How Ronald Reagan paved the way for Star Wars selling everything to kids

February 12, 2016 1:09 PM

If asked to think of the lasting legacies of Ronald Reagan, you might conjure up the long shadow of US military intervention in Central America or the coordinated attack on organized labor and public-sector programs. Probably few of us would think about the spectacle of Shrek hawking Twinkies. But one lasting consequence of Reagan’s reign is felt by every parent in the country every day: As president, Reagan opened the floodgates to targeted junk food marketing to children and teens.

What Ronald Reagan has to do with Dora on your Popsicle package: the backstory behind Shrek hawking Twinkies (and everything else)

Politicians and the public worried about the effects of media on children long before television, but TV came under US congressional scrutiny in the early 1950s (Google books preview), specifically for the depiction of violence on TV and its relationship to juvenile delinquency.

Baby boomers came of age with televisions, changing their demographic from savers and future consumers to active spenders (of their parents' money), and with that, the television landscape changed. Some people were upset at the blurring of lines between the kids programs and commercials, like when Johnny Quest saved the day thanks to his P. F. Flyers action sneakers. But this was nothing, compared to the Hot Wheels cartoon series, under the primary sponsorship of Mattel Toys. Behold/beware: an episode from 1969 - Four Wheel Time Bomb.

In 1970, Action for Children's Television (ACT) petitioned the FCC to ban advertising from children's programming, but scaled back their requests in later years, with successes including vitamin-makers voluntarily withdrew their advertising and National Association of Broadcasters adopted a revised code limiting commercial time in children's programming. Their efforts are written up in Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television, & the First Amendment by Newton Minow and Craig LaMay (Google books preview).

After a few years of public hearings, the FCC issued a policy statement in 1974 that set forth guidelines, and the Commission asked industry to take self-regulatory steps to comply with these guidelines by January 1, 1976. But in 1979, the Commission's Children's Television Task Force concluded that, "although the industry generally had complied with the commercial time limits adopted in 1974, it had not complied with the programming guidelines" and "that market forces had failed to ensure that television programming was responsive to the needs and interests of children." But the Commission decided the Task Force had failed to address all possible programming, including that available on cable and noncommercial stations, and they concluded that "there is no national failure of access to children's programming."

Any hope of change ended in 1980, when President Carter signed the Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act of 1980 into law, and direction in the commission further changed under Reagan's new FTC Chair, James C. Miller III, who shared "the Reagan Philosophy" that markets generally knew best and people were better served by minimal government intrusion (Google books preview). The result is that FTC has asserted its unfairness authority infrequently, and has instead relied on the deception doctrine, even in situations where it did not appear to fit the facts of the case well. (PDF) You can see this in a document from the FTC itself, titled Advertising to Kids and the FTC: A Regulatory Retrospective That Advises the Present (PDF), where the successes are cases against misleading advertising of dancing dolls that don't really balance that well and helicopters that can't really hover in mid-air. And the FCC didn't fare any better.

When Reagan appointed Mark S. Fowler as commissioner of the FCC on May 18, 1981, children's television would change dramatically. Fowler championed market forces as the determinant of broadcasting content, and thus oversaw the abolition of every advertising regulation that had served as a guide for broadcasters. In Fowler's estimation, the question of whether children had the ability to discriminate between the ads and the entertainment was a moot point; the free market, and not organizations such as ACT would decide the matter.

Remember Hot Wheels? That was just the beginning of a bright and prosperous future in kids TV as extended commercials. The change was slow, but lead to The Pac-Man Show, He-Man and She-Ra, to name a few shows. Selling toys was great, but what about food, clothes, accessories and vacations? To get back to Dora, Shrek and Star Wars as shills for any product under the sun, see Kommercializing Kids: Advertising to Children since Deregulation (PDF) and Media Education Foundation's film Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood (1 hr 6 min)

But this super-saturation of commercials and advertising isn't everywhere, and there has been some push-back. An organic grocery chain pulled food packaging with cartoon characters after the founder/CEO's three-year-old daughter begged him for a specific cereal because of the character on the package. Back in 1980, Quebec imposed legislation that banned advertisements for toys and fast food aimed at children under 13 in print and electronic media, and decades later, a study found (PDF) this resulted in fewer kids in eating fast food and kids who weighed less than their national counterparts.

posted by filthy light thief (19 comments total)

This was all kicked off by some comment or reference to Star Wars merchandising "post regulation" or deregulation, but the only reference I can find on MetaFilter is an old comment on the The Star Wars Holiday special, in its entirety, complete with original commercials. Anyway, here we are, and for young'ns like me, this is what those "deregulation" of advertising references mean.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:18 PM on February 12, 2016

I'll be honest. I don't think there should be any advertising targeted at anyone under 18. It's a pain in the ass for parents and sets people up for a lifetime of consumption. I see no social value in it whatsoever. So no TV ads for toys, no marketing tie ins for movies rated less than R.... It's all a bunch if horse**** frankly.
posted by freecellwizard at 1:28 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm a bit worried about my son, as he watches Netflix and DVDs only. What is going to happen when he's exposed to mainstream commercial television? Hopefully his head won't explode.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:33 PM on February 12, 2016

They even make diapers with Sesame Street or Micky Mouse on them. I'd rather they were cheaper than have an asinine licensed character on them. Still, what with how I feel about Disney's copyright extensions, it's nice to check and find a brown Mickey.
posted by Catblack at 1:35 PM on February 12, 2016 [6 favorites]

Maybe he'll find it all so annoying that he turns it off or walks away. Our only over the air TV we watch is PBS and some nightly news, and the difference between PBS's programming, even the kids hours, and other channels is amazing. Our four year old asked us about some medicine that was being advertised during the news, which made my wife and I realize how great it is to have little few to no commercials in our lives.

They even make diapers with Sesame Street or Micky Mouse on them. I'd rather they were cheaper than have an asinine licensed character on them.

I agree, but after hearing about how young babies may be when they first recognize characters and brands, I realize it's only partially to sell specific diapers to parents, but also to start building brand recognition and loyalty in mini-consumers. (Luckily, the really cheap store-brand diapers generally have generic characters on the diapers, and they seem to work about as well as the name brands.)
posted by filthy light thief at 1:40 PM on February 12, 2016

And back to Star Wars: Here's Why "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" Is Already a Hit -- The movie does not come out until December 18 but that hardly matters. Because people flocked for a fabricated retail "event" called Force Friday, ahead of the actual release of the movie. Anything you could want comes in a Star Wars variant, down to soup cans and oranges.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:44 PM on February 12, 2016

Now I know (which is half the battle, I've been led to believe)!
posted by tyro urge at 1:47 PM on February 12, 2016

Impressive FPP, flt! Very well done.
posted by mosk at 2:04 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]

FLT! FLT! FLT!
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:18 PM on February 12, 2016

I will never understand how it's legal to advertise to kids. Kids don't know shit. They have no cynicism filter. Like, you've got an actual clown on TV selling the nastiest, most unhealthy food to children. How is that even legal? No wonder we fear clowns as adults.

I mean, as adults, we know that the voice on the TV doesn't have our best interests in mind. But kids don't know that. The TV talks in an adult voice, and adults always have your best interests in mind, right? It's just creepy, is what. If there was some marketing douchebag who wanted to hang out with your kid for a few hours and convince them to buy some nasty-ass unhealthy food, would you let them anywhere near your kid? Hell no! You might even call the police.

Perhaps we should.
posted by panama joe at 3:09 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean, as adults, we know that the voice on the TV doesn't have our best interests in mind. But kids don't know that.

And sometimes (WAY too often) they never learn that.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:28 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]

I remember being a little kid and having trouble figuring out which cartoon characters had actual shows and which ones were cereal commercial mascots. I knew the difference between commercials and regular cartoons, but if you asked me what show Toucan Sam or Tony the Tiger was on, I'm not sure I would have answered correctly. It didn't help that Fred Flintstone was in both categories.

My son wears shoes with a small but distinctive logo on them. Last week, I ordered a pair of new shoes from the same company, in the next size up. I forgot to toss the invoice, and was surprised two days later when my kid pointed at the brand logo on the slip and declared, "SHOE!" He's eighteen months old. It starts earlier than you think.
posted by Metroid Baby at 4:38 PM on February 12, 2016

Now I know (which is half the battle, I've been led to believe)!
Educational and Informative!
posted by sebastienbailard at 5:24 PM on February 12, 2016

Is there anything I loathe more than the Star Wars franchise? The laziest, most derivative rocket-ship shoot-em-up "science fiction" lapped up eagerly by millions. I saw the original in '77 and thought it was a passably ok action movie and then it metastasized into the supperating commercial cancer it is today. How fitting that Reagan had something to do with popularizing this trash.

George Lucas, the last good film you made was "Gimme Shelter".

And now, naturally, Disney is in on the floodgates of cash. It's just sad.
posted by telstar at 5:43 PM on February 12, 2016 [1 favorite]

Reagan didn't popularize it, he -as you said- opened the floodgates, gates that were still being built and reinforced. He said "fuck that, people should learn to paddle, swimming is good for you, won't someone thing of the river." And the river grew bigger and bolder, with nothing to slow it down.

He and his ilk favored businesses over the well-being of children (or didn't think it'd ruin the health and well-being of people to be subjected to this shit from the crib to the grave).
posted by filthy light thief at 7:09 PM on February 12, 2016

This is your breakfast: a bowl of COOKIES.

Why don't we call this product, To Hell With Everything
posted by petebest at 7:49 PM on February 12, 2016 [4 favorites]

I can speak from experience that when my Netflix and downloaded shows only kids see commercials, they get annoyed. The first time it happened, they got angry and started asking where the show went.
posted by sleeping bear at 11:47 PM on February 12, 2016

My son started saying "skip ad, skip ad" after watching some YouTube videos with us and we said that to the pre-loading ads. He was annoyed when he couldn't skip ads on live TV. I'm not sorry the internet has "ruined" conventional TV for him.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:17 PM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]

It's interesting to see how much variation there is between peoples' kids, and even with the same kids, between how they respond to different things. Someone mentioned children having no cynicism filter, and I've seen that be true (sons totally taken in by ad copy) and false (sons making fun of Happy Meal commercials, about how the little kids are having so much fun with their happy meal toys while in real life they're fun for 1 to 2 seconds). Likewise, about skipping commercials (sons will totally watch commercials and sing along with jingles, yet sons will immediately hit the "Skip Ad" button when we watch YouTube stuff on the TV, and will be like "Dad, come on, skip the ad!" if I start up a video and get distracted and forget to hit "Skip Ad")
posted by Bugbread at 3:36 PM on February 14, 2016 [1 favorite]