Poet and musician Gil Scott-Heron died Friday. I thought you might enjoy this video, sent to me by my friend Pete, of clips from YouTube set to Scott-Heron’s most famous piece, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”:
NOTE: For the record, reader Azizi believes that this video, and my posting of it, trivializes Scott-Heron’s point. Azizi points us to an interview with Scott-Herson posted at Racialicious.
Bryan L. sent us a link to an NPR story about the effects of using cartoon characters to market food to kids. The study, conducted by researchers at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, had 80 children between the ages of 4 and 6 eat what they were told was a “new” cereal. The cereal was either called Sugar Bits or Healthy Bits, and in each case, half of the boxes included cartoon penguins and half didn’t. Here’s are the two options for Healthy Bits:
Kids were then asked to rate the taste of the cereal, using a 5-point smiley face scale. Interestingly, kids rated the taste of Healthy Bits more highly than that of Sugar Bits (overall mean rating of 4.65 vs. 4.22). Less surprisingly, the presence of a cartoon character on the box led kids to think the cereal taste better (overall mean rating of 4.70 with a character, vs. 4.16 without).
You can read an overview of the article, “Influence of Licensed Spokescharacters and Health Cues on Children’s Ratings of Cereal Taste, which was published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
So it appears that kids are getting some of the message about nutrition and healthy eating, and that describing something as having lots of sugar leads them to evaluate it more negatively than they might have otherwise. (I couldn’t help but wonder if there might be a contrast effect, also. Maybe kids expect something called Healthy Bits to be really gross and, if it doesn’t, evaluate it more positively than they would have, while they expect Sugar Bits to be super awesome and rate it particularly harshly if it doesn’t live up to their hopes. I know that type of comparative priming effect occurs with adults, where our initial expectations influence our later subjective assessment, but I have no idea to what degree that occurs with kids. Anybody know enough about childhood development to comment?)
However, cartoon characters have a strong influence on how kids evaluate the taste of cereal, enough to override their nutritional concerns. Put a cute penguin on Sugar Bits, and it suddenly tastes as good as a box of Healthy Bits without the penguin. Another study from researchers at the Rudd Center found that kids preferred to eat graham crackers, gummy snacks, and even carrots more if they were in a package with a popular cartoon character.
So the good news here is that kids may be willing to make better eating choices than we often give them credit for, and describing something as “healthy” isn’t the kiss of death we might expect. But the use of cartoon characters, such as tie-ins from TV shows and movies, is a powerful form of marketing. If such characters — especially, I assume, highly recognizable and popular ones — appear more often on less healthy options, they undermine efforts to guide children to develop healthy eating habits.
UPDATE: Reader qwirkle was able to get a copy of the entire article, which does make clear that the kids rating Sugar Bits lower than Healthy Bits wasn’t just an “expectations effect”:
Another explanation for the difference in children’s assessments of the cereal involves their expectations of the cereal taste based on the name. Specifically, the cereal used for this study had only a moderately sweet taste. Consequently, children may have been disappointed by the lack of sugary flavor in the cereal named Sugar Bits and pleasantly surprised by the sugary flavor in the cereal named Healthy Bits. At 6 g of sugar per serving, however, the sugar content was comparable to that of other commonly available sweet cereals (eg, 6 g in Honey Kix and 9 g in Honey Nut Cheerios). Nevertheless, whether the children were reacting to their expectations of the cereal’s taste or expressing their skepticism of the merits of sugary products, when the character was present on the box, children reported a more favorable subjective experience with the product.”
Sometimes you just have to laugh. Sex is used to sell the most ridiculous things, like organ donation. It’s like marketers think we’ve Pavlov’s dogs. Show a sexy woman (’cause sexy women = sex) and, rumor has it, people will buy.
When Renée sent in this photograph of a storefront display aiming at selling ovens, I felt compelled to share its ridiculousness with you. Begin snark:
Ovens are hot. Get it. They’re “hot.” LOL. Put her in lingerie, sit her ass on the oven door, add a fire-red wig, and surround her with thermometers. Add the words, “HOT! HOT! HOT!” Maybe if we really overdo it with the metaphor, no one will notice how stupid this is.
Enjoy:
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Way back in 2008 Gwen wrote a great post using data showing the ways in which social context influences average age of menstruation. The average age is, it turns out, different across countries, across different groups within countries, and has been changing throughout history. In the U.S., it has been dropping and the average age (note: average, not earliest) is now about 12-years-old.
In response, Kotex has now introduced a website and a line of pads and panty liners for girls 8-years-old and up. Leigh, from Wherapy, sent us a link.
Meant to appeal to tweens, the product is packaged with bright colors, stars, and hearts. It’s decidedly cute and girly:
And also a bit smaller than “regular” products:
I’m not exactly sure what to make of the whole thing. The age of menarche (first menstruation) is going down. And girls need (as we called it in my family) “personal products.” And I’ll give it to Kotex that tweenifying the products with sparkles, stars, and hearts doesn’t just sell them, but may help girls feel better about getting their periods (on the assumption that some have mixed or negative feelings about it).
All that said. This is a fascinating moment in U.S. history reflecting, simultaneously, capitalism, the social construction of youth, and the circular relationship between biology and society.
Via Jezebel.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Last week we received ten requests* to discuss the furor over a J. Crew ad featuring a 5-year-old boy in pink toenails, with his mom, Jenna Lyons, the President and Creative Director of J. Crew.
Fox News, Media Research Network Center (MRNC), and One Million Moms criticized the ad for supporting a liberal agenda aimed at mainstreaming gender-bending behavior and causing this particular child to be confused about his gender or sexual orientation. Their criticism was picked up by mainstream news outlets, including ABCNews, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times, who mostly just posed the question as to whether they were correct, while balancing opposing views in support of the idea that painting a son’s toenails pink was consequence-less.
Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of this “furor” (as I called it). On the one hand, the criticism of the ad is a cautionary tale to all companies and a lesson to us all. Here at SocImages, we frequently criticize companies that portray and assert rigid gender roles, especially for boys. But look what happens when a company dares to do something different? Outrage! Accusations! Perhaps we’re short-sighted to imagine that companies can just tell whatever cultural story they want to tell.
On the other hand, perhaps this isn’t a story about advertising, perhaps it’s a story about media more generally. It’s true that there were objections to the ad. But I didn’t find many of them; just a few high-profile examples. Perhaps what really happened was what is sometimes colloquially referred to as a “slow news day.” Only the choir would have been preached to if the criticisms weren’t picked up and highlighted by many more media outlets. And those outlets, as I did above, beg audiences to pay attention to the “furor.” A furor that might have been largely of their own making. Say “hello” to ratings.
These are my thoughts. Yours?
* Many thanks to Katrin, Zoe S., Jeff H., Prof. Mary Reiter, Sara P., Andrew Slater, p.j., Brian K., Ben Y., and Dmitriy T.M. for the submissions!
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Yvette, Kari B., and Yet Another Girl all sent in links to articles about Dove Ultimate Go Sleeveless deodorant. The campaign for the deodorant focuses on the fact that it supposedly makes your armpits look better. Here’s one commercial (via The Consumerist; it’s not the best illustration of how much Dove is pushing the attractiveness angle, but it’s the only commercial from this ad campaign I could find):
According to research cited on Dove’s website, 93% of women think their underarms are unattractive and thus may refuse to wear sleeveless clothing.
Libby Copeland at Slate sums up what’s going on here:
Dove’s empowerment-via-shame marketing approach for Go Sleeveless has its roots in advertising techniques that gained popularity in the 1920s: a) pinpoint a problem, perhaps one consumers didn’t even know they had; b) exacerbate anxiety around the problem; c) sell the cure.
Ladies, it’s not enough to shave and deodorize your underarms. They need even more prettification than they’ve been getting. How this deodorant does that, I don’t know. But it does. You’re welcome.
Stephen Colbert discussed Dove and advertising based on insecurities recently:
Ria sent along an example of something simultaneously routine and jarring. Disney princess grapes:
Thinking out loud here: By now, in the U.S., we’re used to thinking about food being branded with mascots, movie/tv show characters, and even corporate entities. When I posted about Cars– and Disney princess-themed diet snack packs, for example, it wasn’t the branding of food that interested me. But there is something unfamiliar to me about the associating of grapes with Disney. I think it has to do with the idea of processed versus “fresh” foods. In this case, Disney is marking a (genetically-modified) natural product in its natural state. This feels different than marking a brightly-colored, largely synthetic, already highly-branded foodstuff. Can Disney really claim grapes? Celery? Red peppers? To me, these are the last things in the grocery store that actually feel as if they come straight from the farmer. Now they’re taking a detour through the happiest place on earth?
Ria links the new development in branding to the obesity panic and the push for kids to eat healthier food. And she’s suspicious of the linking of corporate interests to health.
What do think? Are you as weirded out as I am? Is Ria onto something? What does it mean!? What’s next? Republican Party chicken breasts? South Park brand brown rice?
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Alli, YetAnotherGirl, Molly W., and Laurence D. all sent in links (via The Mary Sue and Feminist Law Professors) to a post at The Achilles Effect on gendered language in children’s toy commercials. Crystal Smith created word clouds based on 658 words in 27 TV commercials generally aimed at boys (products included “Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Kung Zhu, Nerf, Transformers, Beyblades, and Bakugan”) and 432 words from 32 TV commercials generally aimed at girls (products: “Zhu Zhu Pets, Zhu Zhu Babies, Bratz Dolls, Barbie, Moxie Girls, Easy Bake Ovens, Monster High Dolls, My Little Pony, Littlest Pet Shop, Polly Pocket, and FURREAL Friends”).
This clearly isn’t a random sample of all toy commercials on all TV channels to all age groups; as Smith points out, it ignores toy companies that can’t afford TV ads, and it’s not a huge sample. However, given that these are popular toys that were being marketed during shows (such as cartoons) that are aimed at children, the word clouds provide a basic overview of gendered language in toy ads.
The word cloud for the boys’ list shows the emphasis on action and violence, with others depicted as opponents, a nemesis, or enemies:
For girls, the words are much more about appearance/fashion, relationships (friends, friendship, etc.), and playing mommy:
You can see larger versions at Wordle (girls and boys) and Smith says she has a reference list of all the commercials she a reference list of all the commercials available, which I requested. I’ll update the post with the list when I get it.
UPDATE: In response to my email, Crystal Smith cautioned, “This is a very small sample of brands that tend to appear frequently during kids’ cartoon blocks on TV. They are highly gendered toys, which explains the incredible contrast between the two lists.” She sent along the references; the girls’ list is available here, the boys’ list here.
