Scottish Parliament’s EOC concerned over ‘sexualised’ marketing aimed at children

Posted on December 15, 2008
Filed Under Children Parenting, Pornography, Scotland | Comments Off

It’s commonplace to hear that children “grow up faster” than in past generations and there is growing concern that children are being exposed to adult themes, and particularly sexuality before they are ready.

But is it true? Can T-shirts with adult themes, Playboy-branded pencil cases and the Bratz range – with their skimpy clothing and exaggerated lips – be harmful for growing minds?

Inappropriately sexualised clothing and goods aimed at children have been heavily criticised at a meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee.

Retailers were criticised for failing to appear and “absolving” themselves of responsibility by way of a written submission from the Scottish Retail Consortium.

MSPs on the committee heard calls for action to stem a perceived rise in the prevalence of advertising, toys, clothing and other items which are marketed in an overly “adult” way. Some which have caused concern (see panel) include an infamous pole-dancing kit which Tesco was forced to withdraw two years ago.

Products highlighted by witnesses also included the new phenomenon of high-heeled slippers for baby girls, “Bitch Magnet” T-shirts for boys and girls’ knickers with “Who needs money?” emblazoned on them.

Proposals included a demand that government agencies withdraw contracts from offending advertisers, and the suggestion that parents be educated as to what is appropriate – with one contributor, Tom Narducci of the NSPCC, arguing: “If children were asking their parents to buy cocaine, you wouldn’t, because you wouldn’t buy something you recognise is wrong or harmful.”

He added: “One question that should be aimed at parents is: When you buy something like high-heeled shoes for babies or a push-up bra and knickers for your eight-year-old, what message are you giving your daughter?’”

Asda, it should be added, has in the past rejected the claim that it sold a push up bra for nine-year-olds, although it had sold lace knickers which were subsequently withdrawn.

Agnes Nairn, Professor of Marketing at EM-Lyon Business School, said perceptions of what was too sexualised were subjective and usually judged by adults. However, she claimed it was possible that children’s naivety could endanger them. “By not understanding what they are doing, they may be opening themselves up to exploitation by paedophiles,” she argued.

Ed Mayo, chief executive of Consumer Focus, said children were affected by being exposed to a “spill over” from a sexualised adulthood, rather than a sexualised childhood, citing a survey which claimed that the number of women in advertisements who were partially dressed or undressed had doubled (to 50%) in two decades.

He said companies would argue that terms like “sex” and “sexy” were distinct to defend items such as the “So many boys, so little time” T-shirts for girls which one retailer was forced to withdraw. Mayo described marketers’ use of the term sexy’ as “grammatical cowardice”.

But while children might lap up such products, Mayo agreed that they could have an impact on their sense of self.

He quoted research sponsored by Dove which showed that adolescents in the UK find it harder than those in any other country to think of themselves as beautiful.

Not all agree with the level of concern expressed at last week’s committee hearing. Bratz dolls have been criticised by the American Psychological Association over their “sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fish-net stockings and feather boas.”

However, MGA Entertainment, which made them – up until a court dispute over ownership last week – has defended them on the basis that they are clearly cartoonish and not realistic and argues that the perception of “sexiness” is often due to adults bringing their own assumptions and knowledge to the range.

Playboy has also been a target of protests over the use of the same logo which attaches to pornography products on other lines of merchandise including pencil cases and single duvet sets.

Campaigners have argued that these clearly are aimed at young girls, but the company insists otherwise.

A written submission from Playboy included guidelines it gives to retailers on the placement of its products, requiring that they are not shelved next to children’s brands.

This cut no ice with Dr Nairn, who said: “I took a picture of Playboy stuff right next to Hello Kitty stuff on the same shelf.”

The SRC commented in writing that they did not believe that much of the committee’s focus was relevant to the retail sector, adding that members were unconvinced that adult or sexual imagery was being increasingly used in children’s products.

This was disputed by some MSPs, including Sandra White who described the SRC’s stance as “ridiculous”.

She said: “The consortium … says that the issue is up to parents – it absolves retailers. That is wrong. I am disappointed by the SRC’s attitude that the matter is nothing to do with it. Retailers stock the products.”

The SRC’s written response from director Fiona Moriarty said most large retailers were anxious to avoid offence and responded very quickly to complaints about particular products, often removing them from shelves. It pointed out that shop workers are often parents too, and can be the first to raise concerns.

However, Moriarty claimed toys are usually advertised to adults to buy for their children, adding: “The SRC believes that education is the key to preventing inappropriate imagery from selling well to children. Children themselves need to understand the marketing that some less responsible companies use and parents must not shy away from talking to their children about such products.

“Ultimately, parents have a key role in their children’s access to branding and they should ensure the standards they espouse as important are shared by their children.”

Mayo proposed the Scottish Government should withdraw contracts from creative and marketing agencies which have transgressed in terms of their other work by promoting sexual imagery to children, and websites aimed at children should be made subject to the same restrictions as advertising.

He called for more education, adding that Consumer Focus was working with the Government and public-sector bodies to come up with guidelines about where responsibility lies.

Labour MSP Johann Lamont called on the committee to take the issue further, saying: “I hope that when people reflect on what the committee has said, they will acknowledge that the issue is serious and should not be dismissed as marginal. Many families worry about it.”

Too much, too young? Some examples of goods containing sexualised’ imagery:

Asda was accused of selling lace lingerie aimed at nine-year-olds. The supermarket denied selling a push-up bra for pre-pubescent girls and said the knickers had been removed from sale.

Tesco removed pole dancing kits from sale after protests. The product had been listed in the toys section of its website – in error, according to the retailer.

Woolworths removed a “Lolita” bed range from its catalogues after complaints.

BHS withdrew underwear with a “Little Miss Naughty logo”.

Next faced criticism for selling T-shirts for girls under six bearing the slogan “So many boys, so little time”.

Playboy sells pencil cases and other stationery with its iconic Playboy bunny logo, but argues that it “has never marketed and will never knowingly market its licensed products to minors or allow licencees to do so”.

Source: Scottish Parliament Information Centre
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/otherfeatures/display.var.2473858.0.
Age_concern_over_sexualised_marketing_aimed_at_children.php

Comments

Comments are closed.