We have a kid-unfriendly pantry.
Not because the kids can’t find anything to eat in there, but because almost none of the food packaging features characters that are marketed to children. My Sara Lee Soft-n-Smooth whole grain bread is promoting a contest to win lunch with the cast of Wizards of Waverly Place, and there’s a rabbit on the Annie’s Bunny Pasta box, but that’s it. Same for my refrigerator and freezer; not a branded character in sight.
And yet, strangely enough, my kids are well fed. They happily eat fruit and vegetables and just about everything else we set before them. Just this weekend, when Tacy asked CJ, “What’s your favorite food?” CJ answered, “Broccoli.” (Weird, I know.) When we go to the grocery store, they rarely ask for anything featuring a branded character. We buy Yoplait yogurt, Frosted Mini Wheats, and pretzels that are actually shaped like pretzels.
But they watch plenty of TV and see plenty of ads for character-branded foods marketed specifically to kids. They visit friends whose pantries and refrigerators and freezers are stocked with these items. I certainly don’t keep them in a bubble. Why is it that they don’t engage in a “beg-fest and child-centric pester power play” regarding the food we buy?
Amy Jussel’s post at Shaping Youth explores the dilemma of marketers and parents alike where it comes to a recent angle on marketing to kids – using branded characters to sell fruit and vegetables. Apparently Spongebob and Dora helped hawk clementines already, and now Strawberry Shortcake is going to use her kid appeal to sell more strawberries.
Is it that kids have to be convinced to eat clementines and berries, or is it that parents have to be convinced to buy them? I wonder if the problem – that branded characters are apparently expected to solve – isn’t a bit of both.
Jussel suggests that kids’ insistence upon foods in packaging festooned with branded characters is the fault of marketers: “…it seems we’re in an awkward position of ‘cleaning up a mess’ made by marketing that shouldn’t have taken place to begin with.” That is, if marketers hadn’t begun using branded characters to compel kids to favor one box of cereal over another, it wouldn’t be necessary to slap Spongebob, Dora, and Strawberry Shortcake on produce to help those healthy items gain kids’ attention.
I think she’s letting parents off the hook far too easily. Our kids may see it and beg for it and whine for it, but do we have to buy it? Absolutely not. We need to set boundaries and take responsibility. Not only won’t kids starve, but they’ll learn early on – when they’re first exposed to table foods and TV – that what they see is not necessarily what their parents will serve.
Does it bother me to see branded characters on food packaging? No more than it bothers me to see branded characters on tee shirts and bedding. Just because it’s out there doesn’t mean I have to buy it. Not even if my kids beg and whine and throw a temper tantrum.
Because I’m in charge of what I buy. Not marketers, and not my kids.
Do you buy character branded foods? Do you think character branded produce might entice your kids to eat more fruit and vegetables?
Disclosure: My dislike of Strawberry Shortcake has been previously documented, obviously before I invested in Photoshop.
Hi Julie, Amy Jussel here…I have a similar pantry and lack of a beg fest here (even when she was younger 3-8, which is what the ‘pester power’ mktg. research was targeting…So I’m basing my statements on ‘masses’ vs. our own personal experiences.
See: “The Nag Factor: Measuring Children’s Influence” or the various views here: http://j.mp/Spewc on ‘the nag factor & family stress’ regarding brand consciousness…
So while I totally agree with you about parents’ responsibility & purchasing power, the ‘just say no’ approach is falling flat w/many parents outgunned by $17 billion in annual marketing targeting kids w/branded or licensed characters hawking stuff.
WE may not be impacted, but other families are, otherwise marketers wouldn’t be using the tactic. It’s not a ‘blame game’ of ‘fault’ as much as it is a public health responsibility for both parents and marketers alike to hold the line. (this generation of children is cited as being “the most brand conscious ever, w/12-17 yr. olds having about 145 conversations about brands per wk” so branding is ubiquitous; it’s not an ‘either/or’ proposition on accountability)
That said, taking responsibility by slapping MORE branding on neutral turf like fruit and vegetables to supposedly entice kids to eat healthier seems to only be a valid ploy (targeting those kids that DO respond to characters) to fly the ‘better for you’ flag IF those same marketers are concurrently removing the same characters from the majority of sugary slop to have a viable ‘control test group’ for data to be valid. (sounds wonkish, but just sayin’…)
Ultimately, I’m in the ‘Teaching Kids Media Literacy & Label Lingo’ camp from the get go. Not just on edibles, but branding overall: http://www.shapingyouth.org/?p=188 That’s a better way to elicit individual agency and over-ride persuasive elements in play regardless of age/stage, oui?
We buy very few food packages with characters on them. My kids will eat most fruits and my son and the baby will eat most veggies. My oldest is more picky about her veggies, but she doesn’t beg for character foods either.
Bottom line is that if my kids are hungry, they’ll eat what they’re given. If I give them a food that they hate that happens to have a character on it, that doesn’t make them eat it any more.
I buy food based on the taste and nutritional qualities of the product, not of the packaging (that I’m aware of, at least). So while I buy my kids fruit snacks to eat on an occasional basis, I’m buying the brand that doesn’t have HFCS, and is made with applesauce. It’s still not healthy, but compared to the ingredients on the back of the Princess fruit snacks, it’s a better alternative.
I would be no more likely to buy character-branded produce for the appeal of it to my kids. I think it’s really sad, actually, that marketers feel they have to resort to such lengths to get kids to eat well. My kids eat what I have in the house, because for them, the alternative is not eating. I constantly tell my 5 year old that when she lives in her own house and is buying her own groceries, she can choose what foods to buy. But until that time, the decision is mine, whether she likes it or not. I’m the parent, and I feel it’s my responsibility to make those choices for her when she doesn’t yet know better.
One of the media literacy training tools we tell kids about is to look PAST the ‘eye candy’ of pretty packaging/foils/contests/cartoons & freebies to go straight for the INGREDIENTS with a simple ‘less is more’ rule of thumb:
The shorter the list, the better for you (less processing/whole foods). We also play hide & seek for the additives & chem cuisine (from artificial colors/dyes to HFCS etc.) ….It helps kids discern the difference between a ‘fruit leather’ and a ‘fruit rollup’ regardless of the branding…by going straight to the ingredients list. If HFCS or sugar is in the top 3 J-U-N-K.
Agree with Heather, above on the natural sweet/treats & moderation (to dodge ‘forbidden fruit’ issues) but here’s an example of the befuddling PR/marcom tactics where I’m calling for accountability & a fair shot at playing ’spot the spin’ on the wheel of (mis)fortune with kids marketing…I wrote this post re: The ‘not so sweet surprise’ of HFCS…A campaign that purposely diffuses/confuses adults in marketing 101 spin-speak: http://www.shapingyouth.org/?p=2135
Also consider what those ‘better for you’ self-awarded seals of approval do to adults, much less kids. Smart choices made easy? I think not. No parent should have to be an RD/nutritionist to get through the tower of babel on the ingredients/packaging to figure out which is the healthier purchase. Bleh.
The more I’m thinking aloud, the more I’ m inclined to say ‘just leave my fruit and veggies raw and real’…and save the excessive plastic coming to the produce aisle ‘for convenience’ while we’re at it…sorry, shortcake.
Interesting tactic, but I hope it doesn’t become more widespread. My kids have been trained that a cartoon on the box means junk inside.
One of the few things I’m sure I do right when it comes to my kids is not give in to the “pester fests.”
I don’t really buy my kids anything with licensed characters on it. I know I’m mean, but with a few exceptions, I try to stay away from clothing with characters on it, toys too. Mostly because I think they are ugly and tacky. And I don’t like my kid being a walking advertisement for your product.
I can’t say I feel strongly either way about fruits having Dora stickers on them or whatever, though. If it’s a good product then /shrug. Doesn’t matter to us much who’s face is on it. I can’t say I’d go out of my way to NOT buy Strawberry Shortcake strawberries, if they were the same price and good quality. But then, I also don’t have a kid who only wants food that’s endorsed by Disney. If I did, I think it would bother me more.
Having a box of SpongeBob mac & cheese in my pantry kinda saved my ass the other day, but it’s unusual for us to have much in the way of character-branded stuff around–mostly because it’s often too processed and unhealthy for my taste. As for produce, I don’t see the point. If I’m going to cut up an apple or peel a banana, who’s to know that it once had Miley Cyrus’s face on it? Anyway, my kids will eat character-free fruits and veg without a fuss, so I’m either smart or lucky. Probably the latter.
(I also discussed Disney produce, specifically, here.)
We’re not inclined to buy it – and even worse, it bothers me that for the most part, the kid branded stuff is crap. I’d be way more apt to buy it if it was actually truly good for them. My kids will beg and beg me, but for me, it’s the ingredients that speak the loudest.
My girls will pretty much eat anything. I don’t generally buy the branded items.
However my house is filled with Disney branded t-shirts, sheets and just about everything else. I draw the line at food? I don’t know, I am not sure that it bothers me really. I just don’t tend to buy into it with food products. However, I know it’s a phase. If Hannah Montana sings a two minute song to my kid and she brushes her teeth until the song is over, is it so bad?
In general, I HATE kid-branded items. I have had some bad luck with the whole fruit snack saga and finding out that why yes! food coloring is bad for my kid.
We do buy the Diego branded yogurt drink, but that is primarily because I like the ingredients (no HFCS and no food coloring.)
In general, we have found that if we don’t keep junk food in the house, period, that our kids will just make healthier choices. This is why cookies, ice cream and candy are simply not kept in the house. At all. And sadly, that includes my own stash of chocolate which i could never successfully keep hidden.
If we want ice cream? We go out for it.
I refuse to get products that have cartoons on them. My kiddo is too young to eat that stuff anyway but even when I was a kid I wouldn’t do it. It felt like I was being told THIS IS THE BOX YOU NEED TO PICK UP and I’m a rebel like that.
When I was first pregnant, I asked a message board where to find the Pampers with no characters on them. They laughed me off the board.
So yeah, I’m inclined to prefer naked fruit over branded fruit. But I’m inclined to take branded fruit my kids will eat over naked fruit they don’t. It’s all relative. And yes, it’s a slippery slope. And yes, I will probably regret that decision when then they want the Strawberry Shortcake dvd / t-shirt/ bedding / golf club cover to match the fruit salad.
My kids are pretty much grown and out of the character-driven phase. With one exception: my 14-year old daughter is so mad for the Jonas Brothers, if their face was plastered on a chainsaw she’d beg me to buy it for her.
I don’t know how I feel about the food thing. We live in Canada and much of that is monitored. It’s rare here to see characters on the food other than the Capt’n and Tony the Tiger themselves. All things in good measure. There is something inherently fun about making the trek to buy the Hannah Montana goodies for the birthday party I think. Will it kill them? No. But as long as they are old enough, it needs to be pointed out to your children that it’s all part of one big business to “sell them” something. We had that conversation very early on in this house. We like to take a step back, ask ourselves, “do we really need this?” and then if the answer is yes, “is it a big deal if it says Jonas on it, or can we find one without?”, that’s our rule of thumb. This really helped during school supply shopping.
Fortunately I also have a daughter eating her fruits and veggies for what they are, not who is on the packaging. Her first intro to all foods has been with non-branded pkg so that’s what she knows. She has books with those characters to read and occasionally watch on tv. They do not need to be on food I buy. You’re completely right saying it’s our choice to support or not.
I like to point out the marketing gimmicks that are used to attract attention, to my kids, so they understand marketing and coercion and how it can affect their decision. We rarely buy food because of branding, though if the sale price is right, we might indulge the request.
As far as using that kind of marketing to entice a healthier diet, no way. Showing kids how to eat healthy should be about the food, not what on the packaging.
It’s hard to compete with the commercials, and other households that buy into the marketing scheme. In our house watching TV was limited to one hour a day and that included commercials, I encouraged my kids to flip through them, but of course that didn’t work well. Keeping a healthy pantry helps a lot. The kids are going to cheat once they are out of the house, but as longs as it’s not very often they will come to grasps that “mom knows best”, and in time will chose good food vs. nicely packaged ones
I categorically refuse to buy stuff cross branded that way.
And strawberries? What kid needs inducement to eat strawberries?
Hi! We loved your post over at KiwiLog and decided to feature it as part of our weekly mom blog round-up. Thanks!
Generally I hate all character branding and the thought of it on fruits? Ridiculous. My son is too young for that stuff right now, but I would try to get him to tell me the difference between the branded food and the naked one and show him that it’s exactly the same.
Besides that developing healthy habits should be about the actual food and not what or who is on the package, and that I think kids should learn to not play in to marketing techniques, usually the branded version is unnecessarily more expensive.
Now, I don’t know for sure, but it would seem like the price difference is going to the brand and not the item, so I refuse to give more money to a brand that already has enough.
Branding on fruit? Ridiculous. Kids tend to like fruits, so I don’t see the reason for this, other than the obvious all mighty dollar.
My son is too young for that stuff right now, but I plan to ingrain it into his head that anything featuring a cartoon is not going to be purchased. Maybe I’ll be more lenient on branded items he’ll eat versus non branded item he wont, but in general, it’s non branded for us
The branded items are also uncessarily more expensive.
I rarely intentionally buy branded food. I do try to avoid it most of the time, since the characters are usually on junk anyway. I will buy canned pasta with Dora or Cars or Princesses or whatever every once in a while, but certainly not every time. I refuse to buy character clothing for my kids, although I don’t keep friends/family from buying it. I’m just too practical to pay extra money b/c a character is on something. Parents have a hard time saying NO to everything these days it seems. Should we blame marketers for taking advantage of that? I don’t want my children to like something only b/c a character is on it, only to have them change their mind when that character is no longer on it. But I try to avoid grocery shopping with my kids anyway, just because I need the peace.