On page 9, Seiter says licensed products can fail if they are overexposed, parental objections to graphics, and so on. Looking at violent video games, why do parents continue to let their children play these distructive games? If products fail based on parential opinion of them, how do these games continue to be marketed towards children or young teens that should not be exposed to them?
On page ten the article states: "Like other market research, toy testing seems to exist somewhere in the space between ethnography and anecdote." I am unfamiliar of what this means.
On page 33, I was reminded of our last lecture on Tuesday. "Mass marketed toys are often portrayed as depraved and their purchase and ownershiop is a sign of decadence. Educational and quality toys are usually exempt from this critique because they represent the imposition of adult control over the child's desires and an aspiration to higher things. Upscale toy stores and catalogs stress the uniqueness of their product mix, thus appealing to an adult's sense of individuality and balue in things that are raare. Promotional toys, sold by the thousands at Toys "R" Us, derive their value for children from the fact that the toy will be exactly the same as someone else's." I think this has to do with adults wanting vintage things. Clothes, handbags, jewlery, and other antique things to us, all show some kind of wealth. I think parents that have to money to buy their kids unique toys do it to maybee fufill what the parents really want. Unique expensive products. I doubt children are thinking this way. They would be happy with the everyday Barbie doll or Tonka Truck that their neighbor has. High priced toys I think are not being marketed to children but are being marketed towards adults with money, that are buying them to fufill something that the parents want for their kids.
on p197, Seiter talks about how licensing allows products to be instantly familiar to children and more recognizable, but never discusses how products that are not attached to a licensing contract makes it big? I was thinking about toys like legos or lincoln logs have been played with through generations are still around today...is it due to the fact that they are a parental connection (like it was good for them to play with so itll be good for their children to play with too) or is there something other than that that has made them big?
While reading about the specialty stores, I was thinking about tuesdays article and wondering if these stores are trying to attract a more exclusive clientele or if they just believe that the toys that they sell are better for children to play with (more educational, makes kids think-work on problem solving, imaginative, etc)? I got a feeling from Seiter, that the specialty stores are trying to reinforce some sort of social inequality. I have been in both types of stores, and do not really think that the specialty stores are trying to do this but rather feel that there is a market for different types of toys. I was also wondering if there was an increase in sales in specialty stores since there have been many recalls on toys made in china over the past year?
I wondered about toys that seem to come back, but for different generations? For instance, now that we see shirts sold at Hot Topic that have nintendo games on them, or even shirts that have popular toys on them from the 80's. Do those have an impact on advertising for kids? I wonder if toy producers have seen a spike in sales with the return of these "advertisements" featuring older toys?
I also thought about whether maybe the lack of salespeople was also because it then requires the parental figure to search for someone, thus taking them throughout the store more and seeing things they wouldn't have seen before? Personally, I have noticed this phenomonon myself and I find it completely irritating.
When Seiter talks about how advertisements cut out parents, and go straight for kids on page 194, this made me think about how the only time you can see advertisements for kids' products is during kids' shows, which parents sometime use as a substitute for a babysitter. So it just makes me wonder, if parents were more attentive, would they reduce the amount of exposure of children to advertising? Or is it simply unavoidable?
And also, do things that appeal to both kids and adults, like Pixar movies, help to avoid this issue?
On page 201, Seiter talks about how in the 1930's and 1940's, and how parents bought toys based on demonstrations in stores. Then he talks about how different it is nowadays. I wonder why this is? There were already advertisements for toys back then, weren't there? So do parents simply care less about what their kids play with, or are kids more picky about what they play with? Or both?
Seiter mentions the fact that most kids want the same toys as their friends and neighbors. And more often than not parents cave into their kids' desires out of fear that they do not want their child to be singled out and be different from the rest of the kids. What does this say about the kids and also the Parents? This reminds me of Tuesday's readings and of each person trying to create an identity by what they shop for and buy. How come someone be an individual if they are just follow the norm?
What does it mean that toys that are generally educational are only marketed to parents and teachers of the children? Does this show that children would not normally be interested in educational toys? Or could this possibly be a marketing ploy to try and cover more grounds in marketing toys?
On page 203 Seiter states, "Being "into," Barbie as the girls on Mattel's television commercials proudly exclaim, means being into a rather adult style of consumption. The accessories that make up the Barbie line extensions and those for many other popular toys often mirror in miniature, objects of adult consumption such as cars, home furnishings, and clothing." I found this really interesting because I never thought about Barbie's accessories this way, I always just thought about Barbie as a toy. It was also interesting to me to understand how much Barbie changes throughout the years depending on the latest trends and fashions. It's almost like we treat this doll as a person in our society, make sure she's in with the latest trends. Clearly Barbie and her accessories are probably every little girls dream, but why do kids like Barbie so much?
So does playing with Barbie affect the way a child choses to consume or likes or views other things? Are these kids playing with other toys after they play with Barbie or do they only want to play with things like Barbie or what she has?
Does a child become affected by all of the consumption of Barbie's accessories when they are older? In such a way that just as they were younger playing with Barbie and all of her gadgets, do they want all of these things now as adults?
Seiter argues that while mainstream toys are seen as "depraved" and signs of decadence, educational and quality toys are usually exempt from these criticisms because "they represent the imposition of adult control over the child's desires and an aspiration to higher things" (223).
This is an interesting argument given the recent controversy surrounding a U of Washington study that found that Baby Einstein videos were not effective and actually disruptive to infant development. The Disney Company, who makes the product, fired back that some parents were probably not using the product the way it was intended (to be used interactively between both child and parent.)
Wouldn't this imply that perhaps companies have much to gain by categorizing their products as "educational" and marketing them in this way--even if there is little to no educational value? Who decides what activities are classified in this way? Also, would Disney's comment allude to the idea that while parents may place higher values on educational products over mainstream toys, how they use them (educational products) is still similar to mainstream products--used as babysitters to keep the child occupied while the parents is able to do other things? Isn't that same reasons given for the dislike of common commercial toys (and often cheaper toys that economically disadvantaged individuals can afford)?
On page 226, Seiter states, "But often the differences between promotional and "quality" toys have more to do with aesthetics and the taste codes associated with different classes than they do with any observable differences in how creative children can be with the toys." I think this is an important aspect of this reading. Do creative educational toys create educated and advanced kids or do hands-on parents that teach creativity and learning produce smart/ creative children?
The more I analyzed high end "educational" toys the more I noticed some inconsistencies. On page 216, Seiter mentions that many of these educational store do not use mass marketed licensed characters in or on their products, however they still use licensed characters such as Madeline and Beatrix Potter. What would be some other examples of ways educational toys are similar to mass marketed promo toys? Are there some educational toys that really are better for children, or is it all in the heads of educated middle class parents?
On page 203 and again on page 219, Seiter discusses the very adult style of consumption associated with children and Barbie Dolls. How is associated with the idea that toys and advertising promote and encourage consumerism in children, and is it problematic? Similarly, how does this phenomenon play in to the naturlization of gender roles for both men and women? Does this also seem to happen in terms of "war toys," as discussed on page 205?
On page 208, the reading explains how Toy "R" Us sections its toys into gender, age, and cost-related subdivisions. How, if at all, is this related to the idea of exclusivity as discussed in Tuesday's reading? Is it effective? How is it problematic in terms of the seperation of gender, class, and age?
I think a common misconception among parents is that educational toys are, indeed, educational, contrary to what Seiter discusses on page 215. I wonder what would happen if this information was made more readily available to parents as consumers? Do you think media conglomerates play any role in silencing the kind of programming that would harm their advertisers?
Lastly, how are catalog sales problematic (221)? Do you think parents have a false consciousness that by ordering from a magazine and not taking their child into a store, they are subsequently "saving" their child from consumerism? Do you think this is effective for child development and steering away from children as consumers? How is it problematic?
1. On page 196, Seiter talks about the toy industry pushing for a "deseasonalization" of buying, which would expand the twice a year (birthdays and Christmas) purchase paradigm. Does it seem unethical that these companies have created "secular calendars that are reinforced" in preschools? It seems almost conspiratorial in a sense, like a bunch of capitalists have gotten together in order to manipulate young peoples' thinking.
2. Lately I've been thinking about being exposed to all of this stuff as a kid, such as on page 199, where the publication Toy and Hobby World analyzes what Saturday TV shows will work best for toy tie-ins. I'm sure I was immersed in it in the early 1990s, but I seem to have come out of it healthy enough. Are the affects produced by these industries long-lasting? Do they "turn" people into consumers, or do the kids snap out of it?
@ Holly: re: question describing toy market research -- saying it lies between ethnography and anecdote means that it is a somewhat inexact science. In some ways it is like an anthropologists' ethnography, in that it seeks to understand the culture of childhood from an inside perspective, but much of it is just anecdote, meaning just stories of individuals that don't have any strong justification for being seen as representative of kids as a whole.
On page 9, Seiter says licensed products can fail if they are overexposed, parental objections to graphics, and so on. Looking at violent video games, why do parents continue to let their children play these distructive games? If products fail based on parential opinion of them, how do these games continue to be marketed towards children or young teens that should not be exposed to them?
ReplyDeleteOn page ten the article states: "Like other market research, toy testing seems to exist somewhere in the space between ethnography and anecdote." I am unfamiliar of what this means.
On page 33, I was reminded of our last lecture on Tuesday. "Mass marketed toys are often portrayed as depraved and their purchase and ownershiop is a sign of decadence. Educational and quality toys are usually exempt from this critique because they represent the imposition of adult control over the child's desires and an aspiration to higher things. Upscale toy stores and catalogs stress the uniqueness of their product mix, thus appealing to an adult's sense of individuality and balue in things that are raare. Promotional toys, sold by the thousands at Toys "R" Us, derive their value for children from the fact that the toy will be exactly the same as someone else's." I think this has to do with adults wanting vintage things. Clothes, handbags, jewlery, and other antique things to us, all show some kind of wealth. I think parents that have to money to buy their kids unique toys do it to maybee fufill what the parents really want. Unique expensive products. I doubt children are thinking this way. They would be happy with the everyday Barbie doll or Tonka Truck that their neighbor has. High priced toys I think are not being marketed to children but are being marketed towards adults with money, that are buying them to fufill something that the parents want for their kids.
on p197, Seiter talks about how licensing allows products to be instantly familiar to children and more recognizable, but never discusses how products that are not attached to a licensing contract makes it big? I was thinking about toys like legos or lincoln logs have been played with through generations are still around today...is it due to the fact that they are a parental connection (like it was good for them to play with so itll be good for their children to play with too) or is there something other than that that has made them big?
ReplyDeleteWhile reading about the specialty stores, I was thinking about tuesdays article and wondering if these stores are trying to attract a more exclusive clientele or if they just believe that the toys that they sell are better for children to play with (more educational, makes kids think-work on problem solving, imaginative, etc)? I got a feeling from Seiter, that the specialty stores are trying to reinforce some sort of social inequality. I have been in both types of stores, and do not really think that the specialty stores are trying to do this but rather feel that there is a market for different types of toys. I was also wondering if there was an increase in sales in specialty stores since there have been many recalls on toys made in china over the past year?
I wondered about toys that seem to come back, but for different generations? For instance, now that we see shirts sold at Hot Topic that have nintendo games on them, or even shirts that have popular toys on them from the 80's. Do those have an impact on advertising for kids? I wonder if toy producers have seen a spike in sales with the return of these "advertisements" featuring older toys?
ReplyDeleteI also thought about whether maybe the lack of salespeople was also because it then requires the parental figure to search for someone, thus taking them throughout the store more and seeing things they wouldn't have seen before? Personally, I have noticed this phenomonon myself and I find it completely irritating.
When Seiter talks about how advertisements cut out parents, and go straight for kids on page 194, this made me think about how the only time you can see advertisements for kids' products is during kids' shows, which parents sometime use as a substitute for a babysitter. So it just makes me wonder, if parents were more attentive, would they reduce the amount of exposure of children to advertising? Or is it simply unavoidable?
ReplyDeleteAnd also, do things that appeal to both kids and adults, like Pixar movies, help to avoid this issue?
On page 201, Seiter talks about how in the 1930's and 1940's, and how parents bought toys based on demonstrations in stores. Then he talks about how different it is nowadays. I wonder why this is? There were already advertisements for toys back then, weren't there? So do parents simply care less about what their kids play with, or are kids more picky about what they play with? Or both?
Seiter mentions the fact that most kids want the same toys as their friends and neighbors. And more often than not parents cave into their kids' desires out of fear that they do not want their child to be singled out and be different from the rest of the kids. What does this say about the kids and also the Parents? This reminds me of Tuesday's readings and of each person trying to create an identity by what they shop for and buy. How come someone be an individual if they are just follow the norm?
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean that toys that are generally educational are only marketed to parents and teachers of the children? Does this show that children would not normally be interested in educational toys? Or could this possibly be a marketing ploy to try and cover more grounds in marketing toys?
On page 203 Seiter states, "Being "into," Barbie as the girls on Mattel's television commercials proudly exclaim, means being into a rather adult style of consumption. The accessories that make up the Barbie line extensions and those for many other popular toys often mirror in miniature, objects of adult consumption such as cars, home furnishings, and clothing." I found this really interesting because I never thought about Barbie's accessories this way, I always just thought about Barbie as a toy. It was also interesting to me to understand how much Barbie changes throughout the years depending on the latest trends and fashions. It's almost like we treat this doll as a person in our society, make sure she's in with the latest trends. Clearly Barbie and her accessories are probably every little girls dream, but why do kids like Barbie so much?
ReplyDeleteSo does playing with Barbie affect the way a child choses to consume or likes or views other things? Are these kids playing with other toys after they play with Barbie or do they only want to play with things like Barbie or what she has?
Does a child become affected by all of the consumption of Barbie's accessories when they are older? In such a way that just as they were younger playing with Barbie and all of her gadgets, do they want all of these things now as adults?
Seiter argues that while mainstream toys are seen as "depraved" and signs of decadence, educational and quality toys are usually exempt from these criticisms because "they represent the imposition of adult control over the child's desires and an aspiration to higher things" (223).
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting argument given the recent controversy surrounding a U of Washington study that found that Baby Einstein videos were not effective and actually disruptive to infant development. The Disney Company, who makes the product, fired back that some parents were probably not using the product the way it was intended (to be used interactively between both child and parent.)
Wouldn't this imply that perhaps companies have much to gain by categorizing their products as "educational" and marketing them in this way--even if there is little to no educational value? Who decides what activities are classified in this way? Also, would Disney's comment allude to the idea that while parents may place higher values on educational products over mainstream toys, how they use them (educational products) is still similar to mainstream products--used as babysitters to keep the child occupied while the parents is able to do other things? Isn't that same reasons given for the dislike of common commercial toys (and often cheaper toys that economically disadvantaged individuals can afford)?
On page 226, Seiter states, "But often the differences between promotional and "quality" toys have more to do with aesthetics and the taste codes associated with different classes than they do with any observable differences in how creative children can be with the toys." I think this is an important aspect of this reading. Do creative educational toys create educated and advanced kids or do hands-on parents that teach creativity and learning produce smart/ creative children?
ReplyDeleteThe more I analyzed high end "educational" toys the more I noticed some inconsistencies. On page 216, Seiter mentions that many of these educational store do not use mass marketed licensed characters in or on their products, however they still use licensed characters such as Madeline and Beatrix Potter. What would be some other examples of ways educational toys are similar to mass marketed promo toys? Are there some educational toys that really are better for children, or is it all in the heads of educated middle class parents?
On page 203 and again on page 219, Seiter discusses the very adult style of consumption associated with children and Barbie Dolls. How is associated with the idea that toys and advertising promote and encourage consumerism in children, and is it problematic? Similarly, how does this phenomenon play in to the naturlization of gender roles for both men and women? Does this also seem to happen in terms of "war toys," as discussed on page 205?
ReplyDeleteOn page 208, the reading explains how Toy "R" Us sections its toys into gender, age, and cost-related subdivisions. How, if at all, is this related to the idea of exclusivity as discussed in Tuesday's reading? Is it effective? How is it problematic in terms of the seperation of gender, class, and age?
I think a common misconception among parents is that educational toys are, indeed, educational, contrary to what Seiter discusses on page 215. I wonder what would happen if this information was made more readily available to parents as consumers? Do you think media conglomerates play any role in silencing the kind of programming that would harm their advertisers?
Lastly, how are catalog sales problematic (221)? Do you think parents have a false consciousness that by ordering from a magazine and not taking their child into a store, they are subsequently "saving" their child from consumerism? Do you think this is effective for child development and steering away from children as consumers? How is it problematic?
1. On page 196, Seiter talks about the toy industry pushing for a "deseasonalization" of buying, which would expand the twice a year (birthdays and Christmas) purchase paradigm. Does it seem unethical that these companies have created "secular calendars that are reinforced" in preschools? It seems almost conspiratorial in a sense, like a bunch of capitalists have gotten together in order to manipulate young peoples' thinking.
ReplyDelete2. Lately I've been thinking about being exposed to all of this stuff as a kid, such as on page 199, where the publication Toy and Hobby World analyzes what Saturday TV shows will work best for toy tie-ins. I'm sure I was immersed in it in the early 1990s, but I seem to have come out of it healthy enough. Are the affects produced by these industries long-lasting? Do they "turn" people into consumers, or do the kids snap out of it?
@ Holly: re: question describing toy market research -- saying it lies between ethnography and anecdote means that it is a somewhat inexact science. In some ways it is like an anthropologists' ethnography, in that it seeks to understand the culture of childhood from an inside perspective, but much of it is just anecdote, meaning just stories of individuals that don't have any strong justification for being seen as representative of kids as a whole.
ReplyDelete