Disney Launches Cable Channel, Web Site Aimed At Young Boys

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Disney Launches Cable Channel, Web Site Aimed At Young Boys

Postby MinM » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:28 am

Image
The Walt Disney Company, having won a dominant position in the entertainment industry's quest to attract young girls, is making an all-or-nothing push into the boy business.

On Friday the entertainment giant is introducing Disney XD, a brand aimed at boys ages 6 to 14, a group that market researchers say accounts for about $50 billion in spending worldwide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/1 ... 66913.html
Image
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/busin ... isney.html
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:33 am

Image
Disney's excellent adventure
Studio welcomes unlikely new tenant
By MARC GRASER

It makes sense for Hollywood's biggest kid to move to the Happiest Place on Earth.

Steven Spielberg makes the kinds of movies Disney loves to fill its slate with: high-profile tentpoles that can generate considerable coin companywide for years to come.

But last week, Disney didn't just make a deal with Spielberg. It brought on board his company DreamWorks -- which could create one of Hollywood's more awkward partnerships over the next five years.

The Mouse House is a different animal from studios.

Anyone following Disney recently has been hammered with one message: That's it's focused on the Disney brand.

That means keeping its studio pipeline filled with family fare that will not only generate millions in ticket sales but also move a lot of DVDs, videogames, merchandise, increase traffic to its websites, and boost attendance at its theme parks with a new attraction or two. At least that's been the hope since 2006, when the Mouse House underwent its big corporate reinvention.

At a lavish all-day showcase last year, studio chairman Dick Cook rolled out the company's 2009 slate, saying "We are going to concentrate on doing what we do best. And that is: Being Disney!"

Meanwhile, Disney CEO Robert Iger insists "demand for the Disney experience" remains strong and recently told Fortune, "I don't care if a Touchstone movie does $100 million on $30 million of cost, its success doesn't breed any other success in the company."

So imagine the surprise when Disney agreed to distribute 30 of DreamWorks' films through its Touchstone banner over the next five years. The first six start unspooling in 2010.

With a rigid corporate culture, Disney is notorious for opposing partnerships. It won't co-finance pics with other studios and recently parted ways with Walden Media and the "Chronicles of Narnia" franchise. The disappointing B.O. of the second installment and the expensive pricetag of the third were cited as reasons, but one of the main deal killers was that Disney couldn't fully own the pics and exploit them companywide -- especially at its theme parks -- without having to pony up a hefty check to Walden. Similarly, Disney only began fully integrating Pixar's properties into its parks after the studio bought the toon shop in 2006.

So why the sudden change of heart?

While Disney has been able to rebuild its family brand -- through the "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "National Treasure" franchises, as well as talent from its Disney Channel and, of course, the purchase of Pixar -- it's struggled with its more adult fare.

Disney has long used Touchstone to distrib pics for older audiences, but recent releases like Spike Lee's WWII drama "Miracle at St. Anna" and Kevin Costner's political comedy "Swing Vote," both co-financed through other sources, have struggled at the B.O.

It needs DreamWorks' more commercial pics to rebuild that banner and has provided the studio with a loan of around $100 million to help keep its doors open, as well as P&A support.

In development are six pics DreamWorks bought from Paramount after the distribution deal with that studio dissolved last year.

They include the drama "The Trial of the Chicago 7,"
Image
Secret Service actioner "Motorcade," the Steve Carell comedy "Dinner With Schmucks," comicbook adaptation "Atlantis Rising" and "The 39 Clues," based on a series of fantasy adventure books -- mostly pics that don't boast characters that can fill store shelves with toys. A flippant in-joke in town last week was the potential for "Chicago 7" to become the next great theme park ride...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... =2520&cs=1
Image
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Childhood media is the frontline of fascism.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:15 am

Age 6 is about when kids can finally distinguish between reality and fantasy. So those targeted ages of 6 to 14 are prime for turning boys into little fascists who can later be military recruits for the Global Dominance Group.

We need filters to protect our kids from the pornography of Disney-Spielberg naked fascism.
Anybody who is actually interested in studying psyops should use those two US government psyops pros as their guide.

Here's Professor Curtis White's scathing analysis of Spielberg's pro-war propaganda called 'Saving Private Ryan' and concern about how young boys see this dreck-

http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/article/show/7

Saving Private Ryan: Don’t try to do no thinkin’!
Curtis White


In the last year we have had multiple opportunities to see Steven Spielberg’s much lauded movie Saving Private Ryan, a movie which returns us to a certain narrative ground—the war saga set in the battlefields of Europe during WWII—for what seems like the first time since Burt Lancaster and company put all of those hoary conventions emphatically to rest in the surreal Castle Keep.

I have discussed the movie with several distinct groups of friends as, it seems, many viewers of the film have, both in the privacy of our homes and on the messy public airwaves of “talk radio.” I have been surprised that my friends—intelligent, sophisticated people on the whole—had no idea what I was talking about when I elaborated my understanding of the film’s “lesson.” At one level, Private Ryan is about a command not to kill a German prisoner who then goes on to kill several members of an American platoon. Thus the movie’s frightening lesson (one that I’ve come to think of as archetypically North American) is: Always choose death, for if you do not, death will come anyway, later, multiplied.

When I called my friends’ attention to the fact that Spielberg had chosen to have the initial decision not to kill made by a multi-lingual intellectual (and coward!), their response was usually along the lines of “what’s Spielberg got to do with the fact that he was a coward”; “I didn’t like that guy”; “he was a coward.” What I finally had to conclude was that while I was treating the character of the intellectual Upham as a part of Spielberg’s artifice, as an important element in an artistic structure, which structure once in place could be asked to reveal its meaning (and perhaps Spielberg’s ideological baggage), my friends saw these characters as . . . real people. They understood them in the same way that they understood the cashiers who sold them their tickets and popcorn out front.

In short, my ominous conclusion was that they didn’t know how to read the film. That is to say, they didn’t know how to read (understood as the ability to abstract the integuments of structure from a piece of narrative art in order to begin to talk about how the thing means (i.e. “creates a moral world”)).

And if my intelligent, sophisticated, art-savvy friends didn’t know how to do this, what was going on with all of the blunt teenage receptors (mostly boys) that filled the theater on the first evening that I saw the movie? “BOOM!” Was that it? Or should I have worried that the message about the imperative to choose death was also at some sub-pineal level oozing in and around their minds?

And where—in God’s name!—does Spielberg fit in this? Is he a sort of modern-day Albert Speer? A brilliant technician in the service of sinister ideals?
Or is he just mouthing a bunch of dumb platitudes and aping conventional gestures with no more awareness of the meanings his story creates than his bluntly-receptored audience?

All of which is to say that our simple movie-going experience had become a crisis of both political and literary scope. What does it mean when the most sinister ideological notions pass virtually without comment in mass culture narratives because the audience is unable to decipher what is in the film?


>snip<

must read more...
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:27 pm

Private Ryan is about a command not to kill a German prisoner who then goes on to kill several members of an American platoon. Thus the movie’s frightening lesson (one that I’ve come to think of as archetypically North American) is: Always choose death, for if you do not, death will come anyway, later, multiplied.


Precisely. Take no prisoners, because furriners are not to be trusted.

It's also very noticeable that the sneaky-bastard officer is the only German who is in any way personalised in the course of the entire film, so his sneakiness and treachery naturally come to characterise the Enemy as a whole. In that famous (and truly frightening) opening sequence about the Normandy landings, the Krauts in their pillboxes are only ever shown as faceless, voiceless, helmeted silhouettes, seen from behind. Ciphers, to be blown up or set fire to with as little compunction as the Bad Guys in Counterstrike or the zombies in Resident Evil.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Porn decoy on Super Bowl to hide Spielberg's version

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:43 pm

Spielberg executive produced a 1980 movie with porn in it called 'Used Cars,' so one of the porn scenes was just recreated in real life to give him cover as a Disney partner targeting kidz!

Image
Image

MinM wrote:Super Bowl TV coverage interrupted with 30 seconds of pornography

Sports fans in Arizona got a shock during the TV coverage of the Super Bowl when the broadcast was interrupted by a clip from a porn film.

The Arizona Cardinals had just scored a touchdown to go 23-20 ahead of the Pittsburg Steelers in the American Football game when the material was shown on channel KVOA.

The TV station, based in Tucson, was flooded with complaints from furious parents who were watching the game with their children.

The cable feed of the football game from Comcast was replaced with 30 seconds from an adult movie channel called 'Club Jenna'. It showed a woman unzipping a man's trousers and performing a sex act on him.


This is straight out of Steven CIA Spielberg's 1980 JFK cover-up movie called 'Used Cars.' EXACTLY. The movie even takes place in Arizona. A used car dealer hires TV hackers to break into a football game with female frontal nudity. (not mentioned in the wiki synopsis).
Later they hack into a President Carter speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Used_Cars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081698/trivia
At the football game when "Lenny & Squiggy" hack the satellite...
.....

...the spokesmodel has her dress pulled off to reveal her bare breasts followed by reaction shots of the television audience wondering what happened to the football game they were just watching.
Originally the men with her were supposed to wear 'penis glasses' but the studio nixed this.

More mirrors and haystacks are going around the needles.
[b]But taking decoy fiction and making it into a reality decoy is going to a new level.

Hmm. Timing.
Must be because CIA-Spielberg is targeting boys 6-14[/b] with a new channel/website along with CIA-Disney. [b]

So he can't have his pornography movie clips known about, nevermind his USG propaganda role.
How's he going to avoid having Bible-ists raising holy hell over his TITTIE SHOTS while he tries to recruit their kidz to bomb Afghans for Jesus?

So this Uber Bowl opportunity was taken to give CIA-Spielberg some cover with a real life version. Spielberg poisons the air at every move because of who he works for, the USG.
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Club...Jenna? Sounds familiar...

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:08 am

The porn that was used to interrupt the Arizona transmission of the Super Bowl was of "Club Jenna." Not just any old porn.

This is interesting because this serves as
another decoy for a "Jenna" info-liability of US spooks.

Image

Photos of Jenna Bush drunk and falling were published just a month before US weaponized anthrax was mailed to the National Enquirer taking the life of the first victim, photo-editor Bob Stevens.

Image

http://ascrivenerslament.blogspot.com/2 ... rmest.html
From the Enquirer's Archive:

* Apr 19, 2001 Prez's Daughter in Spring Break Booze Binge
* Apr 30, 2001 Jenna Bush Gets Booze Ticket
* May 31, 2001 Bush Daughters at it Again
* Jun 01, 2001 Jenna Bush Caught on Tape?
* Jun 08, 2001 Laura & George At War Over Daughters' Boozing
* Aug 14, 2001 It's Another Wild Party Week for Jenna
* Oct 02, 2001 Bush Daughters Get High -- Skydiving


So this "Jenna"-anthrax pattern amplified the very problematic 'inside job' element of the anthrax mailings which was covered-up and then clumsily 'closed' with yet another mysterious death of the accused, Bruce Ivins.

http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/anthr ... gets.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x3740790
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:18 am

In development are six pics DreamWorks bought from Paramount after the distribution deal with that studio dissolved last year.

They include the drama "The Trial of the Chicago 7,"
Image
Secret Service actioner "Motorcade," the Steve Carell comedy "Dinner With Schmucks," comicbook adaptation "Atlantis Rising" and "The 39 Clues," based on a series of fantasy adventure books -- mostly pics that don't boast characters that can fill store shelves with toys. A flippant in-joke in town last week was the potential for "Chicago 7" to become the next great theme park ride...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111800 ... =2520&cs=1
Image

Motorcade (2010)

Published November 14, 2008 in Movie News
By Ryan Parsons | Image property of respective holders, Variety


Motorcade sounds simple enough and right up Len Wiseman's alley. A DreamWorks thriller, the film could promise tons of action.
Image
Len Wiseman to Direct Motorcade

Considering that the thriller genre has been the highest scoring for DreamWorks, it is no surprise to see the studio cashing their bets here.

Originally scripted by Hans Bauer and Craig Mitchell -- rewritten by Billy Ray -- Motorcade is about terrorists attacking the president's motorcade as it traverses through Los Angeles. The idea is so simple that there is bound to be tons of Die Hard-like action.

While in reallife this type of event would be very, very unlikely, it could make for a terrific "blow shit up" flick.

Wiseman is known for the Underworld movies and last helmed Live Free or Die Hard.
http://www.canmag.com/nw/12797-len-wiseman-motorcade
Image
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:42 am

Image

Image

Image

(sorry, I have no idea if that - 2 first pics - mindfuck was a Disney movie or not. A heavy caliber mindfuck in any case. Totally Dealey Plaza all over again, just muddled, befuddled and fucked in the arse)
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:27 am

Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:05 pm

If I criticise any of the above word salad I'm somehow the bad guy troll, yet if I do a free-association google image search on the same topics and post the results with no meaningful analysis or context I'd magically transform into a valid poster.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:19 pm

Sci Fi Channel is changing its name ... to PsyFy
Image
errr ... SyFy :ufo:
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:57 am

Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Username » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:44 am

~
nytimes
(embedded links)

Disney Expert Uses Science to Draw Boy Viewers
By BROOKS BARNES
Published: April 13, 2009

LOS ANGELES — Kelly Peña, or “the kid whisperer,” as some Hollywood producers call her, was digging through a 12-year-old boy’s dresser drawer here on a recent afternoon. Her undercover mission: to unearth what makes him tick and use the findings to help the Walt Disney Company reassert itself as a cultural force among boys.

Image
Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Kelly Peña, a Walt Disney Company expert on youth trends.


Ms. Peña, a Disney researcher with a background in the casino industry, zeroed in on a ratty rock ’n’ roll T-shirt. Black Sabbath?

“Wearing it makes me feel like I’m going to an R-rated movie,” said Dean, a shy redhead whose parents asked that he be identified only by first name.

Jackpot.

Ms. Peña and her team of anthropologists have spent 18 months peering inside the heads of incommunicative boys in search of just that kind of psychological nugget. Disney is relying on her insights to create new entertainment for boys 6 to 14, a group that Disney used to own way back in the days of “Davy Crockett” but that has wandered in the age of more girl-friendly Disney fare like “Hannah Montana.”

Children can already see the results of Ms. Peña’s scrutiny on Disney XD, a new cable channel and Web site (disney.go.com/disneyxd). It’s no accident, for instance, that the central character on “Aaron Stone” is a mediocre basketball player. Ms. Peña, 45, told producers that boys identify with protagonists who try hard to grow. “Winning isn’t nearly as important to boys as Hollywood thinks,” she said.

Actors have been instructed to tote their skateboards around with the bottoms facing outward. (Boys in real life carry them that way to display the personalization, Ms. Peña found.) The games portion of the Disney XD Web site now features prominent trophy cases. (It’s less about the level reached in the game and more about sharing small achievements, research showed.)

Fearful of coming off as too manipulative, youth-centric media companies rarely discuss this kind of field research. Disney is so proud of its new “headquarters for boys,” however, that it has made an exception, offering a rare window onto the emotional hooks that are carefully embedded in children’s entertainment. The effort is as outsize as the potential payoff: boys 6 to 14 account for $50 billion in spending worldwide, according to market researchers.

Thus far, Disney’s initiative is limited to the XD channel. But Disney hopes that XD will produce a hit show that can follow the “High School Musical” model from cable to merchandise to live theater to feature film, and perhaps even to Disney World attraction.

With the exception of “Cars,” Disney — home to the “Princesses” merchandising line; the Jonas Brothers; and “Pixie Hollow,” a virtual world built around fairies — has been notably weak on hit entertainment franchises for boys. (“Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Toy Story” are in a type of hibernation, awaiting new big-screen installments.) Disney Channel’s audience is 40 percent male, but girls drive most of the related merchandising sales.

Rivals like Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network have made inroads with boys by serving up rough-edged animated series like “The Fairly Oddparents” and “Star Wars: The Clone Wars.” Nickelodeon, in particular, scoffs at Disney’s recent push.

“We wrote the book on all of this,” said Colleen Fahey Rush, executive vice president for research of MTV Networks, which includes Nickelodeon.

Even so, media companies over all have struggled to figure out the boys’ entertainment market. News Corporation infamously bet big on boys in the late 1990s with its Fox Kids Network and a digital offering, Boyz Channel. Both failed and drew criticism for segregating the sexes (there was also a Girlz Channel) and reinforcing stereotypes.

The guys are trickier to pin down for a host of reasons. They hop more quickly than their female counterparts from sporting activities to television to video games during leisure time. They can also be harder to understand: the cliché that girls are more willing to chitchat about their feelings is often true.

The people on Ms. Peña’s team have anthropology and psychology backgrounds, but she majored in journalism and never saw herself working with children. Indeed, her training in consumer research came from working for a hotel operator of riverboat casinos.

“Children seemed to open up to me,” said Ms. Peña, who does not have any of her own.

Sometimes the research is conducted in groups; sometimes it involves Ms. Peña’s going shopping with a teenage boy and his mother (and perhaps a videographer). The subjects, who are randomly selected by a market research company, are never told that Disney is the one studying them. The children are paid $75.

Walking through Dean’s house in this leafy Los Angeles suburb on the back side of the Hollywood Hills, Ms. Peña looked for unspoken clues about his likes and dislikes.

“What’s on the back of shelves that he hasn’t quite gotten rid of — that will be telling,” she said beforehand. “What’s on his walls? How does he interact with his siblings?”

One big takeaway from the two-hour visit: although Dean was trying to sound grown-up and nonchalant in his answers, he still had a lot of little kid in him. He had dinosaur sheets and stuffed animals at the bottom of his bed.

“I think he’s trying to push a lot of boundaries for the first time,” Ms. Peña said later.

This kind of intensive research has paid dividends for Disney before. Anne Sweeney, president of the Disney ABC Television Group, noted it in her approach to rebuilding Disney Channel a decade ago.

“You have to start with the kids themselves,” she said. “Ratings show what boys are watching today, but they don’t tell you what is missing in the marketplace.”

While Disney XD is aimed at boys and their fathers, it is also intended to include girls. “The days of the Honeycomb Hideout, where girls can’t come in, have long passed,” said Rich Ross, president of Disney Channels Worldwide.

In Ms. Peña’s research boys across markets and cultures described the television aimed at them as “purposeless fun” but expressed a strong desire for a new channel that was “fun with a purpose,” Mr. Ross said. Hollywood has been thinking of them too narrowly — offering all action or all animation — instead of a more nuanced combination, he added. So far results have been mixed.

Disney XD, which took over the struggling Toon Disney channel, has improved its predecessor’s prime-time audience by 27 percent among children 6 to 14, according to Nielsen Media Research. But the bulk of this increase has come from girls. Viewership among boys 6 to 14 is up about 10 percent.

“We’ve seen cultural resonance, and it doesn’t come overnight,” Mr. Ross said.

Which is one reason Ms. Peña is still out interviewing. At Dean’s house her team was quizzing him about what he meant when he used the word “crash.” Ben, a 12-year-old friend who had come over to hang out, responded, “After a long day of doing nothing, we do nothing.”

Growing self-conscious, Ben added, “Am I talking too much?”

Not even close.

End

Comments
~
Last edited by Username on Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Username
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:48 am

Disney, Casino Capitalism and the Exploitation of Young Boys: Beyond the Politics of Innocence
Wednesday 15 April 2009
by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


http://www.truthout.org/041509J


Image
"Disney is in the forefront of finding ways to capitalize on the $50 billion dollars spent worldwide by young boys between the ages of 6 and 14."

Casino capitalism may be getting a bad rap in the mainstream media, but the values that nourish it are alive and well in the world of Disney.[1] As reported recently in a front-page article in The New York Times, Disney is in the forefront of finding ways to capitalize on the $50 billion dollars spent worldwide by young boys between the ages of 6 and 14.[2] As part of such efforts, Disney has enlisted the help of educators, anthropologists and a former researcher with "a background in the casino industry" to not only study all aspects of the culture and intimate lives of young boys, but to do so in a way that allows Disney to produce "emotional hooks" that lure young boys into the wonderful world of corporate Disney in order to turn them into enthusiastic consumers.[3]

The potential for lucrative profits to be made off the spending habits and economic influence of kids has certainly not been lost on Disney and a number of other mega corporations, which under the deregulated, privatized, no-holds-barred world of the free market have set out to embed the dynamics of commerce, exchange value and commercial transactions into every aspect of personal and daily life. If Disney had its way, kids' culture would become not merely a new market for the accumulation of capital but a petri dish for producing new commodified subjects. As a group, young people are vulnerable to corporate giants such as Disney, who make every effort "to expand inwardly into the psyche and emotional life of the individual in order to utilize human potential" in the service of a market society.[4] Since children's identities have to be actively directed toward the role of consumers, knowledge, information, entertainment and cultural pedagogy become central in shaping and influencing every waking moment of children's daily lives. In this instance, Disney, with its legion of media holdings, armies of marketers and omnipresent advertisers, set out not to just exploit young boys and other youth for profit; they are actually constructing them as commodities and promoting the concept of childhood as a saleable commodity.

What is particularly disturbing in this scenario is that Disney and a growing number of marketers and advertisers now work with child psychologists and other experts who study young people in order to better understand children's culture so as to develop marketing methods that are more camouflaged, seductive and successful.[5] For example, Disney's recent attempts to "figure out the boys' entertainment market," includes the services of Kelly Pena, described as "the kid whisperer," who in an attempt to understand what makes young boys tick, uses her anthropological skills to convince young boys and their parents to allow her to look into the kids' closets, go shopping with young boys and pay them $75 to be interviewed. Ms. Pena, with no irony intended, prides herself on the fact that "Children ... open up to her."[6]

Disingenuously wrapping itself in the discourse of innocence and family-oriented amusement in order to camouflage the mechanisms and deployment of corporate power, Disney's use of its various entertainment platforms, which cuts across all forms of traditional and new media, is relentless in its search for younger customers and its bombarding of young people incessantly with the pedagogy of commerce.[7] Under the tutelage of Disney and other mega corporations, children have become a captive audience to traditional forms of media, such as television and print, and, even more so, to new media such as mobile phones, MP3 players, the Internet, computers, and other forms of electronic culture that now seem to provide the latest products at the speed of light. Kids can download enormous amounts of media in seconds and carry around such information, images and videos in a device the size of a thin cigarette lighter. Moreover, "[media] technologies themselves are morphing and merging, forming an ever-expanding presence throughout our daily environment."[8] Mobile phones alone have grown "to include video game platforms, e-mail devices, digital cameras, and Internet connections," making it easier for marketers and advertisers to reach young people.[9] Kids of all ages now find themselves in what the Berkeley Media Studies Group and the Center for Digital Democracy call "a new 'marketing ecosystem' that encompasses cell phones, mobile music devices, broadband video, instant messaging, video games, and virtual three-dimensional worlds," all of which provide the knowledge and information that young people use to navigate the consumer society.[10] Disney along with its researchers, marketing departments and purveyors of commerce largely control and services this massive virtual entertainment complex, spending vast amounts of time trying to understand the needs, desires, tastes, preferences, social relations and networks that define youth as a potential market. Disney's recent attempt to corner the young male market through the use of sophisticated research models, ethnographic tools and the expertise of academics to win over the hearts and minds of young people so as to develop strategies to deliver them to the market as both loyal consumers and commodities indicates the degree to which the language of the market has disengaged itself from either moral considerations or the social good. Disney claims this kind of intensive research pays off in lucrative dividends and reinforces the Disney motto that in order to be a successful company "You have to start with the kids themselves."[11]

Children are increasingly exposed to a marketing and advertising pedagogical machinery eager and ready to transform them into full-fledged members of the consumer society. And the amount of time they spend in this commercial world defined by Disney and a few other corporations is as breathtaking as it is disturbing. For instance, "It has been estimated that the typical child sees about 40,000 ads a year on TV alone,"[12] and that by the time they enter the fourth grade they have "memorized 300-400 brands."[13] In 2005, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that young people are "exposed to the equivalent of 8 hours a day of media content ... [and that] the typical 8-18 year-old lives in a home with an average of 3.6 CD or tape players, 3.5 TVs, 3.3 radios, 2.0VCRs/DVD players, 2.1 video game consoles and 1.5 computers." In the synoptic world of ads and marketing practices, the project of commercializing and commodifying children is ubiquitous and can be found wherever a previously noncommodified space existed. Hence, it comes as no surprise to find ads, logos, and other products of the marketing juggernaut pasted on school walls, public buildings, public transportation systems, textbooks, public washrooms and even on baseball diamonds.

Given its powerful role in monopolizing all modes of communication, especially those that are media driven, Disney exercises a highly disproportionate concentration of control over the means of producing, circulating and exchanging information, especially to kids. By spreading its ideology all over the globe through film, television, satellite broadcasting technologies, the Internet, posters, magazines, billboards, newspapers, videos, and other media forms and technologies, Disney has transformed culture into a pivotal educational force. Through this insidious form of public pedagogy, Disney not only commercializes and infantilizes most of what it touches, it also shuts down those public spaces where kids can learn noncommodified values. Pixie-dust magic may appeal to the world of fantasy, but it offers no language for defining vital social institutions as a public good, links all dreams to the logic of the market and harnesses the imagination to forces of unfettered consumerism. Whether talking about United States or other parts of the globe, it is fair to argue that for the first time in human history, centralized commercially-driven conglomerates hold sway over the stories and narratives that shape children's lives. Unfortunately, this rather sublime education often derived from unethical modes of research is absorbed by kids as entertainment and often escapes any critical or self-reflection.

The disconnect between market values and ethical considerations is on full display in Disney's almost boastful use of research to mine the inner lives and experiences of young children. That such an admission both receives front page coverage in The New York Times and is presented without critical commentary is a testament to how commercial values have numbed the public's ability to recognize the danger such values often present to children. Challenging the meaning, legacy and ideology of the Disney empire is part of a larger challenge to the emergence of free-market fundamentalism as an economic model and a form of public pedagogy and its implications for disavowing both public life and any democratic notion of young people. Getting beyond Disney means, in part, theorizing children as a social investment and democracy as a process and a promise rather than a fantasy world in which pixie dust and mass entertainment cover up the swindle of fulfillment and joy that Disney offers in its endless appeal to consumerism.

As citizenship becomes increasingly privatized and youth are increasingly educated to become consuming subjects rather than civic minded and critical citizens, it becomes all the more imperative for people everywhere to develop a critical language in which notions of the public good, public issues and public life become central to overcoming the privatizing and depoliticizing language of the market. Disney, like many corporations, trades in sound bytes and the result is that the choices, exclusions and values that inform its narratives about joy, pleasure, living and existing in a global world are often difficult to discern. Disney needs to be addressed within a widening circle of awareness, so we can place the history, meaning and influence of the Disney empire outside of enforced horizons and confinements that often shut down critique and critical engagement with Disney's commercial carpet bombing of children.

All of us who participate in the Disneyfication of culture need to excavate the silences, memories and exclusions that challenge the identities offered to young people by Disney under the name of the innocence, nationalism and entertainment. As one of the most influential corporations in the world, Disney does more than provide entertainment, it also shapes in very powerful ways how young people understand themselves, relate to others and experience the larger society. It is not difficult to recognize a certain tragedy in the fact that because of a lack of resources, kids disappear literally in foster care institutions, teachers are overwhelmed in overcrowded classrooms, state services drained of funds cannot provide basic food and shelter to a growing army of kids who now inhabit rapidly emerging tent cities. Yet, corporations such as Disney have ample funds to hire a battalion of highly educated and specialized experts to infiltrate the most intimate spaces of children and family life. All the better to colonize and commodify the netherworld of childhood, their fears, aspirations and their future. Disney's commodification of childhood is neither innocent nor simply entertaining and the values it produces, as it attempts to commandeer children's desires and hopes, may offer us one of the most important clues about the nature and destructive forces behind the current economic and financial crisis. But don't expect a Congressional hearing soon on this issue.

* * *
NOTES:

[1] Brooks Barnes, "Disney Expert Uses Science to Draw Boy Viewers," New York Times (April 14, 2009), P. A1.

[2] Ibid., Brooks Barnes, P. A1.

[3] Jonathan Rutherford, "Cultures of Capitalism," Soundings 38 (Spring 2008). Online: http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/sound ... apitalism1.

[4] A number of psychologists, especially Allen D. Kanner, have publicly criticized this practice by child psychologists. In fact, Kanner and some of his colleagues raised the issue in a letter to the American Psychological Association. See Miriam H. Zoll, "Psychologists Challenge Ethics of Marketing to Children," American News Service (April 5, 2000). Online: http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/kidsell.shtml. See also Allen D. Kanner, "The Corporatized Child," California Psychologist 39.1 (January/February 2006), pp. 1-2; and Allen D. Kanner, "Globalization and the Commercialization of Childhood," Tikkun 20:5 (September/October, 2005), pp. 49-51. Kanner's articles are online: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/articles/.

[5] Brooks Barnes, "Disney Expert Uses Science to Draw Boy Viewers," New York Times (April 14, 2009), P. A14.

[6] For a list of the Walt Disney Company's vast holdings, see Columbia Journalism Review "Who Owns What," (April 14, 2009). Online: http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=disney

[7] Victoria Rideout, Donald F. Roberts, and Ulla G. Foehr, Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds (Washington, D. C.: The Kaiser Family Foundation, March 2005), p. 4.

[8] Rideout, Roberts, and Foehr, Generation M, p. 4.

[9] Jeff Chester and Kathryn Montgomery, Interactive Food and Beverage Marketing: Targeting Children in the Digital Age (Berkeley: Media Studies Group; Washington, D.C.: Center for Digital Democracy, 2007), p. 13. Online: http://digitalads.org/documents/digiMarketingFull.pdf.

[10] Ibid., Brooks Barnes, Disney Expert Uses Science to Draw Boy Viewers," P. A14.

[11] Editorial, "The Role of Media in Childhood Obesity," Issue Brief (February 2004). Online: http://www.kaiserfamilyfoundation.org/e ... besity.pdf. See also Zoe Williams, "Commercialization of Childhood," Compass: Direction for the Democratic Left (December 1, 2006). Online: http://www.criancaeconsumo.org.br/downl ... ritain.pdf. Williams estimates that children in both the United States and the United Kingdom are "exposed to between 20,000 and 40,000 ads a year."

[12] Juliet B. Schor, Born to Buy (New York: Scribner, 2005), p. 25.

[13] Victoria Rideout, Donald F. Roberts, and Ulla G. Foehr, "Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds" (Washington, DC: The Kaiser Family Foundation, March 2005), pp. 6, 9.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:16 pm

orz wrote:If I criticise any of the above word salad I'm somehow the bad guy troll, yet if I do a free-association google image search on the same topics and post the results with no meaningful analysis or context I'd magically transform into a valid poster.


Ha! Yeah, it's a big problem with this place.

I think this thread MAY have made Hugh's head actually explode, which means, maybe if we're lucky, he's done.

Please, do NOT pick up the pieces of Hugh's head ...
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests