by Rebekah Jensen
Before any of us had kids, we all had things we were sure we would never do as parents. We all had plans about discipline, education, and what sort of baby products we would buy. Then, as we all know, those intentions ran smack up against the reality of actually raising a child. We have to pick our battles very carefully, and I wanted to write about one battle that I’m – for good or ill – still trying to fight.
Anyone who goes shopping with me will find that I’m anti-trademark. By ‘anti-trademark’ I mean I don’t like to wear things with brand names plastered across them, or buy dishware from Martha Stewart Living™ and eat food with Twilight™ characters on it. I am less likely to pick up a breakfast cereal when it has a celebrity on it. I have brand loyalty, but to quality brands, not gimmicky ones. If Spiderman™ is on a chocolate bar, I wonder if the company took shortcuts on quality, since the wrapper would sell the bar. I don’t like being manipulated and advertising is all about manipulation – “Don’t Think, Just Buy!”
There’s the issue of quality, but a lot of it comes down to this – Why should I pay money to advertise someone else’s stuff? I’ve never understood buying a shirt that says Hollister™, a hat that says Nike™, or sunglasses that have someone’s logo in patterns on the frames. I’ll wear a t-shirt with someone’s name on it if I specifically want to support them, such as San Francisco Giants™ or Prius™. I also think that if you buy into a brand, especially if you really go hog wild on a brand, you can’t help but buy into that company’s philosophy and world view. I’d like to develop my own world view, thank you.
My personal beliefs on trademark and media tie-ins have, as you can imagine, run smack into the realities of kids’ products. Even before birth, most things in a baby’s world advertise brand first, and product second. I needed to make immediate compromises. For instance, I put my boys in Sesame Street™ diapers from Pampers™, because they fit the best. I wasn’t about to toss out any useful gifts because they were heavily branded. I’ve got pictures of my babies on Microsoft™ blankets, wearing Cisco™ shirts and Dr. Seuss™ onesies.
For the most part, however, I’m holding on to my anti-trademark shopping philosophy by the skin of my teeth. I’ll pass by cute M&M™ and Bob the Builder™ shirts to buy the non-specific but also cute dinosaur or bulldozer shirts. I’ll skip the Fisher Price™ book on potty training that reads like a catalog of Fisher Price potty training products. Barney™’s Book of Colors will get beat out by a book by Eric Carle or Roger Priddy. And as much as I adore the Muppets™, I don’t need them on my Monopoly board. I’m very lucky that so far my boys have gone along with my choices. I know as they get older, it will be more of a struggle.
I do make exceptions, of course. I’ll get kid’s books with Elmo™ or Disney’s Winnie the Pooh™, if they seem to be well-written. We have quite a few John Deere™ toys, videos, books, and items of clothing, because I associate that brand with my Midwestern roots. For some brands, I’ll even seek them out, but I try to stick to ‘core’ items. For example, we have a lot of Thomas the Tank Engine™ wooden trains and a few books and videos, but no pajamas, posters or kazoos (yes, they make a Thomas kazoo). I love Blue’s Clues™, but have resisted clothing and stuffed animals so far, just books and videos.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m being overly picky (I hear a chorus of ‘Yes!’ even from my husband), then something comes along that reminds me all over again why have this attitude.
The all-out onslaught of merchandise for Cars 2™ is utterly obnoxious. There are at least 300 toys alone, plus everything from luggage to goggles to personalized Christmas ornaments. A child could dress every day for a month in different Cars clothing, from underwear to heavy coat, and eat their Cars Spaghetti-Os from Cars silverware. After dinner, they could color in the Cars activity book with their Cars pen, while being entertained by Cars tie-in videos. At night they could go to sleep with their Cars bedding, tucked of course into their Cars novelty bed. How is an individual parent supposed to stand against that all-out marketing offensive?
Because that’s really what it is – Individual parents fighting the advertising mega-machine. As I said before, I don’t like being manipulated and advertising is all about manipulation. I will actually argue with TV commercials, debating their claims and trying to figure out their angle. I hope to train my boys to do the same – maybe not vocally arguing with the TV (since that tends to annoy other watchers), but at least thinking critically about marketing. I want to help them realize that yogurt without Dora™ on it is not only good enough, but possibly even better.
So this year under our Christmas tree will be the original Chutes and Ladders™ game, not the Spiderman™ or Disney™ Princess™ version. There will be lots of Duplo™s, but no Thomas the Tank Engine™ Duplos, Winnie the Pooh™ Duplos, or Cars™ Duplos. I’ll skip the Handy Manny™ playsets, the Toy Story™ markers, the Mario Brothers™ memory game, and the Home Depot™ play drill. There will, however, be Tonka™ trucks, Hot Wheels™ cars, the Busytown™ game, and maybe even a pair of Mickey Mouse™ watches. Maybe the line in the sand that I’ve drawn on brands and media tie-in merchandise makes no sense to anyone else, but I’m back here with my checkbook-weapon, trying to hold that line.
When my boys get older and start asking for things by TV character names? That’s when the battle really begins.
