
Toy commercials are being replaced by product placement and YouTube influencers - laurex
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/how-toys-are-marketed-kids-without-cable-tv/605920/
======
nkrisc
My kid is only two, so I'm not quite there yet, but most of this children's
advertising makes my skin crawl. I'm glad to see that I was right about Paw
Patrol, it's clearly modeled to be source for many lines of toys (wide cast of
characters, each with their own theme and accompanying accessories that can be
infinitely re purposed in different toy sets). Slap on "super hero" mode and
you've added a whole other dimension to the matrix of possible toys.

The unboxing videos in particular I think are just completely terrible. It's
naked consumerism-by-proxy without even the pretext of entertainment. The
consumption _is_ the entertainment. Consume, discard. Consume, discard. Next
toy.

Lastly, perhaps most awful of all, are the actual-in-the-plastic-flesh "loot
crate" type toys that I see at target. They're literally opaque, mystery
containers that let you know all the different things you _could_ get from it.
This isn't an entirely new concept, but when they're actually called some
variation of "loot crate" or "unboxing," it makes me sick. It's sick
consumerism at its worst. A big middle finger to whoever decides to actually
market these to children. It's disgusting and I hate all of it.

Don't get me started on Christmas and gifts and presents for kids. By age 7 it
already made me feel uneasy.

~~~
dwild
> My kid is only two, so I'm not quite there yet, but most of this children's
> advertising makes my skin crawl. I'm glad to see that I was right about Paw
> Patrol, it's clearly modeled to be source for many lines of toys (wide cast
> of characters, each with their own theme and accompanying accessories that
> can be infinitely re purposed in different toy sets). Slap on "super hero"
> mode and you've added a whole other dimension to the matrix of possible
> toys.

That was always the case though. Star Wars isn't worth billions because of the
movies, it's worth billions because of the branded products.

Never seen Transformers toys? GI Joe? TMNT? Childrens TV shows were always
about selling toys, that was always the bread and butter.

I agree with everything else though, theses unboxing videos and theses "loot
crate", they are quite new and play with the instant dopamine rush. They are
quite dangerous and seriously need to be stopped. It's crazy that the FTC put
so much effort with COPPA to stop "tracking kids" on Youtube, but did nothing
against theses kind of videos.

~~~
ahartmetz
It is maybe worth noting that TMNT started as an indie comic making fun of
superheroes. Think about it, superhero turtles livin in the sewers... No
particular point, I just think it's funny.

~~~
timewasted
The story that I always remember is that TMNT is based roughly on Daredevil

In Daredevil, Matt Murdoch pushes an old man out of the way of a truck that
contains chemicals that blind him but give him superhuman abilities. He is
then trained by his mentor Stick the fight against The Hand.

In TMNT, there is an incident that involves chemicals getting into a sewer
that transforms the turtles as well as the rat that is with them. That rat is
named Splinter, and he trains the turtles to fight against The Foot.

Also no particular point aside from my own amusement!

~~~
egypturnash
There’s a lot of comics nerdery scattered throughout the early issues. Up to
and including an issue that is basically about Jack Kirby and how Stan Lee
screwed him over.

------
gnicholas
When my child (5) was learning about commercials, I explained that they are a
company's way of trying to convince you to buy something. A lot of times they
are misleading or don't tell the whole story, so you shouldn't believe what
you see in an advertisement.

We have yet to have been hit by a "daddy buy me X" plea based on TV ads. We
did get them based on simply seeing things on a shelf in a store, so it's not
that the child is immune to this sort of desire.

~~~
cylentwolf
We have a list that our daughter asks us to put toys she wants on. Then we
wait. After a bit we go over the list with her and see if there is still the
desire. It has been edifying that most of the time the desire is gone and we
remove the item from the list.

~~~
gnicholas
I have wanted to do something similar to efficiently dispose of my child's
toys. Step 1: I put a red sticker on any toy I don't think has been played
with in a while. Step 2: three weeks later, if the sticker is still there then
I take the toy and put it in a holding pen. Step 3: if the child has not
noticed it was missing three weeks later, the toy can be recycled/donated.

We haven't done this yet, but it's on our list of things to try.

~~~
asiachick
Have you tried this with your own stuff? Books on your bookshelves you haven't
opened in 10-15-20-30 years?

~~~
gnicholas
I do get rid of my own things from time to time, but I also get new things
much less frequently than she does.

------
wmeredith
> Children’s shows have long featured cute characters who are easily
> repurposed as stuffed animals or figurines, Golin noted, but in the past few
> decades, they’ve become especially common (think Peppa Pig and Dora the
> Explorer)—largely because merchandising opportunities are now baked into the
> concepts from the start, rather than developed after the fact.

The author of this article doesn't know much about the subject. I stopped
reading at that paragraph. This shit has been going on since the 80's at
least. He's off on the history of shows being made specifically to sell toys
by 100%. He-Man is the first one of these I'm aware of.

~~~
wffurr
"long featured" "past few decades" I don't know what you think you just read,
but it certainly included He-Man.

~~~
prostheticvamp
The author of the article makes this out to be something new, while also
correctly stating this is decades old. I don’t blame OP for running with the
article’s intended subtext.

------
r00fus
I've got two kids still in the "target range" for all these attacks.

We combat with several approaches. 1) we watch what they watch and have them
tell us if their preferences change so we know. 2) _No_ YouTube, even YTkids -
except on AppleTV - and we can monitor - and that's infrequent. 3) we keep
them really busy on other stuff (pet, homework, family projects, outings,
afterschool activities, even select videogames)

This is not ideal or possible for everyone, but this has resulted, I think, in
a good outcome so far.

------
wnevets
The TMNT, He-man, etc shows were adverts to sell the toys. Is that really
better than youtubers showing a product?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The cartoon was entertainment in it's own right? It may have been a facade,
but the veneer was pretty thick.

I enjoyed many cartoons as a child and never got any of the toys. The only
ones I remember wanting were the transformers, because my friend had them and
so there was social pressure.

Arguably the whole of HN (the argument is far from watertight IMO ;o)) is here
to promote YCombinator and their associates; but it's still valuable to me
beyond that. I mean that's how it works, provide something of benefit and
surreptitiously embroigle your insidious messages in to that of how someone is
inferior without your product.

~~~
wnevets
>The cartoon was entertainment in it's own right?

If you ask my parents I'm sure they would disagree and just say it was a way
to sell toys to kids

~~~
krapp
Being entertaining was _how_ they sold toys to kids. The cartoons were selling
the mythology behind the toys and showing kids what the gimmicks and features
were, and how to play with them.

But yes a lot of old 80's cartoons literally only existed to push a toy line.

------
zweep
What's really sad is that now even children's BOOKS are now mainly a
promotional channel for TV shows and toys. Book characters like Pete the Cat
or whatever exist mainly to prime children to desire the Pete the Cat toys.

------
b0rsuk
Now I'm going to annoy my friends by telling them Star Wars is just an
advertisment built around products, like Peppa.

~~~
dntbnmpls
If that doesn't work, try telling them that star wars is just Dune dumbed down
to a level that children can understand and enjoy. That'll get them riled up.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J4LYVs5Gg4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J4LYVs5Gg4)

~~~
b0rsuk
More SF fans around here know Peppa than Dune. Star Wars, Battlestar
Galactica, Honor Harrington, Star Trek come before Dune.

------
gwbas1c
My daughters love Paw Patrol, the shows, the books, and the toys. It's fun,
and we're happy to indulge them.

We don't subscribe to cable, so we're happy to buy the seasons outright and
commercial-free.

She asked for the Paw Patrol Mighty Tower for Christmas. She already had last
year's lookout, but whatever. It's not like we bought her a lot of toys.

But, what was a little creepy was when we realized that every kid at the same
daycare asked for and got the same Mighty Tower. We know they sometimes watch
freebie videos at lunch time, so maybe those videos have commercials?

~~~
krustyburger
As a young child, I can remember coordinating Christmas present requests with
my peers. This was before the era of internet video.

It may just be that the kids are convincing each other of the ideal
request(s).

------
ineedasername
My daughter developed a rapid and acute love for Ryan's Toy Review (which
started as an actual demonstration of toys, but very quickly converted to a
heavy and subversive push to sell their own product line). It's been a slow
process of steering her away from that content without being too overbearing
and triggering a backlash of tears and acrimony, since she's too young to
understand the reasoning if we just cut it off and say "no, it's not good for
you"

~~~
EvanKRob
His channel is awful. The parents alone are cringe worthy. Our boys don’t get
to watch him anymore.

~~~
ineedasername
Oh yes, the parents.... But I could get over them if every vide wasn't simply
an extended infomercial.

------
ryoshu
Hello 1980s. Good to see you again. This was my childhood. I still love my
original Transformers toys.

~~~
mikehotel
I remember them, where critical parts were made out of metal and the toy
actually had some heft and durability to them. Now toys you can fix are
considered hobby grade.

~~~
bcrosby95
I still fix my kids' toys. Hot glue guns tend to be great for this.

------
neogodless
Fortunately they never did this to us when we were kids.

(Goes back to assembling my Optimus Prime LEGO set and finding a better combat
vehicle for G.I. Joe to ride around in.) Oh, looks like @dwild already
mentioned this!

------
venuur
While it’s pretty clear that shows like Paw Patrol, Super Wings, and others
are built around toys. The article never made it clear why this was bad. The
shows still have to be interesting and entertaining to be watched by kids. I
personally like Paw Patrol and others for the little lessons learned along the
way. This is coming from a parent of a 2.5 year old.

------
mlang23
This wouldn't be an issue if parents wouldn't use YouTube as a kid-pacifier.
What about you spend time with your kid, talk with it, play with it, say,
until it has a two-digit age? You dont have the time for this you say? Well,
maybe you shouldn't have a kid then.

~~~
RHSeeger
> You dont have the time for this you say? Well, maybe you shouldn't have a
> kid then.

Maybe. Or maybe there's been children playing without their parents for
periods of time since forever, and it's unrealistic to believe that every
second of play time should be supervised.

------
felipeerias
Most people don’t seem to have a problem putting their little kids in front of
YouTube, whereas many technologists absolutely reject that idea. Kind of makes
you wonder why.

Is it because we have a better understanding of how this particular “sausage”
gets made?

And if that’s the case, shouldn’t we say something?

------
ruslan
It's not only about kids. I usually watch videos regarding CNC stuff on
youtube as I'm involved in CNC machining and I often find myself impulsively
buying nifty things featured in those videos, although I understand they won't
be of much use to me.

------
EvanKRob
Don’t give your kid unfettered access to YT. A video here and there is fine
but the stuff that comes up even on YT kids if you just let them click around
is toxic and creepy.

------
homonculus1
Why did the timestamps on this article and all of its comments change?

~~~
ColinWright
Unofficial reply ...

Sometimes the mods decide that an article or submission was missed by the HN
crowd and deserves a second chance. To do that they will sometimes _de facto_
resubmit the item, which involves some minor tinkering with the data fields
underneath.

That may have happened here.

~~~
shadowgovt
If that's the case, it's weird the mods decided the system needed a nudge for
this story. This is very much "The Atlantic Discovers Why He-Man Exists, Only
Now YouTube."

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
Also a clickbait title: "... something nefarious" instead of mentioning what
that something might be.

------
aaron695
The last line hints at the big difference.

Toys, meh.

Making kids fat for life is also big business.

Gambling and the other drugs on top of sugar aren't great either.

I'm not sure why people worry about toys so much.

------
jsf01
Title should be “Toy commercials are being replaced by product placement and
YouTube influencers”. Can’t stand clickbait titles and articles like this that
keep stringing you along, expecting to get your answer, paragraph after
paragraph, only to save the disappointing answer for the last little bit.

~~~
dang
Good suggestion! Adopted above.

The best way to complain about a title on HN is to suggest a better one. You
did! No one has any idea how rare this is.

------
treebornfrog
For a moment there I read "Mike Morris, Founder of 3 Daughters".

------
scarejunba
This is the future of advertising, imho. If we can target native advertising
then people won't be able to tell the difference between content and ads.
Consequently, they won't be able to block them without blocking the content.

Imagine an NYT text that's sort of personalized to you. Very cool concept.

~~~
draugadrotten
Is it really the _future_? The very term soap opera was coined because soap
advertising was done as sponsoring entire shows. It's 1950 advertising.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera)

~~~
reaperducer
People forget that most shows on radio or television were about the sponsor,
and the content was secondary. What we're used to from the 70's through the
90's was a change toward more of a separation. We're now seeing the shift
back.

In old radio serials, sometimes the actors would break character right in the
middle of a scene and do a commercial.

TV news anchors actually wore sponsor patches on their suits, and the sponsor
logos were on the set, in a very NASCAR fashion. If you're ever in Baton
Rouge, the state museum there has an old preserved TV news set and you can see
the sponsor logos on everything.

~~~
crooked-v
> In old radio serials, sometimes the actors would break character right in
> the middle of a scene and do a commercial.

Jimmy Kimmel does this occasionally, with a full-on commercial as a skit in
the middle of the show (clearly marked as an ad for broadcast purposes). The
humor value generally comes from his sidekick Guillermo always being featured
and always being pretty bad at it.

