No-one ever said parenting would be easy but the past fortnight - perhaps more than any other before – has brought to the surface just how hard parenting in the multimedia age has become.
Quite simply, modern communication technology makes our children vulnerable and it does so on so many levels.
Take the Virginia Tech massacre, a tragedy of unquestionable proportions.
The ramifications of this are spreading way beyond the US campus where Cho Seung Hui killed 32 faculty members and students and himself.
The language used in reporting of this – America’s worst school massacre was a phrase used repeatedly – undoubtedly made children feel especially vulnerable.
But what happened next goes to the heart of why new media will create new challenges for parents.
First there is the impact of the citizen journalist on the coverage of the event. The digital native students of the university blogged, You Tubed, videoed and text messaged their way through the crisis. And the mainstream new organisations fell over each other to get their hands on the material.
At one level this is evidence of the advantages of citizen journalism but take a look at I Report on CNN and what you see is mobile phone footage collected by a student running into the line of fire.
Eagerness to engage in citizen journalism put students in the line of fire literally but rather than being disturbed by the outcome, networks rewarded the risk-taking by high rotation screening of the footage.
The risks go beyond those collecting the footage. With almost every citizen on every street corner now armed with video-capable mobile phones, the potential for disturbing footage to be collected and screened in a way that is liable to disturb children is greater than at any other time in the past.
It’s almost impossible to believe, for example, that children wouldn’t have been disturbed by the image of Cho Seung Hui aiming a gun at them on the front page of The Courier-Mail in the aftermath of the Virgina Tech massacre.
Now it seems a multi-media enabled maniac with a gun can use the media to spread a message of hate to the masses.
It can – and has – been argued that the footage screened and posted in the middle of the killing spree should be aired because it gives the public a vital insight into the mind of a killer.
Equally it can – and has – be argued that it merely provides a recipe for other deranged individuals to have their manifestos broadcast across the globe.
What is more difficult to understand is just how we might benefit from graphic self portraits taken by Cho Seung Hui aimed in our face from the front page of a daily newspaper.
More restraint is clearly called for.
The other tragic event – the suicide death in an apparent pact of teenagers Stephanie Gestier and Jodie Gater - also raises questions that must be faced by parents in the multimedia age.
We need to understand how our children are communicating with each other. We need to look for signs for an unhealthy addiction to communicating online. It won’t be easy and it’s not something that parents can be expected to tackle alone.
Indeed comments by Prime Minister John Howard - that parents and not regulators – must act to prevent a repeat tragedy are unhelpful at best.
"I think the greatest thing that has to be said about this is that parental responsibility in the end is the key to behaviour by children," Mr Howard told ABC Radio.
Parents have a role to play but blaming the parents in what is clearly a very complicated area is to dodge any responsibility which must be taken by government and content regulators.
Why aren’t sites that allow uncensored, defamatory and dangerous material being called into questions?
Why isn’t the government taking a lead?
Parenting has always been difficult but with our kids increasing using tools that hadn’t been dreamed of when most of us were growing up and in ways few of us truely understand we have a right to expect some support from governments.
Our kids deserve it.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Children have rights too
Will you all just leave our kids out of it?
UnionsWA is taking its fight against the government's WorkChoices legislation to the soccer pitch paying $8800 to sponsor a junior soccer club in Western Australia.
The union argues this an appropriate move because the Howard Government legislation will impact on parents' time with their kids.
And they are entitled to that opinion. They should also be entitled to sponsor junior sport. What they shouldn't be entitled to do is turn a club full of junior players - starting at just six - into mobile political billboards.
By putting their logos and the slogan "Your Rights at Work" on the jerseys of 16 soccer teams, Unions WA has politicised the junior members of Tuart Hill Soccer Club.
In a way you can't blame the club. Cash-strapped junior sports teams around the country have had to find innovative ways to make ends meet.
Many will argue that if big business can sponsor junior sport surely the unions should have the right too.
And they should. But there's a world of difference between paying for your logo on the boundary hoarding or buying a spot on the back of the club's newsletter and effectively buying a spot on the backs and fronts of children.
It's not as though a junior player can opt out an wear a different jersey. A uniform is a uniform. You wear the union colours or you sit on the sidelines.
But there's a bigger picture here - and that it just what is appropriate when it comes to the sponsorship of junior sport?
Many of the dollars flowing into the teams across the country come from the fast food industry. We want our children to play organised sport to help defeat the childhood obesity epidemic then when they get there we reward players with vouchers for burgers and fries.
Just as advertising of junk food in children's television needs strict regulation so too does its sponsorship of kids' sport.
Our kids deserve to be able to kick a football, swim a few laps or throw a netball without being targeted by marketing gurus.
Work choices are important. Play choices for our kids equally so.
UnionsWA is taking its fight against the government's WorkChoices legislation to the soccer pitch paying $8800 to sponsor a junior soccer club in Western Australia.
The union argues this an appropriate move because the Howard Government legislation will impact on parents' time with their kids.
And they are entitled to that opinion. They should also be entitled to sponsor junior sport. What they shouldn't be entitled to do is turn a club full of junior players - starting at just six - into mobile political billboards.
By putting their logos and the slogan "Your Rights at Work" on the jerseys of 16 soccer teams, Unions WA has politicised the junior members of Tuart Hill Soccer Club.
In a way you can't blame the club. Cash-strapped junior sports teams around the country have had to find innovative ways to make ends meet.
Many will argue that if big business can sponsor junior sport surely the unions should have the right too.
And they should. But there's a world of difference between paying for your logo on the boundary hoarding or buying a spot on the back of the club's newsletter and effectively buying a spot on the backs and fronts of children.
It's not as though a junior player can opt out an wear a different jersey. A uniform is a uniform. You wear the union colours or you sit on the sidelines.
But there's a bigger picture here - and that it just what is appropriate when it comes to the sponsorship of junior sport?
Many of the dollars flowing into the teams across the country come from the fast food industry. We want our children to play organised sport to help defeat the childhood obesity epidemic then when they get there we reward players with vouchers for burgers and fries.
Just as advertising of junk food in children's television needs strict regulation so too does its sponsorship of kids' sport.
Our kids deserve to be able to kick a football, swim a few laps or throw a netball without being targeted by marketing gurus.
Work choices are important. Play choices for our kids equally so.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Let's get to the bottom of the problem
Apparently the book Everyone's Got a Bottom is offensive, so offensive that Australia's largest chain of daycare providers ABC Learning Centres won't have it on their shelves.
After all the book does contain words such as vulva, penis, vagina and testicles.
Worse still it contains cartoon-like drawings of these "bits".
Privates are private and should not see the light of day in the day care setting, apparently. Or in an ABC spokesman's words "We respect the right of families to discuss private issues in their own way and in their own time".
That's a fine ideal that totally denies the real issue here.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was no such thing as child abuse?
Wouldn't be nice if Family Planning Queensland thought it wasn't necessary to write a book about child sexual abuse pitched at children aged three to eight?
Wouldn't it be nice if all children were given the tools they need to speak out about inappropriate sexual behaviour by their adults?
The problem is that child sexual abuse does exist and the people most likely to hurt children are not strangers but those nearest and dearest to them.
So leaving he job of talking about child sexual abuse to parents is - most unfortunately - a strategy destined to seriously let down the children most at need.
It may not be the core business of childcare centres to teach sex education to children but it's a job that needs to be done and if families can't or won't do it then those charged with the care of kids should take up the challenge.
The book is presented in a way that's non-threatening to children.
It is a story about Ben and his brother and sister learning and talking together about bodies meant to gently start a conversation with children about self protection.
It's simply putting the information out there in an age-appropriate way that gives kids the language needed to speak up should they be confronted with some inappropriate behaviour.
The book says "It might be a person that I know and like. It is still not OK for them to touch or ask to see my private parts or to show me theirs".
Everyone's got a bottom so why are some of us scared to talk about it?
The book is for sale for $15 via www.fpq.com.au
After all the book does contain words such as vulva, penis, vagina and testicles.
Worse still it contains cartoon-like drawings of these "bits".
Privates are private and should not see the light of day in the day care setting, apparently. Or in an ABC spokesman's words "We respect the right of families to discuss private issues in their own way and in their own time".
That's a fine ideal that totally denies the real issue here.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was no such thing as child abuse?
Wouldn't be nice if Family Planning Queensland thought it wasn't necessary to write a book about child sexual abuse pitched at children aged three to eight?
Wouldn't it be nice if all children were given the tools they need to speak out about inappropriate sexual behaviour by their adults?
The problem is that child sexual abuse does exist and the people most likely to hurt children are not strangers but those nearest and dearest to them.
So leaving he job of talking about child sexual abuse to parents is - most unfortunately - a strategy destined to seriously let down the children most at need.
It may not be the core business of childcare centres to teach sex education to children but it's a job that needs to be done and if families can't or won't do it then those charged with the care of kids should take up the challenge.
The book is presented in a way that's non-threatening to children.
It is a story about Ben and his brother and sister learning and talking together about bodies meant to gently start a conversation with children about self protection.
It's simply putting the information out there in an age-appropriate way that gives kids the language needed to speak up should they be confronted with some inappropriate behaviour.
The book says "It might be a person that I know and like. It is still not OK for them to touch or ask to see my private parts or to show me theirs".
Everyone's got a bottom so why are some of us scared to talk about it?
The book is for sale for $15 via www.fpq.com.au
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Little Brother is Watching You
What are the two most violent things screened on television?
Forget the late night episodes of CSI (insert any US city here). If you want to see something truly shocking, disturbing, violent or riddled with bad language then television news or live sport is as good a place as any to start.
Take the very unfortunate incident last week of Ukranian swimming coach Mikhaylo Zubkov in a violent poolside brawl in Melbourne at the World Swimming Championships.
Live on TV at 6.30 at night families tuning in to see the world's greatest swimmers in action - what you would have to consider a "safe"family viewing - were treated to extremely disturbing vision.
One of the most disturbing parts of the incident for television viewers was that it was live which means that no-one could know what would happen next yet it was being screened without protection into homes at a time which is in the G classification zone.
Of course the great out for broadcasters is that news and live sport are exempted from classification under the code provided "the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to:
2.4.1.1 the likely audience of the program; and
2.4.1.2 any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program
material."
You'd have to wonder exactly what care is taken in broadcasting unedited live television footage of a volatile situation. In reality exactly none. Which is the problem. The incident, in itself, did not end up being too bad but no-one could have known the result.
But the frightening thing is the trend. With the increasing number of surveillance cameras and the fact that we all now carry devices capable of capturing video and still images the possibility of disturbing footage being captured and broadcast is higher than ever before. Indeed the television stations are falling over each other to get their hands on our footage and the most "attractive" footage to broadcasters seems to be the most violent footage.
All of us with children should be very alarmed. The more of this kind of footage children see, the more likely it is that they will succumb to wicked world syndrome. If you see this happening all the time on television it's not a big leap to start believing that's all that's happening all the time outside the square box.
Our children deserve better. Horrible things do happen in the world every day and for their own protection our children do need know that horrible people capable of doing horrible things are out there.
They just don't need to be deluged with it and the danger is that that's what is going to happen unless we give real thought to what happens to all that footage being collected by all those cameras all over the place.
Forget the late night episodes of CSI (insert any US city here). If you want to see something truly shocking, disturbing, violent or riddled with bad language then television news or live sport is as good a place as any to start.
Take the very unfortunate incident last week of Ukranian swimming coach Mikhaylo Zubkov in a violent poolside brawl in Melbourne at the World Swimming Championships.
Live on TV at 6.30 at night families tuning in to see the world's greatest swimmers in action - what you would have to consider a "safe"family viewing - were treated to extremely disturbing vision.
One of the most disturbing parts of the incident for television viewers was that it was live which means that no-one could know what would happen next yet it was being screened without protection into homes at a time which is in the G classification zone.
Of course the great out for broadcasters is that news and live sport are exempted from classification under the code provided "the licensee exercises care in selecting material for broadcast having regard to:
2.4.1.1 the likely audience of the program; and
2.4.1.2 any identifiable public interest reason for presenting the program
material."
You'd have to wonder exactly what care is taken in broadcasting unedited live television footage of a volatile situation. In reality exactly none. Which is the problem. The incident, in itself, did not end up being too bad but no-one could have known the result.
But the frightening thing is the trend. With the increasing number of surveillance cameras and the fact that we all now carry devices capable of capturing video and still images the possibility of disturbing footage being captured and broadcast is higher than ever before. Indeed the television stations are falling over each other to get their hands on our footage and the most "attractive" footage to broadcasters seems to be the most violent footage.
All of us with children should be very alarmed. The more of this kind of footage children see, the more likely it is that they will succumb to wicked world syndrome. If you see this happening all the time on television it's not a big leap to start believing that's all that's happening all the time outside the square box.
Our children deserve better. Horrible things do happen in the world every day and for their own protection our children do need know that horrible people capable of doing horrible things are out there.
They just don't need to be deluged with it and the danger is that that's what is going to happen unless we give real thought to what happens to all that footage being collected by all those cameras all over the place.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Potato chips will hurt you
Noooooooo. The domestic cricket final is now behind us and that can mean only one thing - it's football season. That means hours and hours of grown men behaving badly invading our television screens - grown men spitting, swearing and generally acting in entirely unsportsman-like ways. Almost all of this will be played out in prime family viewing time because our broadcast code allows both news and live sport to be aired without classification.
But there's something even more sinister than Joey Johns calling touch judge Matt Cecchin "a f---ing c---" right in front of the television cameras and therefore right in front of our kids. Choosing the radio commentary will protect our kids from potty mouthed footballers but there's no escaping a far worse evil - potato chips.
Football mad youngsters are being lured into eating bags an bags of fat and salt not because they like the taste but because of the collector cards inside.
Just like the fast food chains that provide toys to accompany kids meals, the chip makers are preying on children enticing them to eat food that's not good for them in quantities that are not good for them to collect the token.
For many kids its the card or toy that's the main game but reaching that goal means eating food that would most assuredly not win the Heart Foundation's Tick of Approval.
Yes, parents have a role to play to control what their kids eat. But there seems to be a reluctance at the highest level to take any action to prevent manufacturers from directly marketing junk food to kids.
Health authorities have stopped cigarette advertising on television but children's television is packed solid with ads for food that we all know can have negative health impacts on kids.
Licenced premises can not advertise promotions to adults that might encourage binge drinking but there seems to be nothing wrong with using collector card to encourage children to binge eat potato chips.
So forget the bad language on the football. It's the hot pie and chip culture of football that's the risk. Sticks and stones may break your bones but potato chips will hurt you.
But there's something even more sinister than Joey Johns calling touch judge Matt Cecchin "a f---ing c---" right in front of the television cameras and therefore right in front of our kids. Choosing the radio commentary will protect our kids from potty mouthed footballers but there's no escaping a far worse evil - potato chips.
Football mad youngsters are being lured into eating bags an bags of fat and salt not because they like the taste but because of the collector cards inside.
Just like the fast food chains that provide toys to accompany kids meals, the chip makers are preying on children enticing them to eat food that's not good for them in quantities that are not good for them to collect the token.
For many kids its the card or toy that's the main game but reaching that goal means eating food that would most assuredly not win the Heart Foundation's Tick of Approval.
Yes, parents have a role to play to control what their kids eat. But there seems to be a reluctance at the highest level to take any action to prevent manufacturers from directly marketing junk food to kids.
Health authorities have stopped cigarette advertising on television but children's television is packed solid with ads for food that we all know can have negative health impacts on kids.
Licenced premises can not advertise promotions to adults that might encourage binge drinking but there seems to be nothing wrong with using collector card to encourage children to binge eat potato chips.
So forget the bad language on the football. It's the hot pie and chip culture of football that's the risk. Sticks and stones may break your bones but potato chips will hurt you.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Free David Hicks
Beware. If you listen to the latest Peter Combe offering you will find yourself humming Free David Hicks for the rest of the day.
This is two minutes and 19 seconds of seriously addictive kiddy pop - except of course it isn't.
The man who brought us Wash Your Face in Orange Juice, Toffee Apple and Spaghetti Bolognaise has turned his attention to something quite different - the plight of Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay.
It has to be said that he has given it the full Peter Combe's treatment complete, on YouTube, with a delightfully colourful animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGaryo3tm7Q).
Combe's puts a powerful argument but the the rights and wrongs of the David Hicks case aren't the issue here.
It's the children's music treatment of such a political issue that raises interest.
Combe's argues that it is not a song for children and that the style "just happened" when he set down to pen it. Perhaps that's because almost all of the 750,000 albums CDS and videos Combe has achieved have been children's music.
Combe has one adult album but it's kids music he does best and for which he is undoubtedly best known.
That doesn't mean that Combe must forever be pigeon-holed as a children's entertainer. He has a right to be any type of entertainer he likes.
But using children's music to sell such a political issue is disturbing trend.
Our kids have the right to laugh at the concept of washing their face with orange juice and not be burdened with the notion of an Australian Guantanamo Bay.
There are already too many people trying to politicise our children, too many people trying to capture their minds.
Lets allow our kids to be kids and keep the rights and wrongs of the Hicks' case to a different forum and t a different music style.
The last thing we need is the Wiggles' view on mandatory detention of the Hooley Dooley's on the War in Iraq.
This is two minutes and 19 seconds of seriously addictive kiddy pop - except of course it isn't.
The man who brought us Wash Your Face in Orange Juice, Toffee Apple and Spaghetti Bolognaise has turned his attention to something quite different - the plight of Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay.
It has to be said that he has given it the full Peter Combe's treatment complete, on YouTube, with a delightfully colourful animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGaryo3tm7Q).
Combe's puts a powerful argument but the the rights and wrongs of the David Hicks case aren't the issue here.
It's the children's music treatment of such a political issue that raises interest.
Combe's argues that it is not a song for children and that the style "just happened" when he set down to pen it. Perhaps that's because almost all of the 750,000 albums CDS and videos Combe has achieved have been children's music.
Combe has one adult album but it's kids music he does best and for which he is undoubtedly best known.
That doesn't mean that Combe must forever be pigeon-holed as a children's entertainer. He has a right to be any type of entertainer he likes.
But using children's music to sell such a political issue is disturbing trend.
Our kids have the right to laugh at the concept of washing their face with orange juice and not be burdened with the notion of an Australian Guantanamo Bay.
There are already too many people trying to politicise our children, too many people trying to capture their minds.
Lets allow our kids to be kids and keep the rights and wrongs of the Hicks' case to a different forum and t a different music style.
The last thing we need is the Wiggles' view on mandatory detention of the Hooley Dooley's on the War in Iraq.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Children deserve a proper review of children's TV standards
So Communications Minister Helen Coonan says the Government will review children's television standards later this year.
Why do I feel immediately underwhelmed?
Perhaps because it ignores the fact that almost all television is television accessed by children and is therefore at one level children's television. And then there's the fact that reviews in the past have tended to water down and not strengthen the protection built into dedicated children's television.
To deal with the first issue first. Our system assumes that television screened during the times that children are watching will be appropriate for children. Basically before school, after school and before 8.30pm and before 8.30pm on the weekend there should be nothing on the television deemed unsuitable for children.
The programs in this zone are all classified G or PG. But as complaints to the Australian Broadcasting authority reveal this isn't always the case. Promotions for shows later at night seem to be a source of constant concern with the Australian Media and Communications Authority revealing numerous instances where both the ABC and the Commercial stations breached their responsibilities in this regard. In every case the penalty was a slap on the wrist. There is simply no incentive for stations to do the right thing.
And then there's the official dedicated children's televisions zones. The last review in 2004 saw the number of hours of protected G rated television reduced by one hour on school days and nine and a half hours on weekends.
And repeated calls to restrict the amount of inappropriate advertising children are exposed to are consistently ignored.
When it comes to preschool television standards, the situation is even worse. Since 1984, broadcasters have been required to screen a minimum of 30 minutes of preschool programs each week day . The code says this is because commercial television licensees have an obligation to serve children. Yet we all know that while 30 minutes a day might be a requirement that certainly doesn't mean a dependable time of day, every day of the week. A good cricket match or golf tournament seem ample reason to throw that "obligation to serve children" out the window. You only need to look at the instance where the death of Kerry Packer in the last week of 2005 prevented the Nine Network from meeting its preschool television commitments. In short, the networks care only as much as they are made to care - which really isn't very much.
So Senator Coonan, by all means review children's television but do so in the interest of children and not just the networks or advertisers. Our children deserve it
Why do I feel immediately underwhelmed?
Perhaps because it ignores the fact that almost all television is television accessed by children and is therefore at one level children's television. And then there's the fact that reviews in the past have tended to water down and not strengthen the protection built into dedicated children's television.
To deal with the first issue first. Our system assumes that television screened during the times that children are watching will be appropriate for children. Basically before school, after school and before 8.30pm and before 8.30pm on the weekend there should be nothing on the television deemed unsuitable for children.
The programs in this zone are all classified G or PG. But as complaints to the Australian Broadcasting authority reveal this isn't always the case. Promotions for shows later at night seem to be a source of constant concern with the Australian Media and Communications Authority revealing numerous instances where both the ABC and the Commercial stations breached their responsibilities in this regard. In every case the penalty was a slap on the wrist. There is simply no incentive for stations to do the right thing.
And then there's the official dedicated children's televisions zones. The last review in 2004 saw the number of hours of protected G rated television reduced by one hour on school days and nine and a half hours on weekends.
And repeated calls to restrict the amount of inappropriate advertising children are exposed to are consistently ignored.
When it comes to preschool television standards, the situation is even worse. Since 1984, broadcasters have been required to screen a minimum of 30 minutes of preschool programs each week day . The code says this is because commercial television licensees have an obligation to serve children. Yet we all know that while 30 minutes a day might be a requirement that certainly doesn't mean a dependable time of day, every day of the week. A good cricket match or golf tournament seem ample reason to throw that "obligation to serve children" out the window. You only need to look at the instance where the death of Kerry Packer in the last week of 2005 prevented the Nine Network from meeting its preschool television commitments. In short, the networks care only as much as they are made to care - which really isn't very much.
So Senator Coonan, by all means review children's television but do so in the interest of children and not just the networks or advertisers. Our children deserve it
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Get ready to Wiggle
If clothes make the man then it follows that the skivvy make The Wiggle.
Simply put on the yellow skivvy and you can become the Yellow Wiggle.
It worked for Greg Page and it's now working equally well for Sam Moran.
It does help if you are a young male, can hold a tune and have dark hair but as the success of the international Wiggles franchises has proven it's the skivvy that's the key.
It could be said that the fact that the audience is aged under four helps, but it's more complicated than that.
Wiggles inc is as much about appealing to the parents as it is about appealing to the kids.
We are the ones who buy the DVDs, the clothing, the Bandaids, biscuits and the list goes on.
Truth is that mothers have created The Wiggles empire not the toddlers.
We like The Wiggles because they give us freedom to do other things knowing that the kids are happily occupied - and because the music doesn't make us want to put our head under a heavy pillow. Anthony's cheeky smile helps too
So as the new Wiggle Dancing DVD released this week proves, The Wiggles will go on without Greg without missing a beat.
The Wiggles is bigger than any one individual.
It's the skivvy that counts
Simply put on the yellow skivvy and you can become the Yellow Wiggle.
It worked for Greg Page and it's now working equally well for Sam Moran.
It does help if you are a young male, can hold a tune and have dark hair but as the success of the international Wiggles franchises has proven it's the skivvy that's the key.
It could be said that the fact that the audience is aged under four helps, but it's more complicated than that.
Wiggles inc is as much about appealing to the parents as it is about appealing to the kids.
We are the ones who buy the DVDs, the clothing, the Bandaids, biscuits and the list goes on.
Truth is that mothers have created The Wiggles empire not the toddlers.
We like The Wiggles because they give us freedom to do other things knowing that the kids are happily occupied - and because the music doesn't make us want to put our head under a heavy pillow. Anthony's cheeky smile helps too
So as the new Wiggle Dancing DVD released this week proves, The Wiggles will go on without Greg without missing a beat.
The Wiggles is bigger than any one individual.
It's the skivvy that counts
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Marketing marvel
Imagine this.
Your child sees a CD-Rom encyclopedia in the shops. It costs only $28. The nagging starts. So you buy it. Right? Wrong.
It might present a world of information at your fingertips. It might be a wonderful interactive learning tool and homework help. But this week the electricity's due, or you've already bought books at the book club at school or you know you'll pay later if you give in to nagging even this once.
And yet just about every parent I know diligently collected the coupons out of the Courier-Mail every day for 14 days. They raided the money box for $2 coins. They went to the newsagent every day for 14 days - and if their newsagent was out of stock they drove around town until they found one that wasn't. Parents in schoolyards compared notes on which newsagents had the best stock. The sandwich boards outside news agencies advertised that the discs were available.
This was marketing at its best. A demand was created that never existed before and we all fell over each other to get in on the act.
In a way it's hard to argue against it. A volume of an interactive encyclopedia for the same price as a Macca's toy - that has to be a worthwhile investment.
There's winners all round. Sales of the Courier-Mail boom, newsagents must benefit from the increased traffic and families get a bargain-basement priced reference set.
And now like just about every other family in Brisbane, I have a 14 volume interactive reference set which I suspect is destined to go the way of the World Book before it. Sitting on the shelf, barely used and rapidly going out of date. No home should be without one.
Your child sees a CD-Rom encyclopedia in the shops. It costs only $28. The nagging starts. So you buy it. Right? Wrong.
It might present a world of information at your fingertips. It might be a wonderful interactive learning tool and homework help. But this week the electricity's due, or you've already bought books at the book club at school or you know you'll pay later if you give in to nagging even this once.
And yet just about every parent I know diligently collected the coupons out of the Courier-Mail every day for 14 days. They raided the money box for $2 coins. They went to the newsagent every day for 14 days - and if their newsagent was out of stock they drove around town until they found one that wasn't. Parents in schoolyards compared notes on which newsagents had the best stock. The sandwich boards outside news agencies advertised that the discs were available.
This was marketing at its best. A demand was created that never existed before and we all fell over each other to get in on the act.
In a way it's hard to argue against it. A volume of an interactive encyclopedia for the same price as a Macca's toy - that has to be a worthwhile investment.
There's winners all round. Sales of the Courier-Mail boom, newsagents must benefit from the increased traffic and families get a bargain-basement priced reference set.
And now like just about every other family in Brisbane, I have a 14 volume interactive reference set which I suspect is destined to go the way of the World Book before it. Sitting on the shelf, barely used and rapidly going out of date. No home should be without one.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Get with the program
The dictionary tells us that a program is "a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment; playbill". That may purpose the theatre program seeks to fulfill but it doesn't even start to describe what the average program has become. They are quite simply pieces of publishing art - full colour, full gloss, often embossed beautiful things with a price tag to match. It's hard not to be drawn to them and to find yourself handing over the folding stuff to own one.
You take it home - and never look at it again.
What you actually need "is a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment; playbill". What you really need is a single photocopied sheet with the vital pieces of information about the production you are about to see.
Of course no-one is forcing you to buy the program. The problem is that the often prohibitive price of those gloss documents is another barrier to the average family being able to afford the live theatre experience. You fork out for the ticket and that's just the start of it. The parking, the program, the interval snacks and don't start me on merchandise.
When it comes to the program the solution is obvious - let's have a dual system. You can buy the gloss document if you want a souvenir but have a cheap alternative for those who just require the production details.
You take it home - and never look at it again.
What you actually need "is a list of items, pieces, performers, etc., in a musical, theatrical, or other entertainment; playbill". What you really need is a single photocopied sheet with the vital pieces of information about the production you are about to see.
Of course no-one is forcing you to buy the program. The problem is that the often prohibitive price of those gloss documents is another barrier to the average family being able to afford the live theatre experience. You fork out for the ticket and that's just the start of it. The parking, the program, the interval snacks and don't start me on merchandise.
When it comes to the program the solution is obvious - let's have a dual system. You can buy the gloss document if you want a souvenir but have a cheap alternative for those who just require the production details.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
What's good "family entertainment"?
My interest was aroused when I heard the new all-singing, all dancing Australian musical Sideshow Alley the Musical described as "a great one for all the family". This is the same musical which on it own ticketing information warns of coarse language and adult themes. So was the reviewer wrong. In my view yes - and no.
There is no one size fits all family so there can be no one size fits all appropriate family entertainment. A large part of our job as parents is to define our values and set appropriate boundaries for our kids. No censor, no classification system is a substitute for vigilant parenting.
The problem is that terms such as "coarse language" and "adult themes" really do little to inform. Indeed I've seen students wearing T shirts carrying the same slogan. Live theatre isn't required to be classified and no lover of the arts would suggest that it should be.
So, would I recommend the production to families? Well let's spell out the adult themes I am not yet ready to explain to my nine-year-old. Anal rape, adultery and suicide top the list. And the "adult themes" I would be prepared to take on - intolerance, homophobia and racism.
The coarse language doesn't need to be spelt out except to say that a four-letter word starting with F features a lot.
This is a truly remarkable production full of energy, imagination and sparkle. Is it family entertainment? Well that depends on the family involved. Many of the adult themes are implied rather than spelt out and it is possible many a child could see the show and love it for the colour and spectacle - not to mention the bearded lady and other sideshow freaks. Problem is that children "get" a lot more than we often give them credit for and it's not a risk I'd take.
Brisbane is full of exciting entertainment possibilities for families with children. We'll sit this one out
There is no one size fits all family so there can be no one size fits all appropriate family entertainment. A large part of our job as parents is to define our values and set appropriate boundaries for our kids. No censor, no classification system is a substitute for vigilant parenting.
The problem is that terms such as "coarse language" and "adult themes" really do little to inform. Indeed I've seen students wearing T shirts carrying the same slogan. Live theatre isn't required to be classified and no lover of the arts would suggest that it should be.
So, would I recommend the production to families? Well let's spell out the adult themes I am not yet ready to explain to my nine-year-old. Anal rape, adultery and suicide top the list. And the "adult themes" I would be prepared to take on - intolerance, homophobia and racism.
The coarse language doesn't need to be spelt out except to say that a four-letter word starting with F features a lot.
This is a truly remarkable production full of energy, imagination and sparkle. Is it family entertainment? Well that depends on the family involved. Many of the adult themes are implied rather than spelt out and it is possible many a child could see the show and love it for the colour and spectacle - not to mention the bearded lady and other sideshow freaks. Problem is that children "get" a lot more than we often give them credit for and it's not a risk I'd take.
Brisbane is full of exciting entertainment possibilities for families with children. We'll sit this one out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
