My First Computer

Photo Credit: LeapFrog

From David Carnoy over at C/Net News.com, an overview of LeapFrog's new "ClickStart My First Computer" -- a TV-plug-in PC for children aged 3-6:

The $60 system features a "child-friendly" wireless keyboard with nice big buttons, a console and a mouse that converts for right- or left-handed play. The console comes with a few built in games and activities, and you can buy additional software cartridges ($19.99) that plug into the top of the console.

Not surprisingly, there's a friendly green puppy named Scout to guide kids through navigation, mousing, counting, ABCs, phonic skills, simple math, shapes, and colors. Tots can even click on an in-box to get a greeting-card style e-mail, complete with sound for nonreaders.

While the system isn't compatible with standard operating systems or programs (it sounds like you'd be limited to LeapFrog software only), or the Internet for that matter, the system will introduce kids to computing and Internet "concepts". For example:

[W]ord is LeapFrog's developing a game called Ratatouille: Anyone Can Blog. In it, kids learn how to link to baseless rumors or better yet, just make ridiculous stuff up so other people can link to it and send traffic through the roof.

And of course, as with all LeapFrog products, an emphasis is already being placed on licensing initiatives and "edutainment"...Finding Nemo and Dora the Explorer titles will be released later this month concurrent with the system. For the record, though, I should admit that my first computer, the Commodore 64, ALSO plugged into the television -- but the major difference was that the technology was wide open for user appropriation, had I been so inclined. There were also some pretty obvious differences between playing the C64 piano game and watching an episode of My Little Pony or Ghostbusters...a distinction I fear ClickStart users might not grasp quite as readily, particularly with a media synergy that transports their favourite television characters from the television screen to the, well, PC-ized television screen. Other than the transmedia intertextuality and commercialization potential, though, some of the features sound pretty neat..esp. the blogging game, and especially if it also teaches kids lessons about public domain, privacy and intellectual property BEFORE they're set loose on the Internet.

Here's the LeapFrog press release for more details.

The "Harry Potter Effect"

Via Cynopsis: Kids!, a new press release came out today from The Nielsen Company providing a handy run-down of the impact Harry Potter has had on the entertainment industry since his first appearance (which they've dubbed "The Harry Potter Effect"). Here's an excerpt of some of the key stats:

-- Book sales (Nielsen BookScan) - Since 1998, when Nielsen began measuring book sales in the United Kingdom, the six Harry Potter books have sold more than 22.5 million copies in the UK alone. In the United States, the Harry Potter titles published after 2001 have sold more than 27.7 million copies.

-- Box Office sales (Nielsen EDI) - Combined, the first four Harry Potter films have grossed more than $3.5 billion worldwide. The first film, "Harry Potter and The [Philosopher's] Stone," is the fourth all-time highest grossing film worldwide.

-- Advertising (Nielsen Monitor-Plus) - In the U.S., ad spend for all Harry Potter branded merchandise (including books, movies, DVDs and other promotional products) totals $269.1 million from 1998 to date. Outside of the U.S. from 2000 to date, $119.3 million was spent on total advertising for all Harry Potter branded merchandise in Canada, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, and the U.K.

-- DVD/Video sales (Nielsen VideoScan) -All three Harry Potter DVDs/Videos - [Philosopher's] Stone, Chamber of Secrets, and Prisoner of Azkaban - debuted at #1 and remained the #1 family film for the first 3 weeks of each release.

-- Internet Traffic (Nielsen//NetRatings) - The Warner Bros. "Harry Potter Order of the Phoenix" Web site drew 446,762 unique visitors in May 2007.

-- Internet Buzz (Nielsen BuzzMetrics) - On blogs, the final book "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," is generating more "buzz" than the latest movie installment, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix."

-- Music sales (Nielsen SoundScan) - The four Harry Potter soundtracks combined have sold more than 1.1 million copies in the U.S. and almost 100,000 copies in Canada since the initial release back in October 2001. There have been a total of 180,000 downloads of individual songs that tied to the four Harry Potter soundtracks.

-- TV ratings (Nielsen Media Research) - Since 2002, the Harry Potter movies have aired on U.S. television a total of 366 times.

-- Moviegoer Profile (Nielsen Cinema) - A recent survey of moviegoers shows 51% of persons age 12+ are aware that the new book is coming out next month. Twenty-eight percent of persons 12+ in the U.S. have read one or more of the previous Harry Potter books, and 15% have read all of the Harry Potter books-to-date.

-- Consumer (ACNielsen) - More than $11.8 million has been spent by U.S. consumers on Harry Potter-licensed trademark cookies, candy and gum products since June 2002.

Back in 2003, Ipsos Reid released a report that "45 per cent of Canadian households have read at least one of the books", which included 19% of Canadian adults (18+). I'm not sure what the stats are for Canadian kids and teens, but I suspect it's through the roof.

For more info about the Canadian market and to read about the global marketing plan for Deathly Hollows (only 10 days to go before the big release) read this article from Marketing Magazine.

Neopians Unite!

Over the weekend, Izzy Neis compiled a bunch of info on an anti-establishment rebellion that is currently rising up amongst tween girl Neopets users concerning the new RMT (real-money trading) "NCMall" and other pay-to-play features. It's a pretty awesome story, which you can read more about by checking out Izzy's July 8th post, as well as some of the links that she's put together, here, here, and here.

Will CRTC Deregulation Affect CAB's Kids Code?

I will be away until July 11th, so there will be no new blog entries on Gamine Expedition until late next week. In the meantime, some food for thought. In May, Canada's new conservative CRTC Chairman Konrad Von Finckenstein announced his plans to deregulate television advertising in Canada and make some pretty drastic changes to the way "conventional television broadcasters" operate. Here are the details from the CRTC news release:

Notably, the Commission has decided to:

* remove restrictions on advertising time limits after gradually increasing the amount of advertising allowed;
* establish August 31, 2011, as the date by which television licensees will only broadcast digital signals;
* require English- and French-language broadcasters to caption for the hearing impaired 100 per cent of their programs over the 18-hour broadcast day, with the exception of advertising and promotions; and
* deny a subscriber fee for the carriage of local conventional television stations on cable and satellite as its necessity has not been demonstrated.

“These changes reflect our approach of developing lighter and more targeted regulation to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act,” said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC. “Broadcasters will have the flexibility to air more advertising, and Canadians viewers will ultimately decide what is acceptable.”

As of this (2007), the ad limits will increase to 14 minutes per hour during prime time (7 p.m. to 11 p.m). The following year, this will increase to 15 minutes (all day). After that, the sky's the limit, I suppose.

The story initially "broke" in a Playback magazine interview with Von Finckenstein, wherein he was quoted saying he is aiming for a "lighter approach to regulation" that places less of a burden on government and corporations, and that "We must give fuller play to the energy and creativity of market forces..." While the interview also describes the process the CRTC must undergo to revise departmental policy, the CRTC website currently states these changes as fact.

Prof. Paul Boin, professor of Media Studies at the University of Windsor, was quick to respond via Globe and Mail Op-Ed piece, and now through a national campaign/grassroots organization aimed at preventing the CRTC from handing over Canadian airwaves to market forces. Check it out here: Canadians for Democratic Media. Boin wrote a lengthy and very insightful piece about why deregulation is bad for Canada, which included the following excerpts:

By attempting to get our CRTC "out of the business" of regulating advertising time, not only has Von Finkenstein gone against 75 years of broadcasting precedent and well-developed and proven public policy, but it seems as though he hasn't even read our existing Broadcasting Act. Section 5.1 of our act states that the "Commission shall regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system." Section 10.1 of our act states that the CRTC shall "make regulations…respecting the character of advertising and the amount of broadcasting time that may be devoted to advertising… respecting the proportion of time that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including advertisements or announcements."

Now, each time a new techno-gadget plays or podcasts some media content we hear the whine of our wealthy broadcasters stating how they are at a regulatory disadvantage when compared to their newer media counterparts. To these whines I respond, "then run all the cheap American programming and advertising you want via your corporate websites, and give us back your publicly owned broadcast frequencies and designated spots on the cable and satellite dial." Canada's private networks have forgotten that the public owns the channels their content is distributed on, and we only allow them to use these channels if they meet their conditions of license. If they, and the CRTC, are no longer interested in meeting these basic conditions (e.g., Canadian content quotas, limited advertising) then return these channels to the public who will then re-allocate them to any number of conscientious media providers who will be more than proud to meet the goals of the broadcasting act – that "the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians," supply a "public service," while "providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity…" - while earning a healthy profit.

In a follow-up article, Playback covered the backlash against Von Finckenstein's announcement, demonstrating the growing lack of support for the CRTC (organizations from ACTRA to the CAB have expressed their disappointment with the new decisions):

Both the CBC and the Directors Guild of Canada say the CRTC is encouraging a freefall of spending on Canadian drama because it didn't firm up support for Canadian content in its new television policy, which, instead, will eliminate limits on ad time by 2009.
[...]
The NDP's heritage critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) believes the CRTC isn't acting in the interest of Canadian viewers. "We've already got enough commercials on television. What's in it for the Canadian viewer if they aren't watching Canadian shows," he says. "Airwaves are public. These broadcasters make money because they are operating in a protected environment. Where's the corresponding obligation to invest in Canadian television?"

As always, my mind is on kids' advertising and how massively saturated children's television already is with ads and marketing schemes: from 30-minute commercials to the frequent instances of networks breaking the rules on what can and can't be advertised to kids. The current regulatory system isn't strict enough, and now our conservative government is going to make it nearly impossible to improve things. A big part of having regulation is to protect citizens from imbalances in power--between individuals and corporations, or between media producers/providers and vulnerable groups. Younger children have enough difficulty as it is telling the difference between content and ads--how will they assert their "consumer agency" and set limits on ads during kids' programming with even less support from media policy than they already have. Once again, I suppose the huge responsibility of reigning in the marketplace is being tossed onto the shoulders of parents and families. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself (fingers crossed). No mention has been made in any of the literature I've come across if children's television will be exempt or equally effected by this. I've been waiting to find out for sure whether or not the CAB's CRTC-enforced Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children would be impacted before I chimed in, but perhaps while I'm away one of my readers can fill me in. Either way, this is a disturbing development for Canadians, and I encourage you to write to your MP, file a formal CRTC complaint, and otherwise get involved in reversing this and pending decisions to deregulate our public airwaves.

Update: Although I mentioned the children's television issue extensively in my formal CRTC complaint, the form-letter response I got gave me zero answers about whether the kids' code will be affected...leading me to suspect even more now that it will be.

Transformers, More Than Meets The Eye

Watching Saturday morning cartoons a couple of weekends ago, I was surprised at the number of times I saw trailers for summer action hero blockbusters -- Transformers and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer -- as well as ads for related merchandise (especially toys, of course) and promotions. The violent themes and high levels of action featured in the trailers made me wonder (well, ok, doubt) whether they fell within the film industries' various self-regulatory guidelines not to market to kids under the age established by the film's rating. As it turns out, however, my concerns were unfounded -- the BC Film Classification has given both films a PG-rating (apparently, Fantastic Four even got a "G" rating in Quebec)...which is good, considering that the films are based on popular kids' media/toy brands. It got me thinking once again about violent content, ratings, the convoluted and highly politicized way we define what is "appropriate" for kids, and the differences between Canada and the US when it comes to determining all of the above. The old adage goes that Canada is more likely to put stricter regulations on violence than the US, whereas the US is more likely to restrict sexuality than Canada when it comes to film and television. Imagine my surprise when I found out that not only did the MPAA (the US film ratings board) give Transformers a PG-13 rating, but that the same ad strategies that initially piqued my interest (trailers for the film broadcast during children's television time blocks) are currently at the center of a little media controversy south of the border.

What started as a campaign by the CCFC for an FTC investigation into Hasbro and DreamWorks's marketing of Transformers to "preschoolers", has now gained some profile, garnering headlines like "Toys for Toddlers From PG-13 Movie" in the New York Times, and "Transformer Ads Target Children" in Forbes Online. According to the New York Times article:

[T]he movie is packed with so much violence that one of its stars, Shia LaBeouf, has said in interviews that Steven Spielberg, the executive producer, narrowly avoided an R rating. A spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, which bestows ratings on movies, declined to comment.

While the FTC has stated publicly that it is interested in hearing what the CCFC has to say, it's unclear whether the media attention will have the effect of raising the profile of the campaign and highlight the deficiencies of the film industry's self-regulatory system, or, as Anil Narine points out, simply make kids want to see it even more -- a strategy that is more than familiar in Hollywood. Strategic press leaks about the "realism" of the sex scenes in Mr. & Mrs. Smith simply contributed to the "buzz" about the film and led to a much larger than expected opening weekend (btw, Transformers just made $27.4 million on it's opening day of release). As Anil says, "Controversy is often absorbed into the marketing momentum of certain films."

I've been sitting on this story for a few days, feeling a bit ambivalent about it, for a couple of reasons. Initially, it didn't seem like it was going to get much traction -- according to the FTC, the film industries have been consistently terrible at adhering to their own rules about marketing to children and teens. Since 2000, the FTC has been monitoring the entertainment industries adherence to a fairly disorganized cluster of self-regulatory guidelines when it comes to marketing films to kids, producing an entire series of reports entitled Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children. In their most recent follow-up study, released last April, the FTC had this to say about the film industry:

Although there is no industry-wide standard, several individual movie studios have adopted guidelines restricting advertising on television shows where the under-17 audience is more than 35%. The study found a few examples of R-rated movies and unrated DVD advertisements on television shows where the under-17 audience exceeded 35%, but most television ads were placed on shows that fell under this threshold. Nevertheless, the report notes that a 35% standard still permits advertising on the vast majority of shows most popular with teens.

Considering the large number of "R"-rated films and videogames being promoted to kids left-right-and-center, a PG-13 rated robot smash-and-bash didn't seem like that much of a priority.

The second reason is harder to describe, but has a lot to do with the fact that what we're talking about here is the Transformers!!! The very same Autobots and Decepticons that have intermittently been a staple of kids' (and particularly boys') culture since the 80s. The movie, the series, the spin-offs (I'm looking at YOU, Beast Wars) are based on a kids' toy line, and thus it makes total sense to me that the movie would be promoted to kids (for some questioning of why it might make sense to me in particular, as someone who grew up in the 80s, read Common Sense Media's review).

Furthermore, as Anil also pointed out, the film is rated PG-13, which doesn't mean that kids can't go see it, just that parental guidance is recommended (he then listed the numerous awesome kids/family movies that fall under the PG-13 rating in the US, from Jurassic Park to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire...or all the foreign films that get inexplicable R-ratings, such as La cité des enfants perdus/City of Lost Children, which was rated PG in British Columbia). According to the MPAA, a PG-13 rating indicates:

PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED—Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

The PG-13 rating is thus a "sterner warning" for parents to be "very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children", but it does not restrict children from viewing the movie, even unattended. On the other hand, as media scholars, I think we admire and appreciate a group like the CCFC's ongoing efforts to provide the crucial service of media watchdog, in the absence of concerted government-led monitoring and enforcement. As I said, on this one I remain ambivalent, sympathizing with both sides once again.

Barbie PC 2nd-Worst PC in History

PCWorld has just released a list of the "10 worst PCs of all time," with Mattel's Barbie PC (circa 1999-2000) coming in near the top at number 2. Here's the blurb:

Back in the late 1990s, the "concept PC" was all the rage. Goodbye to boring beige boxes, hello to creative, colorful computers. But instead of being sleek and stylish, the Mattel Barbie PC was merely pink and putrid. (And her blue and yellow brother, the Hot Wheels PC, wasn't any better.)

Trying to sucker parents by gluing toy parts to a crappy low-end system is bad enough; what's worse is that Patriot Computer, which manufactured these boxes for Mattel, went belly up in December 2000. More than 3000 customers who dropped $599 on these suckers got burned.

The good news? Unlike the dolls, the Barbie PC did not feature a string that caused it to say "Math is hard" when you pulled it.

Ouch! No mention, unfortunately, of any connection this particular "concept" might have had with the concurrent mid- to late-90s movement to bridge the gender divide in computing, through the creation of girl games, after-school programs, etc. The Barbie PC is a great example of "kiddie tech" as crappy, branded versions of mainstream technologies -- it's good to see it singled out in PCWorld, since kids' stuff isn't always considered alongside "adult" or regular products, which probably contributes to lower standards in quality, design, etc.

It's All Fun and Games...Isn't It?

I've read two very useful (and non-academic!) articles this week touching upon the highly philosophical issue (well, for play theoriests at least) of fun in games. Today's Slate features an article on "the trouble with serious gamies" by Justin Peters, who has this to say about the recent profile-rise of edugaming and the serious games movement:

All of these ideas are premised on the notion that video games can and should be more than mindless fun. But all of this noodling about games' untapped potential raises some philosophical questions: When does a game stop being a game and turn into an assignment? Can a game still be called a game if it isn't any fun?

He provides a good (and funny) critique of some of the corporate training and "news" games to recently enter into the foray, which include plans for work-focused MMOGs:

The California-based company called Seriosity, for one, claims to be brainstorming a virtual work environment that mimics online worlds like Second Life and World of Warcraft. "[T]oday's multiplayer games," the company explains, "embody tasks that are analogous to corporate work."

Contrast this to the awesome article in this week's The Escapist on "how-to-catch a gold farmer" (in MMOGs) written by Darius Kazemi, who approaches these issues in a slightly different way. Here, Kazemi describes how gold farmers "play" MMOGs in a way that is immediately distinct from that of other (legitimate?) players:

You might believe a gold farmer could easily hide among the millions of other characters on a server, like a needle in a haystack. But farmers behave fundamentally differently than a normal player. The farmer isn't trying to have fun. In fact, if you look at the act of farming, it's probably the most boring thing you can imagine. But it's efficient, and efficiency is what the farmers are optimizing for. That efficient boredom sticks out like a sore thumb.

It's great to see this level of philosophical discussion unfold within more mainstream publications--I can't wait to see what readers...and especially players...think of the fun in games debate. There are game theorists, like T.L Taylor, who posit that MMOGs are "more than a game"...that virtual environments contain such a variety of social, communicative, even economic and political activities and meanings that they are best understood (and approached) as extensions of everyday life. From my understanding of this argument, scholars in this camp would fairly readily accept that an MMOG could (should?) provide a space for work-relations or even production. However, other theorists (myself included) are more in tune with Peters and Kazemi...maintaining that play and games--while certainly not exclusive of the communicative activities of everyday life--must also operate within a fundamentally differentiated state of mind or being in order to truly qualify as "play"...i.e. fun! These scholars are trying to capture/theorize the essence or uniqueness of play, and make space for the value of play and fun within larger debates around gaming. I find it immensely interesting that MMOG operators can identify famers by the lack of fun in their play patterns. Of course, all this opens up other issues, such as the impact of commodification/exchange value on the nature of MMOG play, the possibility for a dissolution of the traditional (modern, industrial) boundaries between work and play (playful work? productive play?), and various of other questions that currently drive and shape game studies.

Disney Done with Direct-To-DVD

From the Post Gazette, news of yet another massive change over at Disney which, under the new management and strategic vision of Pixar greats John Lasseter and Steve Jobs (yes, the Apple Inc. Steve Jobs), is getting what appears to be the corporate version of Extreme Makeover. Here's an excerpt from the article:

In a major strategy shift, the Walt Disney Co. said it will stop making lucrative direct-to-DVD sequels of such classic animated films as "Cinderella," a move that reflects the growing influence of former Pixar Animation executives John Lasseter and Steve Jobs, who once called the films "embarrassing."

The change comes with a shake-up at the company's DisneyToon Studios, including the removal of longtime president Sharon Morrill, who will continue with the company in another capacity, Disney said last week.

DisneyToon Studios will become part of Walt Disney Feature Animation and report directly to Animation president Ed Catmull and Lasseter, who assumed roles there after Disney bought Pixar Animation Studio last year for $7.4 billion in stock.

DisneyToon will now only produce original DVD films, including the upcoming film starring the fairy Tinkerbell. "Little Mermaid III," currently in production, will be the last DVD sequel released.

In the past, both Lasseter and Jobs have expressed quite a bit of contempt for Disney's direct-to-video productions, a sentiment which was carried forth into yesterday's announcement. "We feel sick about Disney doing sequels," Jobs said. "If you look at the quality of their sequels ... it's pretty embarrassing." I suppose, however, that this comment does not apply to (Pixar's) full-release sequels like Toy Story 2, or the upcoming Toy Story 3.

This is pretty big news: The direct-to-DVD-sequel strategy has been quite lucrative for the Disney company, who began the practice in 1994 with The Return of Jafar...which by 1997 had sold more than 10 million units. Profits for the Aladdin sequels alone have grossed more than $250 million (a second direct-to-video sequel, Aladdin and the King of Theives, was released 2 years later). Overall, the company is cutting out what is surely a multi-billion dollar revenue generator, which is both a surprising move for the media giant, as well as one which could result in quite a shift within the kids' media environment. To find out more about the potential impact this announcement could have, you can read articles on the evolution of the kids' direct-to-video/DVD market--which is by far the most lucrative demographic for this medium--from 1997-2005, here, here, here, and here.

CARU Focuses in on Online Marketing

From KidAdLaw, a short article on the Children's Advertising Review Unit's (CARU) recent efforts to better regulate online marketing to kids. Here's an excerpt:

The Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU), urged to more actively police online marketing activities to stave off regulation, increasingly has begun looking at marketers' online activities aimed at kids. CARU, an arm of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., recently recommended that the operator of a social networking site, Flip.com, and NIKE6.com change their online practices.

The article goes on to describe a few of CARU's recent rulings (re: Flip.com and NIKE6.com), along with the companies/site owners' responses. There's not all that much new information here, but it's a good reminder of the CARU and its activities, complete with links to the press releases for these rulings and the CARU's database--which is an excellent resource for those interested in mapping the trajectory of kids' ads regulation in the US, finding out what the most common infringements are, and identifying the most frequent offenders. Online marketers, of course, must comply to COPPA (which the CARU monitors), but it's really interesting to see the other types of cases that come up. I've found the companies' responses to be most enlightening - check them out for yourself here.

Glubble...for Kids!

By way of Stefanie Olsen at CNet, news today about a new Firefox browser add-on called "Glubble" that aims to help "parents keep their kids in a safe Web-surfing sandbox." Glubble--short for "global bubble" (as in keep your kids in a bubble)--launched in BETA form on Tuesday, and is described by Olsen as:

[E]ssentially a white list, or collection of pre-approved sites, for the Web browser. By downloading the Firefox plug-in, parents can control their kids' experience online by choosing which sites they can visit and with whom they can chat. Designed for children under 12, the browser extension filters out all other sites, and maintains personalized preferences for parents and individual children. It even offers a version of Google that searches only the pre-approved sites.

Eek! That could either take ages for parents and kids to negotiate and pre-program/customize (and update!), or else result in some major censoring of valuable tools and information, numerous parent-child misunderstandings and frustrations, oversights, bias (intentional/unintentional), etc. etc. Even the kids-safety people seem skeptical about the effectiveness of this type of blocker-tool. While allowing that Glubble could "be helpful for younger children,"
Safekids.com founder Larry Magid opined that,

"At some point, kids need to be given a longer leash with guidance so they can develop critical thinking skills and get training to be safer as they get older. Also, a savvy 11-year old could just launch Internet Explorer."

They certainly could.

In other, related news, the Kaiser Family Foundation has just launched a new report revealing that parents feel they are gaining control over their kids' media consumption and exposure. While parents are still calling for tighter restrictions (particularly governmental) on violence and "inappropriate" content in media, they nonetheless feel more involved and have a better understanding of their children's media activities than they did in 1998. From the report press release:

Parents are particularly confident in monitoring their children’s online activities. Nearly three out of four parents (73%) say they know "a lot" about what their kids are doing online (among all parents with children 9 or older who use the Internet at home). Most parents whose children engage in these activities say they check their children’s Instant Messaging (IM) "buddy lists" (87%), review their children’s profiles on social networking sites (82%), and look to see what websites they’ve visited (76%) after they’ve gone online.

Internet filters and cyber-nannies have existed for awhile, and Glubble doesn't seem to offer that much more in terms of ensuring kids' maintain access to fair information, freedom of expression and serendipitous opportunities for creativity and community. I'll refer you again to Boyd and Jenkins' discussion of DOPA for further discussion of some of the dangers of automated filtering technologies. In the meantime, the finding that parents are becoming more engaged and cyber-literate is an extremely encouraging development...particularly for regulatory strategies that incorporate dialogue, negotiation and parent-child participation over a technologically-enforced rationalization (and, let's face it, most often also commercialization) of kids' online experience.

Nicktropolis Hits 4 Million Mark

According to a Nickelodeon press release distributed yesterday, the company's child-targeted, TV-themed MMOG Nicktropolis has attracted just under 4 million unique members since its launch in January. This month also marks the launch of two new areas within the site, including "environments" (i.e. "chat" rooms, streaming media and shops) based on the hit Nickelodeon show The Naked Brothers Band, and a Space-themed environment that portends to actually offer some multiplayer games! This last bit of news is of particular interest to me, as since I started my research on the site earlier this year, I have yet to find anything to do there, other than chat with other users via predesignated, and often branded (i.e. sayings and lines from Nickelodeon shows), phrases, or "interact" with Nickelodeon brands--by standing around in show-themed rooms, clicking on the odd object for pop-up-book-quality interactivity, shopping for furniture and things to put in my room (again, many of which are show-themed), or watching commercials and clips from Nickelodeon shows. So far, the site has been pretty underwhelming, but the company keeps promising new and better features. Such as the new space area which is described as follows (from the press release):

The new space themed environment, launching on Nicktropolis will allow kids to navigate and "fly" on a space ship from downtown Nicktropolis into the Space Center. With state of the art Nicktropolis Space Center auto pilot enabled, users can steer the ship to different locations within the Space Center. They will also be able to play the first true Nicktropolis multiplayer online game. Users had the opportunity to vote on three possible new zones for the site, choosing among a Space Center, Underground and Prehistoric Nicktropolis. Out of nearly 1 million votes in one week, 46% voted for the new space world. The site also recently added a new "Aquarium" area featuring separate sub environments like "Lost Ships," "Undersea Volcanos," and "The Castle Ruins," along with the ability to create, care for and play with your own pet fish. In its first two weeks, more than 500,000 individual fish were created.

I'm currently writing a paper about this and other similar sites that attempt to bring popular kids' television shows and/or channels to the virtual environment, under the guise of MMOGs. So far, the best of the bunch (in terms of an MMOG that actually looks and feels a little like a "real" MMOG) has been YTV/Corus' GalaxSeeds, but in that case gameplay is severely limited by a lack of population base...and the fact that in the early stages at least, currency can only be acquired by playing mini-games, most of which require the simultaneous participation of two or more players. As with many of these initiatives, I'm disappointed with the overall "dumbed down" feeling that design firms seem to think is a necessary component/consequence of enhanced safety features. If "safe" is going to translate to limitations on kids' communications and interactions with other players, it seems to me that this needs to be compensated for by adding in alternative ways of expressing oneself and collaborating with others...or at the very least having fun beyond mere point-and-click interactions with glorified ads.

New Book Alert: "Cheating" by Mia Consalvo

Today I got word about the release of a new book on cheating in digital gaming by Mia Consalvo, Associate Professor & Director of Graduate Studies with the School of Telecommunications at Ohio University. Consalvo already has an impressive list of publications on gaming and MMOGs, including a great chapter on The Sims Online that I recently had the chance to read, and this book has been widely anticipated by members of the game studies community. Here's the book description from the publisher's website:

The widely varying experiences of players of digital games challenge the notions that there is only one correct way to play a game. Some players routinely use cheat codes, consult strategy guides, or buy and sell in-game accounts, while others consider any or all of these practices off limits. Meanwhile, the game industry works to constrain certain readings or activities and promote certain ways of playing. In Cheating, Mia Consalvo investigates how players choose to play games and what happens when they can't always play the way they'd like. She explores a broad range of player behavior, including cheating (alone and in groups), examines the varying ways that players and industry define cheating, describes how the game industry itself has helped systematize cheating, and studies online cheating in context in an online ethnography of Final Fantasy XI. She develops the concept of "gaming capital" as a key way to understand individuals' interaction with games, information about games, the game industry, and other players.

Consalvo provides a cultural history of cheating in videogames, looking at how the packaging and selling of such cheat-enablers as cheat books, GameSharks, and mod chips created a cheat industry. She investigates how players themselves define cheating and how their playing choices can be understood, with particular attention to online cheating. Finally, she examines the growth of the peripheral game industries that produce information about games rather than actual games. Digital games are spaces for play and experimentation; the way we use and think about digital games, Consalvo argues, is crucially important and reflects ethical choices in gameplay and elsewhere.

In other news, the winners of this year's Children's Emmy Awards have been announced. You can check out the list here.

Kellogg's Out of the Kids Ads Game? Not Quite

In the aftermath of yesterday's big announcement that Kellogg will now restrict itself from advertising sugary cereals to kids under 12 years (which also resulted in the lawsuit against them being dropped), I thought I'd briefly gather together some of the news items and "inside scoop" on how it all went down. The planned lawsuit against Kellogg's involved not only individual parents, but also the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The company was in negotiations with these organizations for over a year--you can read the CCFC press release here, and the Kellogg press release here. And while the CCFC admits that Kellogg's new policy "doesn’t go as far as we would like" it should nonetheless be considered as "a tacit admission that the advertising practices favored by the food industry have had a powerful influence on children’s food choices and have had a negative effect on children’s health and well-being." As per the CCFC press release, here are the details of their agreement:

Foods advertised on media—including TV, radio, print, and third-party websites—that have an audience of 50 percent or more children under age 12 will have to meet Kellogg’s new nutrition standards, which require that one serving of the food has:
• No more than 200 calories;
• No trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat;
• No more than 230 milligrams of sodium (except for Eggo frozen waffles);
• No more than 12 grams of sugar (excluding sugar from fruit, dairy, and vegetables).

In addition, Kellogg will not:
• Advertise to children under 12 in schools and preschools.
• Sponsor product placements for any products in any medium primarily directed at kids under 12;
• Use licensed characters on mass-media advertising directed primarily to kids under 12, as a basis for a food form, or on the front labels of food packages unless those foods meet the nutrition standards;
• Use branded toys in connection with foods that do not meet the nutrition standards.

What does this all mean for the kids' commercial media environment? Since ads for sugar cereals and other food products make up the bulk of advertising shown during children's programming, cuts in ads without alternative funding sources (alternative funding please!) could (would) mean far less revenue and incentive to broadcast kids' shows...or at least that's what the industry threatens (admittedly, this has happened before, when the FCC and CAB implemented those first bans on kids' tv advertising in the 1970s, and commercial kids' tv programming took a nose-dive....although it also resulted in the birth of a number of high-quality, publicly-funded children's programs). While the press is already calling foul, the reality is much less dramatic. Kellogg's ban on kids' advertising will only apply to "unhealthy" products, and since they plan on cutting the sugar content, as well as fat, trans fat and salt contents from all of its existing products, the decision is unlikely to have much of an effect on their advertising practices. As the Globe and Mail's McKenna writes:

Kellogg, along with its Canadian subsidiary, said that by the end of next year all of its products will be reformulated to meet new, tougher health standards or they won't be advertised to children under the age of 12.

The company also vowed to stop using cartoon characters, such as Shrek or Tony the Tiger, for products that fall short of the new standard.

Still, I agree with the CCFC that it's good to see the food industries on the defensive. After years of denying any correlation between increases in kids' advertising and concurrent increases in childhood obesity rates, a new stance that not only includes augmenting the nutritional value of kids' foods but also acknowledging the possibility that the millions of dollars the industry spends advertising to young children might actually have some sort of impact on their food preferences, might be just what the CCFC and similar campaigns need to initiate policy revisions in North America.

Here are links to some of yesterday's coverage:
CBS News
MSNBC
NPR
Globe and Mail
CBC
YPulse
Shaping Youth

CFP: Kermit Culture: Perspectives on Jim Henson's Muppets

This came to my attention much too late to make a contribution, but if anyone has a Muppets paper kicking around, you might want to consider submitting it (the deadline for abstracts is tomorrow!):

Kermit Culture: Perspectives on Jim Henson's Muppets

Anissa M. Graham and Jennifer C. Garlen seek contributors for a collection of essays considering Jim Henson's Muppets. All aspects of The Muppet Show and other productions or performances featuring the Muppets may be considered, although the editors particularly seek proposals for articles focusing on the original Muppet Show cast of characters. Papers may consider the various films featuring the Muppets, episodes of the original show, Muppets Tonight, appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show, particular characters from these programs, their significance as cultural icons, etc. This collection of essays will attempt to demonstrate the importance of The Muppets' influence and appeal, as well as their importance to popular culture studies as a whole.

Some potential subjects of interest include: consumption as recurring motif on The Muppet Show; commentary on stagecraft; the significance of the British-only sketches excluded from American broadcasts of The Muppet Show; representations of science; gender issues, voyeurism, nationhood and the representation of nationalism; literary adaptation in Muppet films; parody; images of the monstrous and deformity.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.spell.gif

Proposals should be 150-200 words in length. Please include contact information with the proposal, including academic affiliation, if any. Please title the subject line of the proposal "Kermit Culture" to ensure speedy response, and include the proposal as the text of the email message as well as in attachment form.

DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS: June 15, 2007

The editors hope to have complete articles ready for submission to publishers by Fall 2007 and will be discussing the project with potential publishers as soon as possible.

Prospective contributors may send proposals or complete articles to:

Anissa M. Graham, University of North Alabama, anissa.graham_at_gmail.com
Jennifer C. Garlen, University of Alabama-Huntsville, garlenj_at_email.uah.edu

(Please cc proposals to both editors!)

My hope here is that this might launch some more academic interest in Jim Henson's modest but immensely influential body of work. I've read some excellent analyses of Muppet Babies and Jim Henson's The Storyteller by Jack Zipes, and there is of course that great article on Sesame Street by Heather Hendershot, but there is otherwise a shocking lack of critical, communication/media studies-based analysis of these texts and their lasting cultural impact. I would love to do something on the openness of Henson's narratives and how they work to promote playful and creative re-interpretations by child (and adult!) audiences.

And, speaking of Muppets and puppets, I'd like to give a shout out to Calgary-based The Old Trout Puppet Workshop who are currently touring the hilarious and macabre Famous Puppet Death Scenes, which I had the good luck to see last week in Ottawa...an absolute must-see if you get the chance.

Parental Fears and The Good Childhood Inquiry

The Children's Society, a British charity focused on providing assistance to "those forgotten children who face the greatest danger, discrimination or disadvantage in their daily lives"--including kids in trouble with the law or on the streets, disabled children and young refugees--have released the first of six reports detailing the findings of a large survey they are conducting into the lives and well-being of UK children. Entitled The Good Childhood Inquiry, their study will explore six major themes that link back directly to children's quality of life (or "good childhood"): friends, family, learning, lifestyle, health and values. The first report, focusing on "friends", had some interesting things to say about the changing spaces and roles of peers and play in contemporary childhood. Released on the heels of their June 5th announcement about teens and best friends (fewer have them today than 20 years ago), this new report paints a grim picture of over-protective parents and tightening restrictions on children's interactions with friends as well as public space.

For example, approximately 43% of adult respondents said children should not be allowed out with friends until they were 14. Despite the fact that friends and socializing topped kids' lists of what made them the happiest, they also felt that they never had enough time to play (or "hang out") with their peers. Cited in the BBC's coverage of the report, The Children's Society's chief executive, Bob Reitmeier, had this to say:

"Children have told us loud and clear that friendship matters and yet this is an area in which we appear to be failing them. As a society we are in a real quandary. On the one hand we want freedom for our children, but on the other we are becoming increasingly frightened to let them out."

He added: "If we go too far down the road of being over-protective and not allowing children to explore, to play, to be up with their peers, but also with children of other ages, then we may be influencing the way in which they look at society and social interaction later on."

This theme came up again and again in the report itself, which describes kids' own thoughts on the subject:

Children need spaces in which they can pursue their own agendas, stated one submission. In another, it was believed that the demonisation of young people and antisocial behaviour policies deprive children of opportunities to socialise and make them more isolated as they retreat into ‘virtual worlds’.

Read more coverage of the report by anastasia on Totally Wired, by Dr Helene Guldberg on spiked, or on the BBC.

Girls and Indoor Play

A curious article on girls and virtual doll sites appeared in the New York Times last week, which both examines the phenomenon, as well as communicates some sort of disembodied (where does it come from?) enthusiasm for media content that keeps girls safely occupied indoors. What initially caught my eye was the predominantly celebratory tone of the article, which stands out in contrast to the current media emphasis on spreading moral panics about the dangers of social networking and the online environment when it comes to younger children. As Richtel and Stone describe,

Millions of children and adolescents are spending hours on these sites, which offer virtual versions of traditional play activities and cute animated worlds that encourage self-expression and safe communication. They are, in effect, like Facebook or MySpace with training wheels, aimed at an audience that may be getting its first exposure to the Web.

While the article does mention the advertising/marketing dimension of sites like WeeWorld, Stardoll, Club Penguin and BarbieGirls.com, the overall argument comes across as quite positive, a tone that is reflected in the article's title, "Doll Web Sites Drive Girls to Stay Home and Play." However, the celebratory tone and opening emphasis on "self-expression" seem somewhat at odds with the rest of the article's contents. For example, many of the sites targeted at younger children mentioned in the article have implemented fairly tight restrictions on self-expression and communication between (young) members. The article even quotes Lane Merrifield, co-founder of Club Penguin, outright rejecting comparisons between his site and the social-networking sites popular among teens, stating, "We’re the antithesis of MySpace. MySpace is about sharing information. We’re all about not being able to share information."

As with previous coverage of virtual doll sites, Richtel and Stone focus on the popularity of the sites among female users/players: "[Lauren] Bigelow [general manager of WeeWorld] said that 60 percent of WeeWorld users are girls and young women, a proportion that is higher on some other sites. Stardoll said that its users are 93 percent female, typically ages 7 to 17, while Cartoon Doll Emporium said that it is 96 percent female, ages 8 to 14." Which might explain some of the apparent contradictions...I can't help but fixate on the article's underlying suggestion that the sites are somehow desirable because they give girls a reason to "stay home and play." Even though the article ends with a quote from Sherry Turkle advising parents to send their kids next door on a play date rather than "letting your kid sit at the computer" (she also criticizes the sites' commercial aspects, but this is not explored in any great detail), I can't help but read here an underlying linkage between girls and domesticity, between ideal girls' play as indoor play. Nonetheless, the article has some useful stats, including:

You should also check out Hitwise's new stats on kids online, which include the following:

JupiterResearch on Tweens & Cell Phones

Last week, Jupiter Research released the results of a new study on tweens and mobile phones (check out some of the original coverage by anastasia and webpronews), predicting that tweens will be the next big US market for cell phones and mobile technologies. The market research firm believes that "safety" will be the key driving force of this expanding market, as parents purchase mobile phones for their kids in order to enable constant and immediate (remote) contact. According to Jupiter's Research Director, Julie Ask, (cited in the press release)

"Cell phone ownership is extending to ever-younger children as prices drop and carriers look to add subscribers in a market where adult penetration rates are closing in on their long-term maximum. The majority of children with cell phones are on their parents' wireless service plan well into adulthood due to the economics and convenience of adding family members to plans. Wireless service providers have made it an easy decision for parents to add their second graders by allowing family members to share minutes, adding free in-network calling, and offering options that help parents track their children and manage service costs."

With all the new cells for kids and tweens coming out this year and last, Jupiter's prediction is not exactly earth shattering...they're either tapping into some of the same trends uncovered by the children's industries' market researchers, or perhaps discovering the influence these products (and surrounding advertisements) are already exerting on public perception. Either way, they foresee "dramatic" growth in tween's cell phone adoption over the next 12 months.

That said, however, the report also found that "parents are still reluctant to add children younger than 10, believing it's unnecessary." To this, Jupiter Research President David Schatsky replies, "Mobile communications may be gaining wider acceptance, but it's clear there is still a line that consumers, especially parents of younger children, aren't quite ready to cross." For him, the answer lies in parents' different understandings of "safety and security," which appear to vary significantly depending on the age of the child. Schatsky explains, "For older teens, the catalyst may be going away to college for the first time, for younger teens, it may be the convenience of a parent being able to reach the child. Whatever the definition, it is apparent that it is applied differently based on the age of a child."

Very brief summaries of the research are available on the Jupiter site,
here, as is an overview of another report on the predicted growth of infotainment as a mobile feature/industry.

Abby Cadabby: Fairies on Sesame Street

Cashing in on the "fairy craze" (is it an official "fad" yet?), Sesame Workshop has announced plans to introduce a new muppet character next season named "Abby Cadabby". Described as an "inquisitive 3-year-old" "pink fairy-in-training", the Abby Cadabby character will blend the usual Sesame Street learning activities with fairy tales and magical themes. According to Emily Claire Afan, she will also help sell JCPenny clothes for newborns, infants and toddlers, as well as an array of other goods carrying the "Abby Cadabby" image (coming in July). For further details on my own conflicted feelings about Sesame Workshop's contemporary business practices, see my previous post. Here's the full character description from the Sesame Workshop press kit:

Abby Cadabby is an inquisitive 3-year-old fairy-in-training who has just moved to Sesame Street from Fairyside, Queens. The daughter of a Fairy Godmother, she is learning magic but is not quite proficient yet and has a propensity for turning things into pumpkins with her "training wand." She has come from a storybook world and is well-versed in fairytales, as they are a part of her family history. Abby loves to practice her magic and rhyming, but what she finds truly amazing and magical is what she discovers on Sesame Street; such as learning to count and drawing a letter with a crayon. These new things are utterly enchanting to her and she will often say "That's so magic!" She is shy yet curious when she first meets the inhabitants of Sesame Street. She wonders if Snuffy is a "mountain" and if Big Bird is a "giant." Despite her initial shyness, she makes many new friends, including Elmo, Zoe, and Rosita. They in turn are delighted and fascinated with Abby; that she can "pop" in and out, that she floats when she is happy, and that she has beautiful wings. In Season 37 Abby attends school for the first time at the Storybook Community School and is very excited about going.

Another item for the Fairy Trend Watch list, it would seem, and this one coming from (I think) the most unlikely of sources. Cogent thoughts on the matter to come once I'm back from Ottawa next week.

Neopets Media Convergence: Neovision

Announcements for two new Neopets projects came out today, dealing with the brand's transition into television or webivision media...which the company has cleverly named "Neovision". The first, posted by Kidscreen, is a joint initiative with Nickelodeon, which will launch a series of "animated Neopets Mini-Shows" starting on June 23. The mini-shows will "introduce" (who hasn't heard of Neopets?!?) Nick-viewers to the website/MMOG, and give out clues that will unlock special games (advergames?) on the site.

The second item of interest can be found on Mediaweek (courtesy of anastasia at YPulse), which describes Neopets' new "broadband video player" feature ("Neovision"), which will showcase members' user-generated content "along with the site’s first stab at original fare--some of which will crossover to TV." The link between the two? You guessed it = synergy! According to Mediaweek:

Besides enhancing the Web site, those new Mini-Shows are heading to TV, as Nickelodeon will begin running various clips on June 23 to fill the gaps between its popular shows, and presumably to keep kids around during commercial breaks. The June launch marks the first time that Neopets, which parent company Viacom acquired nearly two years ago, has found its content make its way onto the network. "The Neopets Mini-Shows bring together Nickelodeon's powerhouse of expertise in making content for kids and tweens with the talented creative team at the Neopets studio," said Kyra Reppen, Neopets’ senior vp and general manager.

Neovision launched yesterday, and while I haven't had a chance to check it out, I am already intrigued by the research potential of this development and how well it fits into my thesis' focus on "child-generated content" in the converging digital media environment. Also, oddly enough, I've recently returned to playing Neopets: The Darkest Faerie on the PS2. The stars seem to be aligning to once again keep Neopets a prominent figure in my thesis research. *sigh*

Hogwarts Theme Park Announced (for 2009)

With the last installment of the Harry Potter series only weeks from publication--and the final film slated for release in 2008--fans are starting to wonder what they're going to do with their lives without their yearly dosage of Harry, Hermione and Hogwarts. Perhaps aimed at filling this anticipated void, or perhaps simply to extend the brand's profit margins well into the next decade, Warner Brothers Entertainment and Universal Orlando Resort have announced plans for a Harry Potter/Hogwarts theme park. The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, described in the hyper-enthusiastic press release as "the world's first immersive Harry Potter themed environment," will be a "theme park within a theme park" (Universal’s oft forgotten Islands of Adventure) and is set to open in Orlando (Florida) in 2009. According to the Reuters article, the project has J.K. Rowling's stamp of approval, who stated, "The plans I have seen look incredibly exciting and I don't think fans of the books or films will be disappointed." Here's a description of the theme park, taken directly from the WB press release:

Inspired by J.K. Rowling’s compelling stories and characters – and faithful to the visual landscapes of the films – “The Wizarding World of Harry Potter” will provide a one-of-a-kind opportunity to experience the magical world of Harry and his friends. The fully immersive, themed land will enable guests to visit some of the most iconic locations found in the books and the films including the village of Hogsmeade, the mysterious Forbidden Forest, and even Hogwarts castle itself.
[...]
Expected to open in late 2009, the new environment will feature immersive rides and interactive attractions, as well as experiential shops and restaurants that will enable guests to sample fare from the wizarding world’s best known establishments. Also debuting will be a state-of-the-art attraction that will bring the magic, characters and stories of Harry Potter to life in an exciting way that guests have never before experienced.

Thanks to KidScreen's Emily Claire Afan for breaking this story.


********Updated September 15, 2009!!!!!************
Today, Universal Orlando Resort and Warner Bros. Consumer Products finally revealed the first-ever details about the upcoming Harry Potter theme part, which they have confirmed will be called The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. They also announced that the park will open in spring 2010. As reported by Nikki Finke on Deadline Hollywood:

Inspired by J.K. Rowling’s compelling stories and characters – and faithful to the visual landscapes of the films – The Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal’s Islands of Adventure will provide visitors with a one-of-a-kind experience complete with multiple attractions, shops and a signature eating establishment. This completely immersive environment will transcend generations and bring the wonder and magic of the amazingly detailed Harry Potter books and films to life.
[...]
The Harry Potter films’ production designer, Stuart Craig and art director, Alan Gilmore, in cooperation with a corps of artisans from Universal Creative are working daily to construct the most authentic Harry Potter experience possible. Guests will be able to sip Butterbeer in Three Broomsticks, buy Extendable Ears at Zonko’s and experience a state-of-the-art attraction that brings the stories of Harry Potter to life in a way never before imagined.

I expect that much more info (and pics) will be available soon, but in the meantime the press release includes a pretty detailed run-down of what will be included in the experience, including an immense Hogwarts castle, a full "re"production of Hogsmeade, an "Owlery", lots and lots of shops (hmmmm) , along with the usual roller coasters and other theme park rides. Notice how much of the press release is focused on the various merchandise that will be available for purchase.

It really is incredible, and it will be fascinating to see how it does. In the meantime, the last step in the total commercialization of Harry Potter is only months away. I really hope that Janet Wasko writes some sort of analysis or commentary. There are SO many issues around this development, not only in terms of the commercialization of the Harry Potter narrative, but also in relation to theme parks and control more generally.

New Article by Leslie Regan Shade

My longtime mentor and past collaborator Leslie Regan Shade has just published a new article on mobile phones and gender called "Feminizing the Mobile: Gender Scripting of Mobiles in North America. Part of a special issue of Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies (vol.21, no.2) on Mobile Phone Cultures, edited by Gerard Goggin, the article includes an analysis of the tween-oriented Bratz Mobile Cell Phone. Here's the abstract:

This paper discusses the gendering of the design and marketing of mobile phones, using the concept of the gender script (Rommes, 2002; van Oost, 2003. It first provides a brief overview of recent international scholarship exploring gendered uses and development of mobiles. The next section explicates the gender script and examines some print ads for mobile phones appearing in North American women’s and teen magazines. How can we go beyond gender scripts that essentialize women and their uses of mobiles? The paper concludes with reflections towards this end.

Some other noteworthy articles in the issue include one on "third screen" media convergence, "Mobiles into Media: Premium Rate SMS and the Adaptation of Television to Interactive Communication Cultures" by Christina Spurgeon and Gerard Goggin (whose excellent book Mobile Phone Culture I just finished reading yesterday), and an examination of mobile phone advertising, "The Construction of the Mobile Experience: the Role of Advertising Campaigns in the Appropriation of Mobile Phone Technologies" by Juan Miguel Aguado and Inmaculada J. Martínez.

Shade's article and the special issue in general have appeared at a most opportune time for me, as I am currently working on revising a paper on kids' mobile phones (originally written for Richard Smith's cmns 815 course last year, and now in submission). I'm really looking forward to reading it and seeing how Shade has applied her unique insight and approach to new media research to mobile phones. Yay!

One Laptop Per Child Game Jam

This story about a new One Laptop Per Chlid (OLPC) initiative came through quite the conduit of blog posts--including Wonderland blog and the Serious Games Source. The group that coordinates OLPC recently announced that it will be holding a 3-day long "game jam" in June, bringing together developers, educators and artists to create a series of open source edugames for its XO, hand-cranked laptop (designed to give kids in developing countries access to computer and internet technologies). According to the Serious Games Source:

The weekend game jam will gather game developers, educators, authors, musicians, artists, and writers from around the US to work around the clock to create the games that will then be released under an open license, and featured at San Francisco's Experimental Gameplay Workshop. The winning team will receive a production model XO laptop and free passes to 2008's Game Developers Conference.

I'm not sure what the different areas of expertise of those involved will be, but I immediately wonder if (and hope) they will include play/games scholars, anthropologists, folklorists or others with an understanding of intercultural, not-merely-Western approaches to play. The US-centricity of this project has always been problematic, as demonstrated by its critics, and it would be a shame to overlook important cultural differences in play and games when the team designs these first games. Caillois' hierarchical notions of ludus vs. paidia play also spring to mind--as does the possibility of a sort of cultural determinism that could see highly rationalized games privileged under the guise that these are necessarily more "educational" or "better" than other, non-rational forms of play. (Even though open source could/would then allow a more malleable trajectory)

I'm also quite surprised that there is no mention of child-participants in the OLPC game jam. Perhaps they have already done some participant design research or user-centered design with kids, but it nonetheless seems important that children--particularly children from different backgrounds and with different skill sets--be somehow involved in the creative process. This would seem to be in accord with their own statement of principles, which includes the following:

Our commitment to software freedom gives children the opportunity to use their laptop computers on their own terms. While we do not expect every child to become a programmer, we do not want any ceiling imposed on those children who choose to modify their machines. We are using open-document formats for much the same reason: transparency is empowering. The children—and their teachers—will have the freedom to reshape, reinvent, and reapply their software, hardware, and content.

Either way, I'll be keeping an eye on what comes out of the project and what kind of games are ultimately selected. In the meantime, you can read a summary of the critiques against the OLPC project on Lee Felsenstein's blog here.

User-Generated Star Wars

(Forgot to post this yesterday)
To commemorate the 30th anniversary of the very first, original Star Wars, Lucas has revamped and relaunched www.starwars.com, to heavily feature user-generated content, including homemade videos, mash-ups, fanfic, etc. You can read a short preview blurb written by Kidscreen's Emily Claire Afan here.

"Flurry" of (US) Legislation Aimed at Restricticting Kids from SNSs (MMOGs, etc.)

The KidAdLaw blog reports today on a "flurry" of new US state and federal legislation aimed at "protecting" kids from predators by banning or restricting their access to social-networking sites. Dubbed the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007", federal bill H.R. 1120 (introduced by Congressman Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.))"[W]ould require schools and libraries that receive federal funds to prohibit access to commercial networking sites and chat rooms unless they were used for educational purposes with adult supervision." Meanwhile, Connecticut, Georgia and North Carolina are all considering bills "nearly identically worded, that would require parental consent for minors to create profiles on social networking sites" (KidAdLaw, 2007). You can read these bills by following the links below:

Connecticut House Bill No. 6981: "An Act Concerning Social Networking Internet Sites and Enforcement of Electronic Mail Phishing and Identity Theft Laws."

Georgia's SB 59: "Social Networking Website; illegal for owner to allow minor to create/maintain profile; provide for penalties."

North Carolina SB 132: "Protect Children From Sexual Predators Act."

As with the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, or the more recent Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act (pdf), these bills offer a promise of protection through containment. Instead of attempting enhanced regulation of what goes on in SNS/online, and instead of trying to better police adult users (in terms of what they do or say to child users), these bills localize the problem onto the children themselves (in terms of their access, their presence online, etc.). Even though minors are at the vanguard of social networking, communicating online, generating content, etc., they always seem to be the first to have their access (to the tools they helped create/propagate) threatened.

Read this awesome interview with "online youth" experts danah boyd and Henry Jenkins to learn more about the surrounding controversy.

Anastasia's "Valley of the Virtual Dolls"

Anastasia Goodstein, of YPulse fame, has written a new article for BusinessWeek exploring the growing popularity of virtual doll sites among girls and teens. Contrasting startups like Stardoll, GirlSense and Gaia Online with newer entries by established children's brands, like BarbieGirls, Disney Fairies (a site I've been researching since February with my 8-year-old sister) and Trollz.com, Goodstein offers a good introduction of the commercial/marketing dimensions of these sites. She writes:

[M]ost important for the business-minded, the sites create a space for building a brand and advertising a product. Most offer some sort of virtual currency, whether it's Trollz "Trollars" or Gaia "Gold," to buy virtual goods, often distributed as a reward or incentive for participation. Some of them also sell virtual items for real money. According to the blog Tech Crunch, Stardoll sells between 60,000 to 180,000 items a day. In addition to virtual goods, many of these sites want their users to buy real-world products. Mattel hopes to sell Barbie-inspired handheld music players to interact with the Barbie Girls site. Gaia Online sells all manner of physical garb.

For the startups and smaller brands, Goodstein explains, the strategy is to integrate ads and branding into the site, a form of advergame or "adverplay". She writes, "For established brands like Barbie, Trollz, and Disney, it's all about getting girls to convince their parents to go from virtual fun and games to real-world purchases. For the startup companies without strong brands or established products, the financial model is more about sponsorships and brand integration." Examples of the later include WeeWorld's Skittles campaign, and Gaia's The Last Mimzy in-game treasure hunt.

The sites themselves are attracting crowds. Tech Crunch reports monthly unique visitor rates in the millions for established sites like Stardoll (5.5 million) Gaia Online (2 million) and GirlSense (1 million). My own research into this area is only slowly starting (it'll be a low priority until I finish my comp readings), but I'm becoming increasingly intrigued by the popularity and significance of these sites within girls' online culture. With the focus on commercialization/marketing, potentially market research as well, I'm eager to apply some of the theories and discussion from my previous paper on MMOGs to virtual paper dolls as another (perhaps even more overt) instance of the commodification of digital play.

CNET Covers BarbieGirls and kids' MMOGs

CNET has just published an article on kids MMOGs written by Stefanie Olsen, and entitled Barbie's Last Online Stand?. In it, Olsen discusses the new BarbieGirls.com site, in light of Barbie's past success at attracting girls ages 2 and 11 to their websites (Barbie.com and Everythinggirl.com), as well as continued declines in sales of their dolls and products. She talks about the plans to incorporate an MP3 player into the BarbieGirls experience, which will allow players to unlock certain areas of the site, select special clothing options and accessories, adopt a virtual pet and become "best friends" with other players (players will have to physically attach their MP3 to another person's computer to become their "best friend" and share personal info through the site). Olsen also includes a bunch of very useful Nielsen/Netratings stats, some of which don't appear to be avialable on the Nielsen site. She writes:

The overall audience for Barbie sites has declined slightly over the last year, and has failed to grow over the last three years. According to Nielsen NetRatings, the Barbie site attracted about 1.9 million unique visitors from home and work in April 2007, down from 2.1 million in April 2006. Those numbers are in line with about 2 million visitors in the same month in 2004.

In contrast, Webkinz--plush pets with corresponding virtual homes on the Web--have exploded in popularity over the last year. In April, Webkinz attracted 3.6 million unique visitors from home and work, up from just 285,000 a year before. Webkinz has even usurped the long-reigning virtual pets site of the Web--Neopets, which went from 2.6 million unique visitors in April 2006 to 3.2 million in 2007.

Another major contender in the kids category, ages 2 to 11, is Club Penguin, a virtual community of penguin avatars for children. It drew more than 4 million unique visitors in April. And Disney.com, the generalist playground of Mickey Mouse and other characters, attracted more than 11 million visitors that month.

Just to recap here, according to Olsen, Neilsen/Netratings measured the following web traffic in April 2007:
- Disney.com sites = 11 million (visitors)
- Club Penguin = 4 million
- Webkinz = 3.6 million
- Neopets = 3.2 million
- Barbie/Everythinggirl = 1.9 million

While these numbers don't specify what percentage of these visitors actually belongs to the 2-11 year old demographic (all?), I'm guessing that they're assuming that a large or majority percentage do. As for BarbieGirls, the site is claiming to have registered half a million kids since April 26. Of particular note is the growing excitement for real world/virtual world crossover play (a la Webkinz and this new MP3/BarbieGirls play), which appears to be developing quite quickly from the "premium"-model that Neopets was applying a couple of years ago (where purchase of a Neopets toy came with a special activation code that allowed you to get into a special area of the site), to a more integrated and ongoing approach (watch for Viva Pinata's toy/avatar venture later this year). Another promising aspect is how Mattel has integrated this real/virtual crossover into its safety features, via the special access players can obtain for "best friends".

Update (May 26, 2007). Check out Izzy Neis' response here. Though I feel I should point out that when I say "promising aspect", I'm speaking from a research approach...that this could be a promising development of study for my thesis.

LEGO goes Batty

Allan Varney has a great article on LEGO in this week's issue of The Escapist. He provides an overview of the history and development of LEGO--both as a company and as a toy brand--which then segues nicely into an exploration of the transformation of the brand/toy/game as it adapts to new cultural and technological trends. Varney writes:

To an extent, LEGO has always mirrored society. In the 1950s, the blocks were identical and interchangeable; in the '70s, you could buy mechanized kits to repurpose those blocks for many functions. Starting in the '90s, you could buy customized sets; now, there are online LEGO networks. We can imagine more innovation ahead, such as smart, networked, globally aware LEGOs with radio-frequency identification (RFID) tracking tags.

The article briefly mentions LEGO's most recent initiative to reproduce the success it has had with its Star Wars collaborations with Warner Brothers' Batman franchise. You can see the beginnings of this venture here, on the LEGO Batman mini-site. There, you can watch "webisodes" (ahem, ads) of particular LEGO kits in action...including The Batwing (TM), The Batboat (TM), and The Batmobile (TM); watch the TV commercials for kits available now; or catch up on your LEGO-ized Batman lore (the PG version). The LEGO Batman kits and mini-site have been up and running since 2006, but according to Varney, LEGO has much bigger plans in store for its Batman product line, including at least one video game to be made by the same people who created the popular Lego Star Wars games. In the meantime, you can check out their webcomics here to get a sense of their branding.

Portrait of a Gamer

Last week, market research firm NPD released its Online Gaming 2007 report on the current climate of online gaming (you can read coverage of the report at GameDaily and at Next Generation). Today, AdAge released it's own analysis of the report findings, creating a series of demographic profiles of particular interest to advertisers. Here's an overview of some of their categories:

40% = VIRTUAL SHOPPERS
"More than 40% of online gamers indicated they were likely to download content onto next-generation consoles, while 25% said they were likely to do the same on their computers."

44% = CASUAL GAMERS
The most played games are card, puzzle and arcade games. 44% of respondents list "casual" as their favorite game genre, followed by family-entertainment (25%) and MMOG (19%).

17% = GAMBLERS
Approx. 17% of gamers listed gambling and casino games as their favorite genre.


20% = LITTLE KIDS
Elementary-school aged children make up the biggest group of online players. "[K]ids ages 6 to 12 account for 20% of all online gamers, more than any other demographic."

54% = CONSOLE OWNERS
"Xbox 360 owners are more likely to play online than any other console owners -- 54% -- and, at 7.1 hours a week, they also spend more time doing it."
"Wii owners come in last in time spent online, but they're actually more inclined to do it. More than 75% of Wii owners have tried online games."

41% = MOVERS AND SHAKERS
41% of portable/mobile players are between the ages of 13 and 17.

42% = WOMEN
"42% of the total online gaming audience today is female" who mostly play on PCs.

80% = THE MIDDLE CLASS
The average household income of online players is between $35,000 and $75,000.

Of course, the most interesting finding from my perspective is the one about "little kids" (6-to-12-years) representing the largest demographic of online players. But I'm also intrigued by the "middle class" dominance over online gaming. Insufficient research has been conducted on the "digital divide" of gaming, but preliminary studies show that lower-class families are more likely to own a console than middle- and upper-class families, and less likely to own a PC (not to mention one that is able to meet the technical requirements of online games apps and software). Now that online games are becoming such a big part of the gaming culture, I wonder if this won't aggravate existing access inequalities.

SubEthaEdit is my Hero

I thought I'd post a little "shop talk" today, and sing the praises of a new program I've been working with called SubEthaEdit. Created by a small German developer called codingmonkeys, SubEthaEdit is an amazing collaborative text editor for Mac users, that lets two or more people work on the very same text at the very same time. It won an Apple Design Award in 2003, but they've continued fine-tuning it ever since, and are currently in version 2.6.3. The program is so much better than anything else I've seen--you can literally watch a collaborator's edits in real time, and he/she can see yours (each person is colour coded so you can keep track of "who's who"). It's almost like experiencing some sort of telepathic link with your co-author--it's so much easier to discuss ideas, edits, changes, corrections, etc. through the writing process itself, where you can show the person exactly what you mean and engage directly with the text. I was introduced to this little gem last fall by Richard Smith, but didn't get around to using it until this past spring. Anil Narine and I used it to write about 80% of a co-authored paper we just finished, and it saved us hours and hours, perhaps days, of time. Gone are the days of messy track changes and confusing multiple versions for me. The program is a little bare bones for now--you can't really import your formatting, and footnotes eerily disappear--but I got used to writing in text pretty quickly, and you can import it back into Word for post-writing formatting without a hitch. The people at codingmonkeys are very nice and quick to respond to email. They offer a free thirty day trial, after which you can buy it for the small sum of $35. Plus, students get a discount (email them to request a discount code)--mine only cost $20.

Here's another link to the official site.
You can also check out the Wikipedia entry here. And here's a Geek Patrol review of an earlier version of the program.
But the best way to understand the awesomeness that is SubEthaEdit is to download the free trial version with a buddy and try it out for yourself.

Strawberry Shortcake, I deserve a sweet treat

With Shrek at the centre of the kids food ad controversy (see here and here), I've been thinking about the many ways that food enters into kids culture, and the parallels with how advertisers and the media market food to women. Feminist critics of the advertising industry have pointed out the contradictory ways women's magazines promote both dieting/fitness and high calorie foods. In her book Can't Buy My Love, Jean Kilbourne (1999, pp.121-2) writes, "Here we are surrounded by all these tempting luscious ads for food. We are told, on the one hand, give in, reward yourself, indulge. But, on the other hand, we (especially women) are told that we must be thin, indeed that there is no greater sin than being fat." With the same beloved characters promoting both Happy Meals and exercise, I see a similar, and deeply troubling, trend emerging within kids culture.

Kilbourne also describes how ads and other media present food as a way for women to show (and experience) their love and caring for others, and as a way of comforting or rewarding themselves for efforts/achievements/, disappointments/loneliness, etc. Which brings me to Strawberry Shortcake. Both the characters and the programming (television and direct-to-video) for this recently revived girls' media-brand are centred explicitly around the affective functions of food...specifically desserts. The characters are named after desserts, and a large portion of their time is spent growing ingredients for desserts and treats, or baking them, or giving them to each other to mark celebrations, for cheering up a sad or sick friend, and most of all for teaching young viewers moral lessons about sharing and caring. In this light, we can perhaps approach Strawberry Shortcake as a sort of little girls' introduction into the strange gendered relationships that commercial culture fosters between women and food. Through the narratives and the characters, gendered notions of women's function as the preparers and providers of food (nourishment) are reproduced. Tight links are made between sweets and treats and love and happiness (not that kids really need these links to be made explicit - most already love candy and desserts, and our culture already socializes kids to associate cakes with birthdays, cookies with Christmas, candy with Halloween, junk food as a reward for difficult tasks, etc.). Most of all, the brand supports the notion of desserts and sweets as "treats" -- imbuing them with an aura of specialness, of reward, or as something earned/deserved by being a kind friend and "good girl".

If you're interested in exploring the gender politics of Strawberry Shortcake any further, see Heather Hendershot's amazing article on Strawberry Shortcake and "odour" in Pat Kirkham's The Gendered Object.

Self-expression, Surveillance, and BarbieGirls.com

The BarbieGirls MMOG is starting to get some critical attention from youth blogs around the web, with focus being placed on the "safety" features (that the site promotes to parents) and how these work to hinder girls' sense of privacy and freedom to express themselves online. At issue is the following statement in the site's "Message to Parents" section:

"We also monitor chat to help ensure it stays safe and appropriate. Barbie Girls™ administrators frequently review reports of chatting in the environment and adjust the word filters as needed to block or allow new words or phrases. This monitoring is strictly for the purpose of maintaining a safe chat environment — chat reports are not used in any other way, and we do not save or store any private information."

Annalee Newitz at The Underwire writes ("MySpace + SecondLife / Ponies!1 = BarbieGirls"): "This feels a little creepy, since girls are told they can engage in "private" chat with "best friends only" in their rooms, and yet somebody is probably reading and editing what they're saying. I want to get more girls online as much as the next female geek, but there has to be a more privacy-respecting way to do it."

Similarily, Danah Boyd asks: "What does it mean that an entire generation is growing up to believe that the only way to be safe is to be constantly surveilled? ::shudder:: I'm rather concerned about the longterm implications of all of this monitoring and control. Aren't we supposed to be raising a generation of creatives? Le sigh."

When it comes to designing "safe" or "educational" technologies for kids, many companies adopt a dual-target approach that tries to appease parents' fears while appealing to kids' sense of fun (and desire to be cool). Like the Disney PC and many of the "child-friendly" mobile phones to come out in recent years, what seems to result is a streamlined version of the technology that has removed many of its most potentially empowering features, whilst maintaining high degrees of commercialization and marketing exploitation (through ongoing market research and/or corporate IP claims over kids' ideas and content). I see many of these issues boiling down to the media-constructed irreconcilability of parents' and children's, conflicting and converging, hopes and fears for these new technological forms.