According to a study published in Pediatrics (Weintraub-Austin, et al., 2006), teenagers are more likely to remember the content of advertisements displayed on Channel One News than that of the programming. This news is especially unsettling when one realizes that advertisements comprise less than 20% of the 12-minute program. As a consequence of studies like this one and many others, parents, teachers and various special interest groups are wary of Channel One's implementation of an advertising-based model. Furthermore, many of these groups have called for such companies as Procter & Gamble to pull their ads out of Channel One's lineup, and some states such as New York have even gone as far as banning the use of Channel One in NYS public schools altogether. This type of conflict exemplifies the dichotomy between advertisers and the private rights of individuals. Where should the line be drawn when it comes to when and where an advertiser can communicate a sponsored message? In the case of educational institutions, sponsorships can be found on athletic clothing, scoreboards, school newspapers, and even special projects such as the Pizza Hut Book-It! club. Therefore, many advertisers would argue that advertising-based Channel One is no worse a medium for ads than any other that are in the school system. However, many argue that the Channel One advertising approach is a blatant attempt to prime children for additional consumptive practices later on in life. Additionally, many claim that the existing ads are hedonistic in scope and sensationalistic in nature (Johnston, 2001).
However, it is clear that an advertising-based economy is a pervasive force in America and it will not simply be undone by the protestations of angry consumers. Therefore, it is imperative that advertising companies find less-invasive ways to convey their messages. If they do not, their businesses may take a hit because of the controversy and ensuing pull-out by advertisers. Additionally, if private individuals want to see change in the way advertisers can access such private institutions as the school, then individuals must work to educate the teachers and the institutions themselves.
~ Patrick Castrenze
Please look in the comments section for more information
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The following entry is an extended version of the abridged post on the main page. Feel free to leave comments!
Advertising is everywhere. From the soles of our shoes, to writing in the sky, advertisers have scoured the planet
looking for places to put their messages. It is no surprise then that secondary education institutions are a prime target
for companies that are trying to appeal to the youth market. But in today's modernist educational environment, concern
over the content of advertising messages is reaching new levels. According to De Vaney (2001), modernist
education can be characterized by a perceived educational advancement towards technology, and a
commodification of the educational experience. But what does this technology and ensuing
commodification bring with it? For one, it has the potential to increase a society's overall
technological capabilities by introducing students to such programs at a young age. Clearly, this
kind of societal priming has numerous benefits for the economy. However, De Vaney's concept
of educational modernism stresses the absence of commodified education that existed up until
the introduction of the film projector, and the presence of it soon after. Teaching aides such as
projectors and audio reels gave rise to an industry of education materials, and a window into the
education market. Over time, this window was able to let in numerous outlets that were once
untouchable to marketers. Today, that is all different, and advertising in schools can be found
on vending machines, scoreboard sponsorship and school newspapers. Furthermore, they can be
found embedded within the very media channels we use to teach students. As previously stated,
advertising is everywhere, and in many cases, schools are not an exception. But as myriad
opportunities open up for marketers, a great deal of opposition exists.
A letter to Procter & Gamble by public interest group Commercial Alert is just one example
of the way individuals and groups oppose the advertising-based approach Channel One adheres
to. The letter and explanation, which can be found here, was signed by a number of
concerned groups such as the American Family Association, Association for Black Psychologists,
Commercial Alert, National Institute on Media and the Family, TV-Free America and Waldorf Early
Childhood Education of North America. On Commercial Alert's website, their mission
includes the prevention of child exploitation and subversion of family, community, and environmental
values.
However, there are at least two sides to every story. It is important to understand that companies
such as Channel One aren't going into schools and maliciously feeding children a bunch of consumerist
dogma without first getting the consent of the institutions themselves. And in fact, Channel One would
argue that
In order for a school to gain access to Channel One's equipment and programming, they must first sign
in to a contract with Channel One before any other steps are taken. Clearly, this shows that the school
is making a choice to passively or actively integrate Channel One into their curriculum, either through
simply broadcasting daily Channel One News content and then continuing their normal routine of studies,
or through broadcast and discussion. In order to get a better understanding of the obligations that
Channel One and cooperating schools face when they sign into a contract, I perused the company's Terms
and Conditions page on their website. That agreement can be found here. While it mentioned lots of your
typical legal information concerning copyright, service obligations, etc., a few (abridged) points stood out
from the rest:
#4: Channel One must be shown on at least 90% of the days that school is in session. Additionally, Channel One must be shown when students are in homeroom or classroom. It is not to be shown during lunch, before school, or after school. Furthermore, while teachers are not obligated to show all Channel One broadcasts, they may only omit 10% from the 180 days in which Channel One is sent to the school for broadcast.
#11: COCC [Channel One Communications Corp.] will electronically audit [monitor] 5 random classroom television sets per school. With the consent of the school, COCC will use these television sets to passively record 1) the time of day that Channel One is shown, 2) The length of the Channel One broadcast, and 3) the volume of the broadcast.
And in regards to its advertising policy:
COCC will present advertising which is truthful and tasteful and not misleading or deceptive. COCC understands their responsibility to the students because of their age and the educational environment surrounding the medium. Among other things, COCC will not consider advertisements that advocate abortion, alcohol, contraceptive products, firearms, gambling, gambling, drugs, prescription drugs, feminine hygiene products, religious time, political advertisements and tobacco.
To me, there seems to be a couple of things going on with these examples.
For one, COCC has strict guidelines regarding when and where their content is viewed, and this can be seen in the way they've limited the audience to times and places that are associated with study rather than recess. Furthermore, COCC will sporadically monitor a sample number of TV sets in each school. During this process they will "passively" collect quantifiable data that describes the viewing conditions: duration, volume, and time.
Additionally, it seems that COCC is well aware of the fine line they walk in terms of content appropriateness and youth, and as such have chosen to remain as seemingly content neutral as possible by eliminating controversial types of advertisements. And while discussing the programming content (news, current events, etc.) of COCC is beyond the scope of this blog entry, it would be interesting to know their stance on programming content guidelines. As far as I can tell they don't have anything directly addressing this issue on the website.
But while "content neutral" advertising may in fact help Channel One's appearance by eliminating the most controversial issues in America, it does not hide the fact that the remaining areas of advertising are promoting more homogenized areas of our culture including consumption. An example rests in the case of K-III Communication. In 1991 K-III Communication acquired the Weekly Reader Corporation. The Weekly Reader Corp. was a publisher that targeted middle school and high school-aged children. K-III was also a shareholder of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co., which was a parent company to RJR Nabisco. That is in R.J. Reynolds, maker of Camel, Doral and Winston cigarettes. According to an article published in the American Academy of Pediatrics (Johnston, 2001), anti-smoking advertising decreased from 62% to 24% once K-III took over. Clearly, this type of behind-the-scenes influence avoids more formal forms of product endorsement by eliminating the competition and leaving room for other forms of advertising to come in. Many of these come in the forms of ads for shoes, candy, video games, cosmetics, cereal, soft drinks, TV shows and movies. Consequently, due to changes in ownership, middle school and high school children are receiving less messages about the harms of tobacco and more messages about the perceived benefits of materiality and consumption. Moreover, a report by the FTC in 2000 showed that movie, music and video game content intended for adults was frequently aimed at children under the age of 17.
But what does all of this mean? To me, this means that we have a dichotomy between two very different interests. One one hand we have the anti-advertising contingent, set on banning all forms of advertising in schools, and in a "perfect" world, banning it everywhere else. And on the other hand, we have an economy that is partially supported by the advertising industry. Stateofthenewsmedia.org, which can be found here, finds online revenue alone was up to $13 billion by the end of 2006. Editorandpublisher.com, which can be found here here , finds that print advertising in 2007 was at $46 billion. Clearly, we are talking big numbers. And even more clearly, our faltering economy is more dependent upon those advertisers than ever to get consumers out of their houses to buybuybuy. Let's bring this back to Channel One.
If Channel One insists on maintaining its advertising-based model, it must be able to provide the right incentives for advertisers. From a business perspective, a captive audience of 12-18 year-olds is almost as good as it gets (next to 18-24 year-olds). Furthermore, Channel One has effectively influenced the viewing experience by creating guidelines that were outlined earlier in this entry. All in all, despite a drop in revenue over the past few years due to competition with internet-based advertising, Channel One is doing pretty well for itself. However, many people and organizations are not happy, and in some cases, as pointed out earlier in this entire final presentation, some states such as New York have banned the news program altogether. Again, this is the dichotomy that has yet to be resolved, and I don't know how to remedy the situation. In my personal opinion, I believe that Channel One should be banned from all schools, period. But for many schools the opportunity to be a part of something much larger, much more organized, and much more "in touch" with our globalized, pop-culture society is too hard to resist. But who can blame them? Impoverished communities with hardly any kind of tax-base are forced to cut the arts and language programs in their schools because they can't afford them. Consequently, Channel One must look pretty good with all of its pretty news correspondents and sensational journalism. But what does this sort of priming do to our students in the long run? In my opinion, change must not begin with the advertisers, but with the communities that invite them in. Poverty is inevitable, as is desperation. But if one wants to educate the children, one must start by educating the educators.
-Patrick Castrenze
Post a Comment