3 posts tagged “children”

Tomorrow marks the 1 year anniversary of the publication of one of my most popular posts to date: "Using Social Media to Sell Products to Kids...Interesting but Potentially Dangerous."  In that post, I talk at length about how toy manufacturer Ganz is using the internet and social networking principles to market and promote its very popular Webkinz toys to 6-11 year old children.  I expressed concern that the FTC and Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) aren't enough to protect kids:

Companies are marketing to children, soliciting information from them on-line, and asking them to read legal agreements, which are beyond their level of comprehension.  It is difficult for parents to watch out for their kids in situations like this.  If a kid thinks it is okay to input their information onto, say, the Webkinz’s site without parental permission, what is to say that same child won’t think it is just as okay to give that information to a stranger via another website?  Nothing, unless their parents are involved.

In response to that article, I've gotten dozens of emails and a handful of comments from parents, internet professionals, teachers, and others, all of whom agreed with the concerns I raised.  I was also pinged by a nationally syndicated TV morning show who was thinking of doing a story on the topic.  And despite all of this 'concern', in February of last year, The Toy Industry Association awarded Webkinz the "Specialty Toy of the Year 2007," and Webkinz and Lil'Kinz (another Ganz toy) are still hugely popular (and now collectible).  In fact, as recently as January 8, 2008, a retired Webkinz "Cheeky Dog" sold on eBay for $735!

Today, I received a "comment" on my original post from a divorced dad of four who expressed concern that his ex-wife is using Webkinz to "babysit" their eight year old.  "Hank," who works with computers and the internet for a living, defines his eight year old as a "Webkinz Addict."  His son has lost interest in "normal" kid activities (Boy Scouts, Little League, etc.) in favor of playing entirely with his 55 Webkinz toys, a trend which is "encouraged" by his mother:

This past Christmas, [my ex-wife] "promoted" that all should buy a specific Webkin to assure no duplicates! In gross dollars, the child received over $700 worth of Webkins, less than $40 worth of other toys and less than $50 worth of clothing!

How does Hank know how much his eight year old's other presents cost?  It sounds like Hank was the only family member that bought his son something besides Webkinz for Christmas.  I encourage you to read Hank's comment in its entirety. It's both frightening and sad.  It also re-emphasizes the importance of good parenting and the need for every parent to understand the potential dangers of the internet and toys that encourage their young kids to use it.

Hank's comment also re-emphasized my believe that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) doesn't do enough to protect young kids whose parents don't know how to protect them from the internet.  It's easy enough to point the finger at parents to say that they're at fault for exposing their kids to the net, but it's also not entirely fair.  Most parents don't understand the dangers of the internet as well as they should, and the landscape is constantly evolving, which makes it hard for them to 'keep up'.  Most parents think that the 'danger' is in their kids stumbling across porn or sexual predators on-line, but internet marketing should be a concern as well, especially since children under 13 are extremely vulnerable to suggestion. 

The Webkinz website describes the toys as:

lovable plush pets that each come with a unique Secret Code. With it, you enter Webkinz World where you care for your virtual pet, answer trivia, earn KinzCash, and play the best kids games on the net!

Parents must see the Webkinz marketing copy and think they're getting their kids a great educational toy.  And yet, after listening to the explanatory 'tour' on the Webkinz site, I can't help but think that that the Webkinz proposition encourages an unhealthy level of consumerism and the kind of compulsive behavior exhibited in gambling and/or shopping addiction. 

Kids are encouraged to make "Kinz Cash" by playing games in an 'arcade' and entering 'contests'. They can use this cash to 'decorate' their Webkinz's virtual room. If they don't take care of their Webkinz by going back to the site ton a daily basis, the "health" of the Webkinz will deteriorate. Kids are encouraged to 'chat' with their real-life friends' Webkinz on the forum and to buy more Webkinz so that they can have more fun on the site ("Collect them all!" says the tour).  Given what a time suck the Webkinz site appears to be, I can't imagine any parent having enough hours in a day to supervise their child 100% of the time on the site and still have the child complete all of the tasks/ things that there are to do on Webkinz.  More likely, parents are, as Hank describes it, using Webkinz's website as a babysitter, while they do other things around the house, assuming that the site is an 'educational' tool and perfectly harmless to their child's well being.

Looking at the list of symptoms for "Pathological Gambling" as defined by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in conjunction with listening to the 'sales pitch' on the Webkinz site, I can't help but think that would be easy for a child to develop a Webkinz addiction like the one Hank described.  The APA says that having 5 or more of the following symptoms constitutes having a gambling problem:

• Preoccupation with gambling-related thoughts, plans or activities;
• Needing to gamble with increased sums to produce the desired excitement;
• Restlessness or irritability when attempting to cut down or stop gambling;
• Gambling to escape from problems or relieve an undesired mood such as helplessness, guilt, anxiety or depression;
• After losing money gambling, often returning to try to win it back (chasing losses);
• Lying to conceal gambling activities or consequences;
• Committing illegal acts to finance gambling;
• Jeopardizing or losing a significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of gambling;
• Relying on a “bailout” (money from others to relieve a desperate gambling-related financial situation);
• Having made repeated unsuccessful attempts to control, cut back or stop gambling.

By supplying a unique cocktail of arcade games, necessary dependency on the site (your Webkinz will suffer if you don't take care of it daily by visiting the website), and ways to earn and spend cash, I wonder if the Webkinz site and product philosophy have the potential to encourage a child (like Hank's son) to rack up 5 or more of the above symptoms (or variations of them).  I don't have the same concern for 13 year old + focused social sites like Facebook and MySpace because:

• A user's online experience doesn't deteriorate if s/he doesn't check into the site on a daily basis.
• Users aren't required to earn money in a fake currency to purchase things on the site (though apps like AceBucks give users the option of earning/spending fake currency).
• The point of these sites isn't to play games (though users can do that). It's to stay in touch with friends.
• These sites are "free" and supported by advertising, which I'd hope 13+ year olds have at least some cognitive ability to filter.

(Though, there are other potential hazards for 13-18 year olds on some social networking sites.)

Thinking about WebKinz reminds me of the Joe Camel debate of the early 90s*  Just because something looks like it should be for kids, doesn't mean that it's good for kids.  In the constantly evolving world of social media and online marketing, it's tough for the average parent to tell the difference.  There's a fine line between teaching kids about the internet in a safe way, coddling them/ being over-protective, and exposing them to things online that could be harmful.  I'd love to hear what a child psychologist with a strong knowledge of web 2.0 thinks about Webkinz.

*According to Wikipedia: "Joe Camel was a controversial cartoon camel that primarily appeared in advertisements for Camel, but also appeared on "Camel Cash" and a number of origami Pop-up print ads. Joe Camel came under scrutiny as some considered use of the character to be advertising directed at children."

A new survey conducted by Zogby International on behalf of the United States Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee was just published, in advance of the annual State of the Net policy conference, which is due to take place on January 31st in Washington, DC. 1,200 adults were surveyed between 1/24/07 and 1/26/07, and the results are both interesting and incredibly relevant to social media.

The survey highlights changing attitudes among 18-24 year olds in comparison to their older counterparts.  For starters, the survey shows that 18-24 year olds have very different perceptions of privacy than their older counterparts.  While 91% of the survey participants felt that expectations of privacy have changed with the introduction and usage of new technologies and the Internet, 18-24 year olds do not seem as concerned with traditional “privacy” concerns:

• Only 35.6% of 18-24 year-olds feel that it is a violation of privacy for someone else to post a picture of them in a swimsuit on-line.  This is in sharp contrast to the views of the 25+ year-old crowd, 65.5% of whom felt this was a violation of privacy.
• Similarly, 19.6% of 18-24 year-olds consider their dating profile to be an invasion of their privacy versus to 54.6% of all other respondents.

The majority of 18-24 year olds felt that children should wait “much longer to use all aspects of the Internet, including email and social networking.  More than 75% of respondents felt that children should be at least 13 years old until they are allowed to have an email address.  And, of this 75%, 40.7% of them believe that children should be at least 16 or wait until adulthood to get an email address.  65.6% of survey respondents felt that access to social networking sites should be restricted until children reach the age of 16.  More interesting still, 18-24 year olds felt more strongly about this than their older counterparts.

Commenting on the survey, Tim Lordan, executive director of the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee said:

Whether health care, e-commerce or social networking, privacy is at the forefront of every major policy debate…  This survey raises questions that could significantly impact our policymaking on privacy in years to come, assuming the MySpace generation maintains their privacy views as they age."

I find the viewpoints of the 18-24 year olds surveyed particularly interesting- especially their conservative thoughts about when children should be allowed to access the Internet.  I suspect (though can’t prove) that the conservative attitudes on this topic are the result of intense exposure to the Internet, email, and social networking sites from a young age.  18-24 year-olds are probably more aware of the dangers of the Internet than most older adults.  

The Internet became accessible to the masses and deeply incorporated into formal education about 15 or 16 years ago, making the adults who are now in the 18-24 age bracket the first group of adults who may not be able to remember a time without computers or the Internet.  In the last 5 years that on-line social networking has become popular, adults that are now 18-24 years old were in the prime of their “internet education”.  By this, I mean that most of them were either in high school or college when the Internet became a ubiquitous social networking tool.  As a result, most of them had more free time than the average older adult to experiment on-line, doing things that their parents/ teachers/ guardians had no idea about.  The Internet and social networking were made an integral part of the fabric of youth culture for the first time, and like all other aspects of youth culture, adults weren’t nearly as familiar about what was going on as the kids who were experiencing it first hand.   Like most adults looking back on their childhood, I’m guessing that the now 18-24 year olds have begun to identify the youthful indiscretions/ mistakes they made on-line and can equally appreciate the opportunities and dangers of the internet more than average older adults, who haven’t experienced the Internet in the same way as those in the younger age groups.

The 18-24 year old viewpoints about age-limits for the Internet exposed in the Zogby survey combined with Tim Lordan’s comment make me wonder what will happen with the regulation of the Internet over time.  Will the US Government eventually impose an “age limit” on obtaining certain privileges on the Internet?  Will they introduce on-line identification program, in an attempt to “protect” children?  Neither of these options seems viable, given the “open” and multi-national nature of the Internet.  

In my post on January 18, I talked about the need for parents to protect their children from the dangers of the internet, while at the same time promoting personal accountability and responsibility.  I continue to believe that it is important for parents to make decisions about how their kids use the Internet. I also believe that worldwide governments or an international agency comprised of industry experts and child welfare advocates should provide guidelines to parents (not unlike is done for television or movie ratings).  However, I believe that if the government tries to regulate the Internet too closely, it will turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.  In my opinion, it is impossible for anyone, besides parents to “police” the Internet for children.  Others can only help the cause. To do this, security education and features should be made freely and easily available to parents from the moment they buy a new computer or download a new browser.

I was trying to come up with ideas for how security features could be made more easily available to parents.  The US government could help with this, mandating that all OEMs offer a specific level of security features with the sale of each computer.  They could also ensure that anytime a new browser is downloaded that owners have the option of installing the same level of security features.  So, when parents buy a computer or download a new browser, they are prompted to assign a password to each of their children and set up certain privileges/ levels of privacy - i.e.:

• Kevin – Age 8 – Password= DogCat22. Only able to access X,Y, Z website, and parental notification and activity logging is on. No email access allowed.
• Jenny- Age 13- Password= Hocus24Pocus. Able to access any website that is considered “safe” by the installed kid-safe screening software, but parental notification and activity logging is on.  Email access allowed to/from the following addresses: X, Y, Z (or to/from anyone at A,B,C domain – e.g. a child’s school) or between X-Y time on Z date when parent will be with child helping research.
  
• Peter – Age 16 - Password= 276BasketballFootball. Able to access any website, but parental notification is on.  Open email access to all addresses but parental notification will notify parents of who child is emailing. Not allowed to download a new browser.
• Amy – Age 18 – Password= Seven8Six.  Open access. No parental screening. Not allowed to download a new browser.
  

I'm sure the ACLU would disagree, but with a system like this, kids would actually have to talk to their parents about what they’re up to on-line and vice versa.  Similarly, parents would have the ultimate control on what their kids are allowed to do on-line and the ability to change these settings as/when appropriate (and preferably via their mobile phone from the road or their PC from work).  I'd much prefer to see a system like this than an overly legislated set of laws, that like the driving/drinking/smoking ages seem arbitrary and discourage personal responsibility.

I’ve talked a lot in this blog about how companies are using social media to capture new customers and engage existing customers.  Today, Advertising Age wrote a fascinating article on the success of Canadian toy manufacturer, Ganz, who has used social media and the Internet to spark massive sales of its Webkinz stuffed animals.  I’ve got mixed feelings about Webkinz marketing model and success. On the one hand, I admire the Ganz creativity. On the other hand, I question whether Webkinz takes marketing to children one step too far.  Before I explain this paradox in more detail, here’s some background…

Webkinz, which launched last year, are proving exceptionally popular among American children aged 6-11.  The success of Webkinz is so impressive that Advertising Age refers to them as “Beanie Babies on steroids”.  By November 2005, Ganz had sold one million Webkinz, without doing any formal advertising.  Ganz reports that this number was pushed “significantly higher” during the holiday season.  Instead of advertising, Ganz made Webkinz successful  by engaging a strong network of sales reps and retailers as well as innovative PR and social media strategies.  Bloggers and YouTubers started talking about Webkinz en-masse, which attracted the attention of the media and resulted in publicity on "Good Morning America," "Regis & Kelly" and "Rachael Ray."  Social media combined with the power of traditional press accelerated the sales of Webkinz.

Webkinz word of mouth success via social media is in great part to do with its web-savvy product strategy.  Each Webkinz stuffed animal comes with a printed tag, with a secret code and the address of what Advertising Age refers to a “safe” social-media enabled website for kids.  Once registered, kids can dress and feed their avatar Webkinz by earning “KinzCash” by playing games and winning quizzes.  Kids can also engage their avatars with other Webkinz avatars by inviting them to be friends and sending messages from a pre-selected list of options (Advertising Age uses the example “You are” and “very nice”.).  So, in effect, the Webkinz site becomes a mini MySpace for very young kids, without the threat of sexual predators. Imagine the success of Cabbage Patch Kids in the 1980s, and add to the “adoption process” the power of the internet and talking cartoons, and it’s not hard to see why kids can’t get enough of Webkinz.

The concerning part of Webkinz and similar products is the way that they engage with and solicit information from children.  When a child goes to the Webkinz site s/he is greeted by vivid cartoon images and written instructions.  When the child clicks on the text “My First Adoption,” a cartoon named “Ms. Birdy” appears welcoming the child to the “Adoption Center.” Ms. Birdy asks the child to read and complete the end user license agreement (EULA).  Webkinz’s EULA is a typical legal masterpiece.  It contains text that is well beyond the reading comprehension level of a 6-11 years old, and yet, without suggesting that the child ask for parental assistance, “Ms. Birdy” asks the child to read and agree to the terms contained within the EULA.  Included in the terms is a paragraph, which says that any feedback provided to Danz on the site will become the intellectual property of Danz. I understand why Danz has this clause in the EULA, but I don’t feel that it is appropriate to expect that a child can read or understand a legal document intended for adults. I take issue with any website that expects a minor-aged child to click through and agree to a legal agreement without parental involvement – especially one that claims ownership of any intellectual property that the child submits in the form of feedback for the site.

After the child clicks “I agree” to the EULA (which they couldn’t possibly understand), Ms. Birdy speaks, telling the child that if s/he is under 9 years old, her/his parents should help her/him with registration.  The site then asks the child to submit personal information into the website: first name, date of birth, country of residence, and state. Although, it is not considered personally identifiable, this information does not appear to be transmitted securely, which is concerning to anyone illegally watching a family’s internet activity or a child predator stalking kids at the local library.

The child is then asked to create a username and password and submit the secret code on the tag of their Webkinz animal.  This code allows the child to play in “Webkinz World” for one year from the “date of adoption,” with the option to renew after that year for a fee.  All of this, is, of course, explained in the EULA, which is too complex for a child to understand. 

While I am excited to see social media being used as an effective marketing tool, and I am pleased that DANZ complies with the Children’s Online Privacy Act (COPA), the Webkinz registration issues I mentioned highlight a larger issue of concern.  Companies are marketing to children, soliciting information from them on-line, and asking them to read legal agreements, which are beyond their level of comprehension.  It is difficult for parents to watch out for their kids in situations like this.  If a kid thinks it is okay to input their information onto, say, the Webkinz’s site without parental permission, what is to say that same child won’t think it is just as okay to give that information to a stranger via another website?  Nothing, unless their parents are involved.
 
One of the things that should be of growing concern to social media enthusiasts and child advocates alike is that there is currently no safe way to identify whether someone is a minor on-line.  Having a “second life” full of social media and networking on-line is becoming more and more common. In so many ways, anonymity is an accepted part of the Internet. This may hurt kids.  By this I mean, in real life, a child can’t go into a 7/11 to purchase porn, cigarettes, or booze, without showing appropriate age identification.  However, on-line, there is no such thing as an age identification. The Internet is largely anonymous.  As a result, there is no way to protect kids from seeing or interacting with inappropriate material, as there is in the non-anonymous “first life” – unless that material costs money and requires a credit card to purchase. A scary thought.