YouTube Kids and marketing to children: is it ethical?

YouTube Kids is a free Google app entirely designed for children, since both its contents and its structure – easy to navigate – are kids-friendly. On YouTube Kids, children can find age-appropriate videos, channels and playlists: the app features popular children’s programming, plus content from filmmakers, teachers, and creators all around the world. 

YouTube Kids is a children-oriented app: what is displayed is family-friendly, so parents should feel safe about what their kids are watching on it; moreover, they have the possibility to control what they are searching for and the amount of time they spend on YouTube Kids, in order to limit it. 

YouTube Kids

This initiative has really positive aspects, since it is a good way to entertain kids with shows that are appropriate for their age and sensibility, and – moreover – it is free. On the contrary, an ethical issue has risen about the ads: YouTube Kids displays advertisements that – as some US consumers group wrote to the Federal Trade Commission – blur the line between commercials and programming. As Consumer Affairs reported, the practices under fire are:

• Intermixing advertising and programming in ways that deceive young children, who, unlike adults, lack the cognitive ability to distinguish between the two;

• Featuring numerous “branded channels” for McDonald’s, Barbie, Fisher-Price, and other companies, which are little more than program-length commercials;

• Distributing so-called “user-generated” segments that feature toys, candy, and other products without disclosing the business relationships that many of the producers of these videos have with the manufacturers of the products, a likely violation of the FTC’s Endorsement Guidelines.

Below, we can watch a typical example of “unboxing” video, in which YouTube users film themselves while opening some boxes full of toys. In the video, McDonald’s, Barbie and Star Wars toys are promoted at the same time, even if it definitely does not look like a commercial. 

Sure, adults may recognize the commercial aim of the video, but for children is not that easy. They are not mature and critical enough to understand that the video is just trying to convey their preferences towards a specific brand. That is way some US consumers groups complained to the Federal Trade Commission, accusing YouTube Kids of misleading advertising, because ads are mixed with contents and normal programming. 

The regulations about TV commercials aimed at kids are really strict: in 1990, the Federal Communications Commission issued the Children’s Television Act, which encourages and enforces the presence of programs designed to serve the educational and informational needs of children, limits TV commercials dedicated to them (to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays), and prohibits program-length commercials, adverts not separated by the program. 

The last point is particularly crucial for the topic we are dealing with, since YouTube Kids commercials often look like programs, the lines between ads and programming are blurred, and that is the reason why customers are protesting. The Federal Communications Commission does not control digital media – that is why consumers demanded the Federal Trade Commission’s intervention, but consumer groups claim that digital media should respect the same norms of television when dealing with marketing to children. Essentially, YouTube Kids is like a TV channel: why shouldn’t it respect the same norms? The FTC complaint, first organized by Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Public Representation, has later been supported by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Children Now, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog, and Public Citizen.

Google – when the FTC complaint was filed – defended YouTube Kids, underlining that mature contents are filtered, that the app is totally kids-friendly, that parents have the possibility to monitor what their kids are watching and that, moreover, the presence of ads is vital to keep it free. 

YouTube Kids and children

What do you think about the case? Do you believe that kids should be protected by these kinds of ads, because of their vulnerability and their difficulty in recognizing hidden advertising messages? Or do you share Google’s position, thinking that the commercials displayed by YouTube Kids are not avoidable and that they do not manipulate children, since the contents are kids-friendly?

Carlotta Neuenschwander

McDonald's VS Italian pizza: an ethical issue

Happy Meal VS pizza: the new McDonald's spot challenges the traditional Italian pizza, with a subtle, insidious message: that McDonald's Happy Meal suits children's needs better than pizza.

As you can see in the spot, an Italian family is sitting in a pizzeria - of course, the place is presented as gloomy and unpleasant; the waiter arrives and asks the kid which kind of pizza he prefers. Determined, he replies: "Happy Meal!" and the spot closes with these words: "Your son has no doubts, Happy Meal", while the family eats happily in a full-of-light McDonald's shop. 
Then, the voice adds: "Always at 4€", leveraging its low price to attract also parents, and not just children. Pizza margherita's price, in fact, is often higher, especially in big cities.

This spot could be the perfect example of unethical food marketing to children, in which an unhealthy diet is presented as the best option for kids. 
Marketers' are really clever: also the appearence of the pizzeria is not casually chosen; they present a dingy, old place, not really attractive to kids. On the contrary, McDonald's shop looks bright and kids-friendly.  
McDonald's may object that Happy Meal has many possible combinations and not all of them are unhealthy. The choices are:

• One main dish, chosen among hamburger, McToast and McNuggets
• A side dish, chosen among French fries and carrots
• A soft drink (Coca Cola, Coca Cola Zero, Fanta, Sprite, Peach tea or Lemon tea, still or fizzy water, biological peach juice)
• A dessert (Parmesan cheese, biological yogurt or fruit)

Each combination has a very different calorie count: from 254 kcal (if I choose McNuggets, carrots, water and fruit) to 733 kcal (McToast, fried potatoes, a fizzy drink and Parmesan). But let's face the reality: which kid goes to McDonald's to eat carrots and biological peach juice? 
A pizza margherita grants a calorie count of 800 kcal ca., but its ingredients are far healthier than the "junky" version of the Happy Meal: it is composed of 70% of carbohidrates, 20% of proteins, 10% of fatty acids, vitamins A and C, iron and calcium. Moreover, kids usually do not eat the entire pizza, often they just eat half of it: so, the calorie intake is 400 kcal.
It is definitely healthier than a Happy Meal composed by a McToast, French fries, Coke and Parmesan cheese, so it may be considered as an act of a marketing irresponsibility to create a TV advertisement aimed at children encouraging them to choose Happy Meal instead of pizza. Let's keep in mind that McDonald's food has been proved unhealthy by many documentaries, like the famous Super Size Me, in which the independent filmmaker Mogan Spurlock - from February 2nd to March 1st, 2003 - only ate at McDonald's and brushed against death.

Pizza margherita is candidate to become UNESCO world heritage and a spot which questions its healthy nature is an outrage to this traditional Italian dish. 

Neapolitan people, particularly touched by McDonald's misleading commercial, reacted with this parodic video:

In this ironical video, they offer a Happy Meal to a child, who reacts asking "Daddy, what do I do with this sleaze? I want pizza!". Then the voice says: "Your son has no doubts: pizza a portafoglio. 1, 1.5€ maximum".

Some people may say that eating pizza every day is not good for children's health, too. I totally agree, but if I had to choose between offering pizza or a junky Happy Meal to a kid, as the child in the spot, I would have no doubts.


Carlotta Neuenschwander

For a Lush, ethical World

Virtuous cases of marketing ethics: that was the topic of my latest post, which was dedicated to a French brand – Michel et Augustin. Today, I am going to talk about another example of ethical firm, operating in the cosmetics industry: Lush.

Actually, Lush does not like to be defined as an “ethical firm”: companies respecting the environment, including its inhabitants – people and animals -  should be considered normal businesses, and not particularly virtuous ones.

This company is not massively advertised, but I am pretty sure that you will easily associate its name with the sweet and inviting scent that comes from its shops. 

The perfume is so strong because Lush chose not to package most of its products: the company's slogan is we love it Naked, and its claim is that it is more concentrated on what is inside the package than on the package itself. Moreover, since Lush has a rigorous Green Policy, it prefers avoiding packages in order not to pollute the environment. Lush’s products that cannot avoid being packaged are wrapped up in recycled – and recyclable – materials.  

Lush's naked products

Because of its “green philosophy”, the firm patronises suppliers respecting the environment and animals, and operating locally: «we work closely with our transportation providers to source low-impact and ethically responsible fuels for moving materials and finished products around the globe», the company states in its website. 

Fresh ingredients form the basis of Lush's production process: the company avoids synthetic alternatives and preservatives, preferring fresh fruits, flowers and vegetables bought in farmers’ markets and flower shops. This guarantees the naturalness of Lush’s products, coherently with its environment-friendly standards. Moreover, its products strictly avoid animal testing.

Lush's ethical principles

The company feels the importance of the truthfulness of its message: «in 2011, we started reporting our environmental performance on an annual basis to ensure that our policy delivers on what it promises», it claims. Lush wants to put in practice the beliefs it claims it has, and it seems to be good at doing that: that is why the founder – Mark Constantine - has been awarded with the Observer Ethical Award 2014 as Best in Business. 

The marketing message is honest, transparent – Lush's motto is we mean what we say, and the quality of its products is traced: moreover, its marketing strategy is unusual, since Lush chose not to advertise its brand – e.g. on magazines and TV. Lush is only promoted online – through its website and social networks – and in-store: according to it, a good, qualitative product is the best kind of advertising. 

An aspect of its ethical commitment is charitable giving: 100% of the purchase price of its lotion Charity Pot goes towards supporting humanitarian, environmental and animal rights causes locally and around the world. 

Lush's ethical commitment: the Charity Pot

I am glad to talk about these firms, which are ethical and successful at the same time: they do not need a lot of advertising to triumph, they do not manipulate potential customers with deceptive messages, they do not promote unhealthy attitudes to obtain profits and they do not puff up their products describing them as the “best” ones: quality and respect for the environment – and people in it – are their banner, and that’s the true spirit of ethical marketing and business ethics.  

Carlotta Neuenschwander

Michel et Augustin: a French case of ethical marketing

Good morning everybody,

today we are going to discuss about a virtuous case of ethical marketing in the field of food & beverages: Michel et Augustin.

Michel et Augustin

This is a French brand created in 2005 by Augustin Paluel-Marmont and Michel de Rovira, two brilliant ESCP-Europe alumni. Their brand started producing cookies (Petits sablés ronds et bons), followed by yogurts drinks (Vache à boire) and other products, such as mousses, juices, salty biscuits and so on.

The firm targets young people (between 15 and 35 years old), especially the members of the bobos – the new bourgeois and bohemian class, which represents a mix of the counter-cultural, artistic bohemian and the capitalist bourgeois, and which believes in the values of healthy food, natural products, respect for the environment and ethical standards. 

The firm’s mission is the following:

«The quality of our yogurts (big and small) and yogurts-in-a-bottle, our little round butter cookies, our cookie squares (actually, rectangles), our petits cookies from France and our cookie crackers is the absolute PRIORITY of the ENTIRE Banana Farm. Our production sites respect all applicable health and sanitation norms. And we even go beyond that, because they all meet HACCP standards, too. One site is already certified IFS (International Food Standard) and the others are in the process of certification. We choose simple, quality ingredients for our concoctions (fresh whole milk and crème fraîche, real butter, Guérande sea salt, fresh eggs, real fruit...).And quality ingredients are more expensive than not-so-quality ingredients (concentrated butter, powdered milk, dehydrated eggs…)! It takes good ingredients to make good, healthy products with real taste and little or no preservatives». 

Michel et Augustin: their products

Excellence, a good price/quality ratio – their prices are quite high, but not as high as other high-quality firms – and original packages (with childish, young design) are their philosophy, combined with guerrilla marketing – based on street marketing (events, story-telling, parades and masquerades), social media marketing and world of mouth. 

Michel et Augustin: street marketing

Their innovative communication style – young, funny, even childlike – conveys an idea of naturalness and health; moreover, the products’ origins are specified and traced, in order to inspire confidence and credibility.

To enhance the concept of high quality and selectiveness, the distribution is not massive: Michel et Augustin's products are distributed in food stores and coffee shops, and only later they started being distributed in larger distribution chains (Carrefour, Auchan ...). 

An important aspect is the dialogue with customers: every first Thursday of the month, customers are invited into the Bananaire 3.0 to taste products and give their opinion about them. This improves the company’s credibility and trustworthiness. 

I consider this company’s marketing ethical from a value-oriented perspective: the firm's products are natural, they are environment-friendly and their quality is demonstrated. Moreover, customers can give their opinions and advices: the firm respects the principles of honesty and transparency. 

The company has some values and they are strictly observed: they sell something good, qualitative, and they are open to critics, too. 

This is what ethical marketing should be: promoting as good products that are really good and qualitative, and not something potentially dangerous for your health. 

I thank my French friend Philippine Laroche for the inspiration.