (traditional radio currently pays lower royalties than new media channels), and making it easier to find copyright owners and obtain clearance.

5) Relax the rules around orphaned works: "You should be able to sing a song or use a picture if a "good faith copyright search" can't turn up the owner."

6) Simplify and clarify license notices to a clear and concise set of instructions, that use everyday language (not legalese) and do not misrepresent or exaggerate copyright claims.

You can read more about the organization's copyright reform campaign on their website, where you can also access a full transcript of Sohn's speech.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Notes from the FTC Townhall on Privacy

While coverage of last week's FTC Townhall on Privacy issues is still pouring in, I thought I'd take some time today to link to a few articles published by MediaPost that I've found particularly interesting in terms of what they say about the industry response to the testimony and issues raised. Firstly, I was quite surprised to see our old friend "proof of harm" pop up in this discussion, since I really didn't think that infringing upon citizens' rights could ever be defended as "unharmful". The "proof of harm"/media effects debate -- so often used by the press to dismiss public concerns about its media by creating polarity and confusion -- is surprisingly out of place within this debate, but as you can see from the excerpt below, has nonetheless somehow wiggled its way in. From MediaPost:
IT'S NOT HARD FOR CONSUMERS to say why they dislike intrusive ads, pop-ups served via spyware, in-box-cluttering spam, or a telephone ringing during dinner. But whatever damage is caused by targeting, or serving ads to people based on the Web sites they visit, is harder to pinpoint--which is leading some Internet industry executives to question whether the FTC even has the authority to call for the regulation of the practice.

"What we haven't seen is that real harm," Mike Zaneis, Interactive Advertising Bureau vice president of public policy, told the FTC Friday, on the second day of a meeting to address behavioral targeting. He dismissed as "speculative" advocates' concerns that companies would misuse information gleaned from monitoring Web-surfing behavior.

Consumer and privacy advocates like the World Privacy Forum say they worry that companies could make assumptions based on Web users' online activity and then use that information to consumers' disadvantage. For instance, a health insurance company might decline coverage to people whose online behavior indicates they suffer from AIDS or other costly medical conditions.

But Zaneis and other Internet executives appearing in Washington last week say that the prospect of that type of scenario shouldn't lead to broad curbs on targeted advertising. They also argue that governmental attempts to regulate behavioral targeting will hurt the online ad industry's ability to grow and innovate.

Yowza! Isn't privacy invasion in itself reason enough to call these practices into question. I'm quite shocked by this position, and very glad that we already have even minor policies in place that establish privacy rights as citizen/consumer/human rights, including Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

If market research doesn't qualify as arbitrary, I don't know what does. And as for attacks upon one's reputation, I think that the scenario outlined by the World Privacy Forum certainly represents a likely and quite apt example. But what about other, less obvious instances of social sorting and categorization that occurs during web-tracking and data-mining?

A second typical industry response can be found in a thought piece ("Just an Online Minute") the publication sent out on Friday (Nov. 2), discussing Esther Dyson's call for enhanced disclosure around online marketing / data-collection practices. Here, the emphasis is on how difficult it would be to put the power back into consumers' hands, blaming the fact that many users don't read privacy policies:
Call it "Disclosure 2.0." That's the term Internet guru Esther Dyson used today to describe a new type of privacy notice that might be coming to the online marketing world. Speaking at the second day of a Federal Trade Commission conference about privacy and Web ads, Dyson proposed that social networking sites will drive new types of interaction between marketers and consumers. She said that consumers -- now trained in some aspects of the art of profile creation and maintenance via sites like Facebook -- will want to wield similar control over their marketing profiles.

Dyson predicts that users will soon ask, "If I curate my profile... and if I can decide which of my friends can see which part of my profile, why can't I do that for marketers?"

It's an intriguing idea, but executing it will be another matter. There appears to be widespread agreement that very few consumers currently read privacy notices. Of course, it's not surprising that people don't interrupt their Web surfing to click on privacy links and then read policies written in page after page of dense legalese. But, Dyson said, that doesn't mean that people don't want answers to the basic questions, "Why are you showing me this ad? What is it you know?"

Of course, the position that users are to blame for the lack of privacy protection online directly contradicts a concurrent (and also typical) industry position that companies "already fully protect users' privacy interests" and that "additional regulations could harm the online advertising industry," -- a position that was expressed in another MediaPost article which appeared on the same day. Stay tuned for some links and discussion of alternative perspectives...however, I thought it would be useful to first point out how stagnant the debate about users' rights becomes when this approach is taken by industry representatives and press...repeating the same arguments over and over, taking the same (albeit contradictory) positions time and time again, even as business practices and the technologies themselves are changing and intensifying at light speed.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Guest Commentary on Children's Media Consultant

A couple of weeks ago, Ashley from Children's Media Consultant blog invited me to write a Guest Commentary, in response to a posting she had written about Edgar & Ellen back in August. The focus of my short commentary is on child-generated content and intellectual property issues, and is entitled Who Owns the Content When Kids Produce It Online. Thanks again to Ashley for this opportunity to contribute to her site - I hope we get to do it again someday!

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Uruguay Places First Official Order of OLPC's $100 Laptops

Courtesy of the MAGIC Network, BBC News reports that Uruguay has first become the first country to place an order for 100,000 of the One Laptop per Child's (OLPC) controversial $100-laptops for kids. If all goes well, the country will purchase another 300,000 to "provide a machine for every child" in the country between the ages of 6 and 12 by 2009. According to the BBC article:
The order will be a boost for the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) organisation behind the project which has admitted difficulties getting concrete orders.

"I have to some degree underestimated the difference between shaking the hand of a head of state and having a cheque written," Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the organisation, recently told the New York Times.

However, he said he was "delighted" with the first deal.

"We commend Uruguay for being the first country to take concrete actions to provide laptops to all its children and teachers and look forward to other countries following this example," he said.

Some of the problems that the organization has had include the steadily rising cost of the machines, which are supposed to sell for $100 or less, but have now (according to the BBC) increased to $188. Governments were also initially limited to purchasing batches or lots of 250,000 units, in green or white...a stipulation that has now been removed. In addition to making lower lot quantities available, starting November 12, individual members of the public will also be able to buy a machine "for themselves as well as one for a child in a developing country" (an initiative called "The Give 1 Get 1 (G1G1) program). Prices for individual machines start at $299. This last part is great news for researchers interested in exploring the technology first hand, and I'm now seriously considering including a design analysis of the computer in my thesis.

Along with the OLPC laptops, the Government of Uruguay will also provide internet access to all of the schools involved.

Check out the BBC's "Clickable guide to the key features of the "$100" laptop".

Monday, October 01, 2007

Policy Rumblings on the Online Privacy Front

From KidAdLaw, news that the FTC will be holding a town hall style "open forum" on online targeted advertising. The two-day event will take place on Nov. 1-2, in Washington, D.C. and is open to the public. Sounds like a good opportunity to raise some of the issues with kids' sites, data-mining, advergaming, etc. Here are the details.
So-called "behavioral" advertising involves the collection of information concerning a consumer's activities online, including searches conducted, Web pages visited and content viewed, according to the agency. The goal of the meeting, the FTC said, is to bring together consumer advocates, industry representatives, technology experts and academics to address the consumer protection issues raised by such practices.

"Recently, several consumer privacy advocates, as well as the State of New York, sent letters to the FTC urging it to examine the effects of behavioral advertising on consumer advocacy," the agency stated. Topics at the Town Hall will include how behavioral advertising works, the types of data that is collected, whether such data is personally identifiable, and how such data is used.

Anyone can submit written comments on the topics to be addressed at the Town Hall, the agency noted.

Here are the KidAdLaw story link to the original FTC announcement, and some additional coverage from MediaPost, PCWorld and Broadcasting & Cable (all courtesy of KidAdLaw).

Coincidently, the 29th International Conferences of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners was held in Montreal last week, which examined a similar set of issues. Included on the agenda was a plenary session called "The Next Generation Dragon — Children’s Online Privacy", featuring Canadian kids' privacy/online culture experts Leslie Regan Shade, Jacquelyn Burkell and Valerie Steeves. Here's the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's blog post about their talk, which you can check again next week for video of the complete session.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Kid Nation Puts CBS in the Hot Seat

A quick post today to draw your attention to the latest YPulse Daily, wherein anastasia relays some troubling news about new reality show Kid Nation. From anastasia's "YPulse WTF Files":
I've blogged earlier about how CBS's new reality show "Kid Nation" seems like a recipe for child exploitation (and calling out the parents for letting them participate). Now the show is drawing claims of possible child abuse. From the New York Times article, reg. required:

Several children required medical attention after drinking bleach that had been left in an unmarked soda bottle, according to both the parent and CBS. One 11-year-old girl burned her face with splattered grease while cooking.

The L.A. Times piece, reg. required, reported:

On July 16, Television Week revealed that sources in the New Mexico Department of Labor claimed the children worked as many as 14 hours a day and were taken advantage of because of statutes on the books that protected theatrical and film productions from child labor restrictions.

But what's really unnerving is this quote from a CBS executive (Ghen Maynard) in the L.A. Times about how the show was greenlit with the hope of creating buzz:

"I thought it could be a way to try to get some attention on a broadcast level for a new kind of show, one that really put young kids to the test," he tells the Los Angeles Times. He also says that criticism from media scholars (who the paper talks to) and others is "reasonable."

Of course they're already planning the second season....WTF?

For more info, you should also read an earlier post about the show by Izzy Neis, this article from freep.com, the LA Times article, and some of activist/child advocacy activities going on at Ethics Scoreboard and A Minor Consideration.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Toy Recalls and Globalization

Mattel has issued another toy recall, putting its total for recalled toys somewhere between 18 and 19 million (including the magnet-toy recall and the lead-paint recall from earlier this summer. Although no injuries have been linked to the latest batch of recalled toys, an earlier line of recalled toys (CBC says Polly Pocket playsets) caused serious injury to at least three kids who swallowed magnets. According to today's CBC coverage:
The bulk of Tuesday's recall covered magnetic toys manufactured between 2002 and January 2007, and expanded on a similar recall made in November 2006. Also included in Tuesday's recall were 436,000 Sarge brand cars, because the surface paint could contain lead levels in excess of U.S. federal standards.

Under current U.S. regulations, children's products found to have more than 0.06 per cent lead accessible to users are subject to a recall.

"There is no excuse for lead to be found in toys entering this country," Nord said. "It's totally unacceptable and it needs to stop."

The blame, it seems, is being squarely placed on quality control, as well as Chinese contractors in violation of corporate standards. But perhaps a better way to think about all this is in terms of larger trends within globalization, such as the increased reliance of transnational corporations on offshore labour and the subsequent throttling of production costs (and therefore production budgets). The $22 billion toy market [$71 billion globally] makes up a large portion of our imported consumer goods and 60 percent of all toys sold in Canada are made in China (Jones, 2004). Behind the current string of recalls lie the pressures and disparities created by the kind of labour conditions that arise from so much "offshore" production...labour that is displaced onto developing countries and regions in order to shrink production costs by creating an underpaid and undervalued labour force that is often comprised of women and children.

Political economic theorists point to the global issues that are often left ignored when large, mostly US-based, conglomerates control the majority of resources in a transnational industry, as is the case with the toy market. Langer (2004) argues that the toy industry’s association of “childhood with play, fun and toys situates toyshops and toy makers as part of the enchanted landscape of childhood” (p.253), naturalizing the current state of the children’s market while the more problematic aspects of global toy production remain obscured. NGO and human rights discourse on global toy production emphasizes the young age of toy factory workers, who Langer argues are often “constructed as ‘little more than children themselves’” (p.259), as well as the low wages, high levels of occupational hazard, and long work hours endured by a largely rural, largely migrant labour force. While the average North American toy maker earns $11 an hour, in 2000 Chinese toy workers were earning an average of 30 cents an hour. While it wasn't specified in the article, I suspect that stat applies to adults and that things might be much different for child "employees."

In an open letter written in December 2003, (Can.) Senator Consiglio Di Nino had this to say about child labour in the toy industry:
More often than not, this is the reality behind the manufacture of children’s toys. Toys are not manufactured by diminutive elves in workshops, but by diminutive beings of another kind… children. China is a popular choice for North American manufacturers because labour is cheap and plentiful. International news reports hint that child labour is prevalent in China, and factory managers go to great lengths to conceal the epidemic. United Press International cites a provincial labour official who confided that, “factory managers are routinely tipped off about inspections and will send child workers home.”

China is by no means the only country in which child labour is widespread; indeed, it is a global issue. Human Rights Watch is particularly critical of bonded labour practices in India and Pakistan, where an estimated 15 million children are being exploited, primarily in the manufacture of textiles. The International Right to Know Campaign, a movement supported by international organizations such as Amnesty International USA, Global Exchange, and Oxfam America, estimates that there are 211 million child labourers worldwide, over half of whom work in China [In 2004, UNICEF increased that estimate to 246 million].

The vast majority of North American multinationals have corporate codes of conduct that apply to their global suppliers. Evidence suggests, however, that these codes are poorly enforced and egregious labour rights violations are the norm. These violations have been documented extensively by the International Right to Know Campaign and by human rights groups across Asia. These organizations indicate that the ineffectiveness of corporate codes of conduct stems from the fact that independent third parties do not conduct the factory audits mandated by these codes and we are told that factory owners are usually notified of the audits in advance.

Of course, this doesn't 100% prove that Mattel -- the world's largest toy company -- has indirectly employed child labour, or that the recalled toys are directly linked to impoverished manufacturing conditions. And I'm certain they didn't know that lead paint was being used by their suppliers, and that the damage control they now face will be a burden that far outweighs any advantage that could have ever been accrued from cutting costs in safety measures. But the fact is, it's unreasonable to expect that costs and work conditions can be continuously cut, threatened and squeezed without any kind of trade off or consequence. The lack of accountability and transparency within the toy industry, combined with known statistics of child labour in the toy manufacturing industry and of the impoverished working conditions in China and other production zones, demands a more thorough consideration of the complicity of North American toy companies (and the toy market!) in creating the substandard conditions from which substandard products have spawned.

These issues got a lot of press coverage a few years ago, when anti-globalization was "hot" and transnational trade was being put under the microscope. At that time, a woman from Victoria, BC, named Sarah Cox wrote a scathing expose of the toy manufacture industry in various parts of Asia called The Secret Life of Toys, which I unfortunately can no longer track down online. Cox did field work in various toy factories that manufactured toys sold in the West, and found rampant workers' rights violations and poor working conditions. But attention to these issues has died down today, and although all of the big toy corporations (Hasbro, Mattel, Irwin) manufacture a large portion of their toys in China, it's been difficult for researchers and journalists to make direct links between specific toy companies and specific toy factories. The transnational conglomerates don't commonly release details about their overseas partners. According to Chelsea Jones, writing for Briarpatch magazine in 2004,
Toy companies such as Mattel hold back names of their suppliers. This means that any toy made by Mattel could have been manufactured by any one of about 50 Chinese factories contracted by the company, or in a factory Mattel may own with private investors. Or it could be that parts of the toy, including it’s packaging, have been made in one of many factories jointly owned by the company and contractors small enough not to be named or legally acknowledged.

In 1998, George Irwin, the president of Irwin Toy Ltd. said that the reason for the strict confidentiality surrounding toy factories is due to the competitiveness within the industry. “We guard very jealously our vendors,” Irwin says, “because we don’t want any of our competitors to get an advantage by knowing who they are.” Sixty percent of Irwin’s toys are produced overseas, primarily in China and Malaysia.

For more up to date info on working conditions and child labour in China, with a healthy amount of focus placed on the toy industry in particular, check out this new report conducted by the Hong Kong Liaison Office.

Langer, B. (2004). “The Business of Branded Enchantment: Ambivalence and disjuncture in the global children’s culture industry”, Journal of Consumer Culture, 4(2), pp.251-277.

Monday, August 13, 2007

GoPets Avatar Bill of Rights

Via GamePolitics.com, an uplifting story of corporate responsibility to counteract yesterday's exploration of corporate neglect. Erik Bethke, CEO of a virtual pet MMO-environment called GoPets, has announced that their site wants the game community's help (academic and practitioner, as well as players, I would assume) in drafting an "Avatar Bill of Rights" that will allow players to retain IP rights and foster user-generated content...as well as create a much more level and democratic playing field wherever political, ethical and legal issues arise. Here's an excerpt of the announcement from Bethke's personal blog:
I am offering a bounty of $5,000 for help in creating a new EULA, TOS, Codes of Conduct, and Privacy Policies for GoPets.

I seeking everyone’s help in drafting a set of instruments (iconic, human bullet points, and legal code). Our mission is to continue to develop the virtual world of GoPets into a platform of living expression and friendship with global reach.

We have long recognized the importance private property in GoPets but so far we have not taken any formal steps to ensure property rights to our citizens and now believe that formal recognition and other tangible forms of human and property rights will accelerate our commercial goals.

The debate in our community of whether or not this or that clause of this or that EULA is of course fascinating to read in the blogs - but we are taking the stance that we will gladly charge ahead of what we are required by commercial law to perform - and instead we would like to reach as high as possible to achieve the natural rights as expressed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We believe that by doing so that we will attract the trust of more customers to invest more of their time, creativity and money into developing the world of GoPets to greater enjoyment of all.

That sounds both cool and promising. I especially like the emphasis on the UN Declaration of Human Rights as a template. Here are some more details about contributing to the initiative:

- The $5K will be divided up fairly among contributors (fair will be determined by Bethke based on the nature of individual contributions).

- The final product will be placed in a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

- The final format of the "GoPets Declaration of Rights and Obligations of Citizens" should be similar to that of the Creative Commons: icons, human readable bullet points and finally legal code.

- Deadline for final document will be November 1st, 2007 (to coincide with a new addition to the site).

You should also check out Bethke's more recent posting about his research into case law and the shareholder imperative - fascinating stuff, that makes me wonder about the possibility of creating a MMOG where players become shareholders (through game purchase, subscription, or other membership fee), in a players' cooperative of sorts (kind of like Mountain Equipment Co-Op).

I'd heard of GoPets before, but hadn't yet taken an opportunity to visit it or find out much about it until now. After so many months in Neopets, I think I was kind of avoiding the virtual pet scene. The site, though, is pretty interesting and seems unusually community responsive. It currently claims 400,000 subscribed members, and is available in BETA in North America, parts of Asia and Europe. It's also quite focused on media convergence and integration. Not only does it have upcoming companion game on the Nintendo DS coming out this year, but the "game" itself integrates onto your desktop. Here's the description from the site:
Each GoPet is a unique 3D companion that makes its home on its owner’s desktop. GoPets are not restricted to a single computer, however -- when they feel like wandering, they leave home and visit the desktops of other GoPets users. In their travels, GoPets visit their owners’ friends and families, as well as introducing their owners to other GoPets members who share similar interests. These traveling GoPets are messengers and ambassadors – they form the dynamic network of connections that comprises the GoPets social network.

Hmmm...strange isn't it? Sort of like Facebook meets Nintendogs. The game operates on a virtual/real world currency hybrid -- for example, players are awarded the mid-range currency type (pink shells) for contributing UGC to the site, but have to purchase high-range currency (gold shells) with real money (and, of course, "The coolest items can only be purchased using Gold Shells."). Also, despite the centrality of cutesy virtual pets, the site restricts children under 13 years (citing COPPA compliance). You can check out the site for yourselves by trying the free demo. If you do, let me know what you think.

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Kids and Moms Harrassed in XBox Live

An infuriating story is currently being covered by WomenGamers.com about the systematic verbal harassment of a clan of kids and moms in XBox Live. The clan, called "The GR8 Clan", or "The Greats" for short, is an after-school initiative for kids aged 8-16, moderated and led by a few of their gamer moms (by the way, how cool is that!?!). The plan is to create a kid-friendly space within the adult-dominated world of XBox Live, where kids and their parents can play competitively and learn "teamwork, loyalty and sportsmanship" (says their MySpace page). Recently, however, the clan has been subject to insults and inappropriate comments via the live voice feature of XBox Live, which is surprisingly not currently regulated by the phone harassment laws that regulate VOIP and cell phones. According to WomenGamers, this loop hole "has provided a lawless internet frontier where Microsoft has not put in safeguards for children on its own." One of the adult moderators, GR8 Anhialator, contributed the following to the discussion thread:
Yesterday, I asked the GR8 kids if it was my imagination, or, if it was true that more and more people online, in the multiplayer gaming community (specifically XBOX Live), were getting meaner and more hateful toward us. Each of them said that, "people are getting meaner."

Remember that The Gr8 Clan is a group of children known as The Greats, aged from 8 years to 16 years old, chaperoned by GR8 Anhialator (sic). And we play to have fun. Yet, there is an increasing number of foul-mouthed males (different ones each day--proving my theory that more and more people are slipping into "hate" mode) who take it upon themselves to hurl vile insults, and even threats, at a group of children and women.

I've telephoned XBOX Live regarding this matter, and they responded by telling me that there was nothing that could be done.

[...]

[M]y clan is a group of children, and that these jerks come in and call us names as soon as they hear the kids' voices over the headsets. They call us names when we lose, and they call us names when we win. I'm not talking about schoolyard names here, I'm talking about street-slang, gang-banging hateful names, usually referencing genitalia or degrading sex acts.

According to "GR8 Anhialator" one of the reasons the XBox Live support/complaint system can't (or won't) do anything to help them is that the clan itself has received numerous complaints from other payers for censoring speech in their room, kicking people out of their room for saying inappropriate things to the kids, and generally controlling who gets to play with the kids. Some of the harassment also comes from players who disagree that children should be allowed to play M-rated games (they're currently playing Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas (rated "M"), Ghost Recon (rated "T") and Gears of War (rated "M"), among others).

The GR8 Clan has taken the position that ESRB ratings are voluntary and that the kids are playing the games under adult supervision. I find this element of the phenomenon a bit of a contradiction - the gamer community is generally quite vocally against making ESRB ratings mandatory, and yet here the ratings seem to justify an all out assault on young (not to mention female) players. The harassers seem quite keen on establishing XBox Live as an adults-only place...making a kids' clan something akin to bringing a bunch of kids into a strip club. And perhaps certain games and areas should be adult only...these harasser-guys obviously need somewhere away from other people where they can be their horrifying selves. Boundaries can be good, if managed and established correctly -- without undue discrimination, for example. But there is no way that it's ever OK to establish these boundaries through abuse, bullying and threats. These players should take note that the ESRB ratings refer to game content, not the words and behaviour of the real-life people playing them.

This is yet another case of children becoming the locus of larger social tensions -- the disapproving adult-players take out their anger on the kids, and the kids have no legal or even quasi-legal (terms of service rules) recourse other than to remove themselves from M-rated games because adult players can't behave themselves. Where in this scenario do adults ever have to take on some of the responsibility or self-restraint? I really hope this story hits the games blogsphere and gets some attention from XBox, who are in this case failing miserably at making their system more "family friendly."

I also wonder how the kids themselves feel about it, and if there is any difference between girls' and boys' experiences of trash talk in XBox Live and other forums. There is a wonderful forthcoming article by Sonia Livingstone wherein she explores how kids use the Internet to experiment with taboo talk and roles, including sexual themes and flaming in chat rooms...I seem to remember that the boys were more likely to engage in trash talk and flame wars, and I wonder if this carries over into the XBox example. Is this something they engage in, and then it goes too far? Are girls participating in it, or are they merely subjected to it? I'm assuming that the GR8 moderator represents the children's position as well as the moms' on this one, but it would nonetheless be great to hear what these kids think about the whole thing, as well as how this experience differs from other games (maybe E-rated) and multiplayer forums they might also engage in.

This article comes at a pretty interesting time in my own research. Recently, I've been writing quite a bit about restrictions on interplayer communication in child-oriented MMOGs and how this limits opportunities for community-building and creativity. This case is a good counterpoint to keep in mind whenever I get carried away with participatory rights and freedom of expression issues...although I'm still not convinced that it's the kids who need the censoring.

*****Update: Please see Comment section for important corrections to this story from one of the members of the GR8 Clan.******

****Also, check out this recent announcement by Playstation about their plan to ban anyone who becomes overly "abusive" on their Playstation Home feature. From the
Escapist article: "He added that Sony was not looking to offer a kids-only environment, and that adult users would have access to products and brands that would be kept out of the reach of children. "A large portion of our demographic is over 18 so we will make a point of catering to that demographic - we certainly don't want to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator," he said."*****

Friday, August 10, 2007

McDonald's on the Hot Seat

The FTC issued a flurry of subpoenas to food, beverage and fast-food advertisers today demanding details about how they market their products to children. Included among the 44 major companies served are Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kraft Foods, and McDonald's. This development comes right on the heels of a report and press coverage earlier this week about the effectiveness of McDonald's branding strategies on kids' food preferences. In a study conducted at the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, led by Thomas Robinson, researchers studied the food taste preferences of 63 kids between 3 and 5 years, who were enrolled in Head Start programs across San Mateo County. The kids sampled three types of McDonald's fast food -- including chicken nuggets, french fries and hamburgers -- as well as two types of food purchased at a grocery store (carrots and milk). Kids were given two equal portions of each of the five food items, but with a small difference--one (of each) was wrapped in a McDonald's wrapper, or placed in a McDonald's bag, while the other (of each) was wrapped in similar wrapping, but without the McDonald's logo. The kids were then randomly asked to taste first one and then the other of the five "identical, differently packaged, pairs of food samples" and pick which one they thought tasted better (with the option of answering that they thought they tasted the same). According to the study press release:
With four out of the five foods - chicken nuggets, fries, carrots and milk - significantly more children pegged the McDonald's product as tastier, despite the fact that the foods were exactly the same.

"The branding effect is very strong, even by only 3 to 5 years of age," said Thomas Robinson, MD, director of the Center for Healthy Weight at Packard Children's and associate professor of pediatrics and of medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine.

The researchers also revealed that they selected McDonald's because it was a brand that kids were most likely to be familiar with. And they certainly found indications of a link between preference and exposure:
"We found that kids with more TVs in their homes and those who eat at McDonald's more frequently were even more likely to prefer the food in the McDonald's wrapper," said Robinson. "This is a company that knows what they're doing. Nobody else spends as much to advertise their fast-food products to children." McDonald's is estimated to spend more than $1 billion dollars per year on U.S. advertising.

You can read more coverage of the report here via Yahoo News, and here via AdAge. You can also watch a clip of Sussan Linn talking about the study on The Today Show. If you click on all three of these links, you'll see something pretty interesting...a slight, but important deviation in how the study's research design is represented. While the Stanford press release and Yahoo News both describe that the second, non-McDonald's sample was wrapped in "unbranded packages in the same color and style", the AdAge and Today Show coverage states that the second sample was "wrapped in plain paper." The Today Show includes a clip of some kids with food choices in front of them chowing down on McD's --not the study itself-- with fast food alongside tupperware containers and other variously packaged foods. The report I watched on Tuesday (Monday?) night, which aired on Global News, also reproduced the study but had the kids picking between McDonald's foods and foods wrapped in plain brown paper wrapping. I think that this inaccuracy is pretty significant, given that it implies that the study asked kids to pick between colorfully-packaged "restaurant food", which carries all the associations of "treats" "special occasions" and "price" (which can be confused with quality even by adults), and paper-bag food, with all of its associations with "generic", "school lunch" and "knock off". I think it's important that parents see that kids were choosing between two equally appealing, similarly-coded samples and that McDonald's still won out because the kids had specific feelings about that specific brand.

Another issue is whether this study is all that groundbreaking, considering the vast amounts of research that already establish fairly solid links between brand exposure (through media and advertising and culture) and kids' product preferences. What's so different about this study? The news media seems to think it has to do with the research methodology. According to Yahoo News, "While prior studies have looked at the impact of individual ads on kids, Robinson and colleagues set out to study the overall influence of a company's brand -- based on everything from advertising to toy premiums and word of mouth." Well, obviously this isn't exactly the case (there have definitely been studies of branding and branding campaigns, as well as studies of children's whole media environments), but applying such a comprehensive approach does represent something of a departure from the research to date. It's strange how much (on certain topics/methods) and how little (on other topics/methods) research exists on kids and advertising, considering how big an issue it appears to be within public consciousness. Anyway, I feel that there are links here to longer trends among the media in terms of how they represent the media effects debate, which you can read more about in this article by Steve Kline if you're interested.

Monday, August 06, 2007

Child Safe Viewing Act and the Super V-Chip

With the US Senate Commerce Committee 's approval of the Child Safe Viewing Act last week, the FCC will now have to investigate the feasibility of a multi-media V-chip (being dubbed "Super V-Chip") that does not interfere with existing content provider packaging and pricing schemes. This announcement is actually kind of rife, because it takes sides in an ongoing debate about how to best facilitate parental (as opposed to governmental) regulation of their kids media exposure. The "Super V-Chip" has been proposed as an alternative to the "a la carte" sale of cable networks supported by the current FCC chairman (Kevin Martin) as well as the Parents Television Council. While the Super V-Chip would allow parents to "block" undesirable content across a variety of media formats (incl. TV, cable/satellite receivers, Internet, wireless, etc.) available in the home, the "a la carte" solution would -- at least for television -- allow parents to pick and choose (and only pay for) exactly those networks they want to have available in their homes in the first place.

The solution proposed by Sen. Mark Pryor and the Child Safe Viewing Act represent a sweeping expansion of an existing framework, one whose effectiveness has been quite limited so far. Part of the bill's mandate will be to respond to concerns about the underutilization of the existing V-Chip, which blocks content on TV sets (all TV sets come with this technology already installed). Studies show persistent lack of awareness among parents about how the technology work, while others express frustration with the lack of accuracy and reliability in the accompanying ratings system.

Here's a run-down of the various players' positions, courtesy of Multichannel News:
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark): “It’s an uphill battle for parents trying to protect their kids from viewing inappropriate programming. I believe there is a whole new generation of technology that can provide an additional layer of help for these parents,” Pryor said in a prepared statement. “My bill simply lights a fire under the FCC to take a fresh look at new options in the marketplace.”

FCC chairman Kevin Martin: Supports "a la carte" sale of cable networks as the solution to parental concern about children seeing inappropriate content, putting him at odds with the cable industry’s view that blocking solutions are superior to government interference in the distribution of cable programming.

The Parents Television Council: Backs Martin on the a la carte or “cable choice” issue and does not endorse Pryor’s bill. According to PTC president Tim Winter, “Our desire is that the industry will respond to continued public demand for a safer television environment for children and families by adhering to the decency law on broadcast television and by creating a way for parents to choose and pay for only the cable programming they want.”

Monday, July 16, 2007

From Virtual Dolls to Grand Theft Auto

Last week, the game industry was all abuzz about a new study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health that found "no corresponding increase in violent or anti-social behavior" among young teens who played M-rated or violent video games (you can read some of the coverage at The Escapist or GamePolitics.com). Much less coverage was given, however, to the primary purpose of the study, conducted by Cheryl K. Olson et al. (2007), which was to explore gender differences in the game play patterns of young adolescent males and females, with a special emphasis on violent games. Among their key findings:
Of 1254 participants (53% female, 47% male), only 80 reported playing no electronic games in the previous 6 months. Of 1126 children who listed frequently played game titles, almost half (48.8%) played at least one violent (mature-rated) game regularly (67.9% of boys and 29.2% of girls). One third of boys and 10.7% of girls play games nearly every day; only 1 in 20 plays often or always with a parent. Playing M-rated games is positively correlated ( p < .001) with being male, frequent game play, playing with strangers over the Internet, having a game system and computer in one’s bedroom, and using games to manage anger.

Conclusions: Most young adolescent boys and many girls routinely play M-rated games.

Another interesting discovery, (found on p.82): "[T]wo in five boys and one in five girls like to “mod” games, e.g., by downloading new characters, weapons, clothing, or story lines from the Internet."

While gender differences persist, it would seem that they are no longer as marked as they once were (or at least assumed to be). It's worth noting, however, that there are still some noticeable differences in terms of which M-rated and other games female and male players reportedly prefer...an aspect that the study does not really explore. Check out the tables on pp.79-80, where the article provides a comparison between the "five games played most often" by the guys and girls surveyed in the study. What I found most interesting about these lists was the diversity of content and themes (genres) found in the games listed by the female players. While the guys' list was fairly predictable:

1 Grand Theft Auto (M)
2 Madden (football) (E)
3 Halo (M)
4 NBA (E)
5 Tony Hawk (skateboard) (T)
6 NCAA (E)
7 Need for Speed (racing) (E or T)
8 ESPN (E)
9 Medal of Honor (T)
10 Lord of the Rings (T)

The girls' list is much harder to define, esp. in gendered terms:
1 The Sims (T)
2 Grand Theft Auto (M)
3 Super Mario (E)
4 Solitaire (E)
5 Tycoon games (E)
6 Mario games (unspecified) (E)
7 Tony Hawk (skateboard) (T)
8 Dance Dance Revolution (E)
9 Mario Kart (racing) (E)
10 Frogger (E)

I'm also struck by the fact that although violence games and M-rated games are enjoyed by (some) players of both genders, E-rated games dominate in terms of games most frequently played by both girls and boys (if you count Need for Speed as E-rated).

You can access the full article on the journal website by clicking here. Thanks to Jade Reporting for linking to a post by Mighty Pony Girl which brought this to my attention.

Full Reference: Olson, C.K., Kutner, L.A, Warner, D.E., Almerigi, J.B., Baer, L., Nicholi II, A.M., and E.V. Beresin (2007). "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls", Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (1), pp. 77–83.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Global Kids Food Ads Revolution

Philip M. Stone, of FollowTheMedia.com, reports on a recent announcement by Canadian food and beverage companies "that 15 of its biggest companies will devote at least 50% of their ads directed to children under 12 to promote healthy food choices and how to live an active life." A series of PSAs will also be produced under the umbrella brand "Long Live Kids"...think "Participaction" for a new generation. Stone's article goes on to discuss regulatory developments worldwide (stating "Junk food has replaced tobacco as the young’s Public Enemy #1"), focusing in on the UK (obviously) and US in particular, but also mentions Chile, which I haven't really heard much about until now. The article also links to a number of background documents, which may be useful if you're interested in following the kids' food ads "revolution".

Meanwhile, the FTC is preparing to serve food and beverages companies in the US with "compulsory requests for information" on their children's marketing and advertising practices. Said
FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, in a speech to the Food and Drug Law Institute given last week (cited in the AdAge article):
"We hope to get a more complete picture of marketing techniques for which publicly available data have so far been lacking. This effort is exploring not only traditional TV, print and radio advertising, but will provide an analysis of all of the many other ways that the industry reaches children -- through in-store promotions, events, packaging, the internet and product placement in video games, movies and television programs."