Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that the new Scottish adverts about the first 3 years of your childs life are the most important so talk to them are a waste of money?

75 replies

sweetkitty · 06/11/2009 21:17

Apologies to non Scottish people but I think these adverts are being run by the Scottish Executive.

Basically if you are not aware they are freaky adverts with a young baby and a parent and music comes on and the baby starts dancing and so does the parent, along with the "first 3 years of your childs life are the most important so communicate with them"

There are also radio adverts talking about reading to your child and talking to them to help them improve their communication skills.

Oh and I was stopped in the street and asked if I thought talking to a child under 3 was a waste of time and did I read to my child?

Now I know they are trying but they are so condesending and my point is that if you HAVE to tell a parent to talk to their child should they be a parent in the first place. Surely all caring parents are doing this anyway and the ones who aren't are not going to be swayed by these adverts?

I just think they ar a pointless waste of money?

Just my musings?

OP posts:
WhereYouLeftIt · 07/11/2009 11:23

Not is Scotland any more so I haven't seen the adverts so can't comment on the content. But the idea that they're condescending sparked a thought in me.

Perhaps, we feel patronised when we're told something we know, something we take for granted. So I feel a bit patronised by the 'Fit 4 Life' ads (although not totally because although I know it I don't do it ). But I didn't feel patronised with ads for, say, SIDS because I didn't know that laying a baby on it's tummy increased the chance of death.

These ads could well be the same - those who take talking to a baby/toddler for granted feel patronised, and those who don't think 'really? Oh.' and hopefully do something about it.

At least the Scottish government is accepting there is a problem and trying to do something about it. Whether it works or not we won't know for a generation (far too long a time for career politicians to usually give a stuff about) so good on them for trying.

edam · 07/11/2009 14:00

pointy - darn.

Seriously, I guess if they reach people who don't read to their children, they are probably a good thing.

PacificGuywood · 07/11/2009 14:07

Agree with you, Beveridge.

Things are really bad in some families, so bad that thankfully it seems hard to believe for others who have maybe grown up in more fortunate circumstances themselves.

I cannot believe how anybody would not feel the need to coo sweet nothings to their newborn, or play with their feet at nappy changing time, or talk to them on ones lap. Equally, I found that giving a running commentary of what I was doing ("Right, mummy is now making a cup of tea, here is the cup, there is the tea bag, water on top, oh the water is really hot, etc etc, ad nauseam") was sometimes the only thing that would stop my babies from screaming when not held and listen with interest.

How does anybody bear to not speak to their infants??

BalloonSlayer · 07/11/2009 14:40

Haven't read all the posts but feel sad reading some of the first ones as all my DCs have had speech delay.

The eldest two are now fine and [brag alert] that old cliche: "top of the class."

The two year old is, like the others at that age, virtually wordless, communicating with grunts, squeaks and gestures.

I don't know what I do wrong with my children, but it must be something, although the speech therapists say that speech delay is in our case probably genetic.

But reading this thread has confirmed for me what I suspected - it seems most people assume I don't talk to my children.

If a child is slow at reading, do people also assume that his/her parents never read to him/her? Just wondered.

lal123 · 07/11/2009 14:51

For those of you who think that these ads are patronising and telling you things you already know - well you're not really the target audience are you? As a few folk have said there are a lot of families in Scotland (and elsewhere!) where talking to your children is not the norm, where parents lack the basic parenting skills to ensure their kids are brought up safely and responsibly.

Balloonslayer - I do not assume that because your child has speech delay you haven't spoken to them as young children. But surely you can't deny the importance of reading to/speaming to young children re their development?

stressedHEmum · 07/11/2009 16:19

Balloonslayer, I don't think that people would assume that just because your children have been slow to speak, you didn't chat to them as children. 3 out of my 5 didn't utter a word until well past 2 and only one of them was saying anything intelligible before that and I talked/read nonstop, a continual, boring account of everything that I was doing, seeing, hearing or whatever. in fact people used to tell me that I was "off your head" because of it. 2 is very young and there is plenty time for children to learn to talk.

The problem lies, not with kids who are a bit later with developing speech, but with families where conversing with kids is not the norm and, judgmental as it may seem to some, there are a lot of them in areas like this. Parents often lack the basic skills to be able to engage with their children in this way and, often, don't realise the importance of talking to/reading with children. Partly because their own parents didn't do it and partly because education is bad in places like this, lots of people just don't see it as a priority. When my DS1 was at school, one of his jobs was to help younger kids with their reading. He had a group of children whose parents had, for one reason or another, opted out of helping their children with reading. Most of these kids really struggled and it was because they didn't get the support at home; the problems with their reading impacted on the rest of their education and many of them have gone through the rest of their school careers struggling to keep up. The problem is so bad in our local secondary, now, that they have set up a sort of sub department aimed at teaching 1st and 2nd years basic literacy. There are also adult basic literacy classes available for any parents who want to help their children with reading.

In areas of long standing deprivation like this one, situations like that are more common than anyone likes to acknowledge. Many of my children's friends live in homes where there are no books at all, where parents don't help with school reading or else really struggle to do so, where the tv or games machine is on all the time and where conversation is minimal. Often the kids are seen as a kind of interruption or inconvenience. Swearing at your kids is a bit of a national pastime, here, as well. I think that if you don't actually live somewhere with these problems, then you can't really imagine that it happens, and that's why some people feel that these messages are patronising and pointless. Personally, I think that they are a bit of a waste of time because they will be ignored by their target audience, a bit like the healthy eating one.

To give you an idea of what the Scottish parliament is up against in that regard, I recently had a mum of one of my daughter's friends tell me that she didn't think that it could be good for them to eat oven chips every night, so from now on, she was going to buy wedges once a week. Another mum, sick of nuggets, burgers and meatballs every night, had bought some crispy pancakes as a change of scene. Tinned spaghetti counts as a vegetable and it's tantamount to child abuse to give children cabbage or brocolli. The reading/speaking thing is just the same. I'm not making a value judgement, just stating the facts of life in the kind of area at which these kind of public health messages are aimed.

Janos · 07/11/2009 16:49

You're right lindsaygii .That will teach me to be so pompous

Small point though the civil service and MSPs are referred to as the Scottish Govt.

Right, apologies now for pedantry. and off-topicness.

mamhaf · 07/11/2009 17:55

Haven't read all of this, and haven't seen the ad - but the ads will be aimed at people, likely to be in economically disadvantaged areas, who really don't talk to their children at all.

I once visited a Barnardos project in a deprived area where they were running a scheme to encourage parents and grandparents to talk to their babies and toddlers - because they were finding children were starting school at 3 and unable to speak.

The school couldn't begin to teach literacy because these children couldn't talk and had missed key ages where they should start to develop those skills.

Neither could many of the children use cutlery.

We then visited a project for unemployed teenagers - and guess what, they could barely speak either.

Many of the jobs (at that time at least) open to the local population were in call centres - needless to say the severe lack of verbal skills meant many were unemployable, many now third generation unemployed.

So, op, yabu - but it's a sad state of affairs that these ads/schemes are needed.

StewieGriffinsMom · 07/11/2009 19:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

lindsaygii · 07/11/2009 19:43

Beveridge The SE is ignoring the problem. They are spending money on doing something that everyone will see, so everyone will know they are doing something.

But what the families at the bottom actually need is jobs, drug education, more encouragement to keep kids (not just little ones, teens too) in school, better housing...

... basically a reason to live decently...

.. because a huge number of people in Scotland have been abandoned by the State and a couple of adverts on telly aren't going to turn around all those difficulties.

UniS · 07/11/2009 23:10

TV ads may be well done or poorly done, but at least they reach their target audience in a way leaflets and book packs don't. printed information / advice is fine given to literate parents but useless if the parents are functionally illiterate or just plain don;t read them. BUT even functionally illiterate parents who love their kids want the best for them , just its not always easy to know what the best is if you are surrounded by poor examples. Radio or TV ads that explain why it IS worth talking to babies can do a lot of good in a family where that idea has never been thought about before.
I lived in an area where a local campaign on this subject ran last year.

AitchTwoToTangOh · 07/11/2009 23:15

haven't read all the thread, sweetkitty, but i know of a programme running in scotland (now exported to the rest of the world) that found EXACTLY that, that parents simply weren't speaking to their children. quotes like 'why would i speak to him, they don't start speaking until they're about three etc?', where children are stuck in bouncy chairs in front of the telly. seriously, it's more common than you think, we have generations of crappy parenting to contend with and i for one am really, really glad that the SE are trying to draw attention to it.

think yourself lucky that the advert is preaching the obvious to you, but don't kid yourself that the problem doesn't exist.

TotalChaos · 07/11/2009 23:20

sounds a reasonable enough idea- but I hope it's coupled with resources to assist early detection and intervention of language/communication problems.

fanjo - my DS made a lot of progress between 4 and 4.5 - kids can develop a lot after 3.

AitchTwoToTangOh · 07/11/2009 23:22

edam, they're not reachign people who don't read to their children... they're reaching people who can't read. the scale of literacy problems in this country is enormous.

and to whichever naive person said that the ads will be costing a fortune etc, stop and think about the mahoosive upsurge in govt advertising at the moment. is it because the govt is desperate to tell us what to do or is it because no one else has any money to advertise and without the govt stepping in (at cut price rates) your screens run the risk of going blank for three minutes on the commercial channels.

Vale · 07/11/2009 23:43

Sorry. I disagree about the Scottish advert.

The first three years of a child's life are important for her selfesteem and we all know that not long ago people had a different ideas on how to raise your child to be independent.

It used to be really fashionable letting children cry on their coats to help them to become indipendent and instead now psychologist think we should be responsive to our baby's cry.

It may be obvious to you but in the past and still today in many parts of the world people don't know how is important to talk and read to their babies.

Finona · 08/11/2009 00:06

Unfortunately 'stating the bleeding obvious' seems to be necessary to a large proportion of the community....spend money on ads that might make an impact on the vast TV-watching public or spend money on mopping up the social issues created later in life by, for example children whose parents have stuck them in front of a TV for the first 3 years...

Scottish Government isn't MSPs, it's the government, formerly known as the executive.
Scottish executive is what is now called the government.
Civil service is the civil service.
Finally (trying to get as many points in as possible to all those raised earlier) trams fiasco is totally down to Edinburgh City Council...

AitchTwoToTangOh · 08/11/2009 00:18

are you wendy alexander?

pointydogg · 08/11/2009 09:08

goodness. I've been googling.

There used to be a scottish government website - all MSP related stuff- and a Scottish eEXecutive website which had much more useful info plus details of the lead civil servants.

And now there is only a scottish government website which isn't as good.

Why did the SNP make it all seem as one?

pointydogg · 08/11/2009 09:13

Finona, you are saying the government is now in fact the exec utive (top civil servants and departments were included in this) and the SE is now used to mean the MSPs? Is that what you are saying?

And the civil service top bods are now just known as the civil service?

How confiusing is that. I don't understand. And I used to know all about this for a job I once did.

lindsaygii · 08/11/2009 17:17

It's the SNP fiddling while Rome burns.

sweetkitty · 08/11/2009 18:05

I agree that the message needs to be out there but the adverts themselves are so cringeworthy.

When DD1 was born she had a 8 month and a 2 year old developmental check, DD3 gets nothing, if you have a problem you can contact your HV DD3 is 16 months and has seen the HV twice not including vaccinations when you are in and out.

Maybe bringing back these checks and within them reiterating how important talking and reading to your baby is?

OP posts:
borderslass · 08/11/2009 18:09

sweetkitty when my kids were little they saw the health visitor at least once a month thats shocking that parents are now left to get on with it.

fernie3 · 08/11/2009 19:02

I think these adverts seem like a good idea in general (cant comment on the actual ad as I havent seen it!).

Most people who feel these adverts dont apply to them will have been brought up in homes where they were talked to, read to etc and so that behaviour is the norm. Alot of people are not and so I would think these ads are aimed at breaking a cycle of behaviour. It is VERY difficult to just LEARN basic parenting if you havent experienced it for yourself and come from a neglectful or an abusive home. Even a little reminder like this may help a mum who is trying her best but with limited knowledge of normal family behaviour and at the very least encourage her to seek help or more information.

shonaspurtle · 08/11/2009 21:21

sweetkitty, HVs will be giving families where they think there might be a problem these checks still. The idea is to concentrate services on families who are considered to need the most support rather than seeing everyone (in Glasgow anyway).

I'm not going to give an opinion as to whether I think this is a good idea or not - I've no idea how robust their criteria are at pinpointing the families who need support - but in principle I do agree with concentrating services (and spending) where they are most needed.

AitchTwoToTangOh · 08/11/2009 21:50

i don't need to see an HV, someone who has had to drag themselves up and is now a parent with no idea that you need to speak to babies does need some help.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page