Marketing to kids. Thoughts?

[amazon]

Having skulked around the sidelines of Mumsnet for AGES I feel it's time to come out and SAY something. Hello.

I'm concerned by the PERSIL thing on the top of this FANTASTIC website. It's marketing thinly disguised as philanthropy. Presumably it's going to lead teachers into "suggesting" that we all buy Persil. Persil buy a few crayons and bits of paper, we all love them and think they're great, and meanwhile they can carry on polluting the environment/testing on animals etc. So we will end up with very artistic children without a world to live in.

Sorry to come in with such a heavy one on my first posting, but it's been bothering me.

Yes,I remember the BAT thing.

I would say that children have the right to be educated without branding, sponsorship etc muddying the waters and limiting their ability to think independently and also presenting as "facts" things which are actually political choices. They HAVE to be in school till 16, so they do not have a choice about how they are taught.

Come 18 they can choose, or not, to do a course sponsored by Glaxo or Wellcome or whoever.

There are huge other issues about sponsorship. I'm in the arts, and there are always huge ethical issues of sponsorship. Should an impoverished playwright accept an award from an oil company, for instance? I'd say no, but the arts would collapse without corporate funding. So I understand that in the adult world, some level of fraternising with the devil is inevitable, and everyone is free to set their own limits on what they consider comfortable, and to act against the system if they choose. We are clearly entering a transitional period where traditional methods of state funding are no longer adequate. One option - but not the only one - is to mix state and private funding. That's what the government is currently advocating. IT doesn't mean it's right or inevitable.

BUT I think that the arena of under 16s education - as it is mandatory and shapes future generations - should be LEGALLY protected from such dubious practices.

Sorry I sound like a tiresome old political bore
I do have another life but I am SOOO concerned about this I am prepared to take up metaphorical arms about it anyone want to join me?!

Amazon by name,.....

Yes,I remember the BAT thing.

I would say that children have the right to be educated without branding, sponsorship etc muddying the waters and limiting their ability to think independently and also presenting as "facts" things which are actually political choices. They HAVE to be in school till 16, so they do not have a choice about how they are taught.

Come 18 they can choose, or not, to do a course sponsored by Glaxo or Wellcome or whoever.

There are huge other issues about sponsorship. I'm in the arts, and there are always huge ethical issues of sponsorship. Should an impoverished playwright accept an award from an oil company, for instance? I'd say no, but the arts would collapse without corporate funding. So I understand that in the adult world, some level of fraternising with the devil is inevitable, and everyone is free to set their own limits on what they consider comfortable, and to act against the system if they choose. We are clearly entering a transitional period where traditional methods of state funding are no longer adequate. One option - but not the only one - is to mix state and private funding. That's what the government is currently advocating. IT doesn't mean it's right or inevitable.

BUT I think that the arena of under 16s education - as it is mandatory and shapes future generations - should be LEGALLY protected from such dubious practices.

Sorry I sound like a tiresome old political bore
I do have another life but I am SOOO concerned about this I am prepared to take up metaphorical arms about it anyone want to join me?!

Amazon by name,.....

sorry not only a political bore but a double posting of it.
will get the hang of this.

how would this work in practise?does sponsor mean there will be a logo in the classroom? if so our kids already carry many logos and brand names in schools despite school uniforms trying to make an even playing field - our kids still want the best trainers and sports gear.
and tbh if it meant that school would stop the constant pressure to give it money through school discos, sponsored walks, own clothes days etc - am soon expecting another letter telling me my children are going to be charged an enterence fee it wouldnt suprise me

anyway what i mean is
how is the corporate sponsership going to be focused?

and i think the schools have to be careful who they chose as a sponsor
will it be upto individual schools or local education authorities?
how much say would parents have?

I agree with you that corporate sponsorship for education is a much more sensitive issue for the under 16's and should be subject to restrictions. Not a popular view no doubt, but I don't necessarily see all large corporations as the devil.

I clearly have no scrupples. I will happily look at ads from (just about) anyone who wishes to pay mumsnet advertising money which will keep the site going .

jasper, sorry to hi-jack this thread, what was it you wanted to know about the sheep again??

Bells, I agree with you. Actually, I do hate Microsoft (triumph of mediocrity, anyone? .. yeah, yeah, I'm a Mac user Don't want to get in an argument.) , BUT think that their giving computers to schools is a good thing. Of course, I also support it for Apple. It's one of those things that will be necessary to learn and how many schools have the money for computers, let alone the money to teach teachers how to use them? (The teachers on here don't need it, obviously!) I worked for a program at school in which we supplied local schools with a T1 line, computers and then helped support the connection through technical knowledge and curriculum help (ie showing the teachers how to use the computers and what the internet had to offer). After looking it up, I found that Mosanto was one of the major partners. Do I like them? No. Do I care that they are funding a worthwhile project? Well, I do like that they funded this one. Still won't change my opinion on any GM issues. Anyway, so, yes for corporate sponsorship of computers. And for keeping the name out of it (the students, teachers and most of the staff have no idea who is funding them -- they exert no control over the project).. there's no advertising to the kids going on.

A big no to notebooks or whatever advertising McDonald's or Coke. Yes, perhaps to the British Vegetable Growers' Association (um, I made that up, but there must be something that is promoted in schools and is also a commercial product) sponsoring vegetable oriented things or.. well.. I'm not making my point so well, but wanted to give some good examples. I'm all for companies offering what they will give. The idea is that schools don't have to accept it. It's up to the school to keep it out and the general public to know how important it is to fund schools properly. So, no, I don't think "there should be a law". I think that's an overused and usually counterproductive way of doing things.

I know what you mean JJ about legislation not being the best way. It feel very top down, and very bureaucratic.
But you know what it's like for schools - the pressure on them from central government, parents, the LEAs, the added pressure to become beacon this, trophy that, brownnose that etc etc. I think ANY state school would have to end up succombing to the pressure to accept such sponsorship unless they were protected by law. Even against the teachers' better judgment.