Giant corporations can help to save the "traditional" family by giving their employees time off, paternity leave, child care, and other benefits which reduce stress on family bonds.

When people talk about the "traditional family" I want to ask "from what period?"  As Stephanie Coontz wrote in The Way We Never Were "I always suggest that they pick a ballpark date for the family they have in mind.  Once pinned down, they are invariably unwilling to accept the package deal that comes with their chosen model."

I also wonder about any kind of social engineering that is done with the needs of the consumer economy in mind rather than starting with what living and social structures are best for society and thinking of business as a tool we use to support us in our lives.

Often the idea of the "traditional family" seems to be a Leave it to Beaver home (which was not a documentary, no matter how much people believe it was).  What they forget is that this family structure and the idea that it should be fully self sustained through buying products rather than through a strong community social network and multiple generation living situations, is a modern conceptualization and that it was heavily promoted through advertising.

What makes people better consumers is not actually being in a nuclear family, rather it is the stability that this represents.  This could be achieved through such a model, or perhaps through a society in which unmarried persons are given more support, or in which it was not seen as shameful for an adult person to share a home with a parent. 

What is needed in terms of how people live together in society is not slavish adherence to any idea of a traditional norm, which may not ever have been realistic. 

I have never understood this idea that without promotion people would cease to be bonded to each other and to have children and to take their responsibility to them seriously.  This seems to be what most people are naturally inclined to do.  There is no need to "bring back" the family.  It never went anywhere.

Corporate promotions of "the family" mostly reinforce or create stereotypes where good women stay home with their children, where nobody is disabled or mentally ill or old or poor, where good men are nearly always either at work or playing sports or drinking, and where women don't do any of those things. There are lots of others: in TV ad world, everybody lives in the suburbs, drives everywhere they go, wears new brand-name clothes, and has a television and a bedroom for each kid. Nobody is unemployed, homeless, or in too much debt to buy anything but food - as many Americans are today. Nobody does homework or reads for pleasure. That's not a family, that's a bunch of consumers who share a house.

Are families actually beneficial to corporations like Proctor and Gamble?

It seems they would sell more dish soap if mom & dad lived apart and had to buy their own bottle than if they shared. A stay at home parent is also less likely to spend extra on convenience products (individually measured detergents and frozen dinners come to mind) as opposed to large 'economy size' bulk purchases and cooking from scratch.

Children, the great drivers of consumerism are certainly good for business, but that's not quite the same thing as family

The nuclear family that I suspect is meant by the "traditional family" is a recent historical fluke, steeped in class and race privilege, that existed in fiction more than it ever did in reality. We'd be better served by embracing the natural diversity of families and making them sustainable than chasing an idealized fantasy that never was. As someone else said, livable wages and affordable childcare are more realistic and afford more opportunity for stronger families than going back to an outdated model that only worked for a privileged few and relied on segregation and inequity.

Paying us in line with productivity increases, ensuring work life balance so people don't end up spending more than 50 hours a week away from their children so denying them any chance of being proper parents, lobbying for lower taxes on ordinary people, not the rich, lowering prices, lobbying for higher deficits that match private sector's desires to save and pay off debts, whilst also increasing profits for shareholders and pension funds.

Wait, shouldn't the question be whether we care about "[c]ompanies whose fortunes are linked to the health of the family, such as Procter & Gamble"? Their profits (or should I say fortunes?) have never reflected our quality of life. Support local, deserving independent businesses and long-term economic growth, etc. will follow.

There's an interesting tie to middle class ideals. How do you make sure your kids are happy, successful, and ready for life? BUYING STUFF! I feel that this--like a lot of advertisements--play off of the feelings of women and our insecurities in the face of a culture that demands perfection and beauty in every sphere of our lives. Yes, some of the vignettes featured men, but were all aimed at women struggling to make the lives of everyone around them perfect.  It's easy to see this as bringing back the traditional family, but I think it's more piling on for women. Because, let's face it ladies, anything that goes right or wrong is thanks to us! :)

Off topic, I know, but I feel like inspirational songs all sound the same, regardless of language. I'm kinda pumped up to do some laundry or wash dishes now...

For being on sociological images, I find this post striking unaware of its own loaded language. . .The last sentence especially: "Would more of this kind of advertising help to bring back the traditional family?"--why is the author refusing to acknowledge that the idea the "traditional family" is not a coherent or universal concept? And why is the author implying that this would be a good thing, if it were a coherent concept?

I'm assuming that this was just an oversight by the author, and that the report's appeals specifically to corporations to push "traditional family values" is interesting--but there should have been at least a mention of problematizing the "traditional family" trope.

Being an employee of a corporation can provide a family with stability and security financially, as well as, health benefits for members of the family.  I feel that with this stability, families would be more financially secure and able to have more children. Also, with this job position, families would be able to participate more as consumers in buying and using goods. Therefore, working for a corporation can provide a family with more economic stability, which could raise fertility, capital, and cultural capital. 

I believe that now days the media tends to have a huge impact on society and can possibly make a difference on the tradition of the family as long as they make commercials like these.  All these companies have to do is continue to make family commercials and they can definitely bring back family tradition within our society.