Ian Smith
Dr. Kyburz
English 1010
04-01-2012
“Toys
for Saps”
The article "toys
for saps" by Gary Cross, a professor from pen state, analyzes the toy
industries impact on society and the key people involved. The CEO of
Mattell, Robert Eckert, Has apologized
to the american public for the recent release of hundreds of thousands of toys
that have toxic or dangerous materials involved. Cross saw this move as
"admirable" but more then the release and recall, cross believes that
the marketing and manufacture of certain toy lies the larger issue.
Cross Notes that the business model is not around
the needs of the parents and the children, but around the selling of toys. When
Cross went through the recalled toys he noted that the market of certain toys
are not age appropriate. In 1978 the chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission Michael Pertschuk, called the direct advertising to
children "unfair". The Toy and candy companies fired back with
arguments of commercial free speech. Eventually Congress complied with the toy
and candy companies by prohibiting the commission from regulating ads.
Toy companies started selling toys built around
TV shows or movies Cross points out, at the same time they had
out sourced most of the manufacture of toys to china. These moves
changed the toy market substantially from a seasonal market, to a
year round TV and movie based industry that doubled in profitability in 1986.
Cross states that although the Consumer
Product Safety Commission has standards that protects
children from physical damage, Nothing has been done to protect
the psychological safety of children. Cross believes that most of the
enjoyment the children derive from the toys are from the
initial purchase and addition to there collection. He goes
on saying "Additive — if not addictive —
desire is created and satisfied by these toy lines." Cross believes that
this type of marketing is turning the youth of tomorrow, and
the young adults today into good consumers. Serving positively to the
children in no way, just buying and adding instead of playing and using
imagination.
The marketing isn't only coming from companies
like barbie and Bratz dolls but in fact from publicly funded
companies like PBS. PBS has been giving licence rights to toy companies since
1971, Big Bird, Elmo, and Thomas becoming children staples.
Cross calls for the pubic to begin to rethink
the decision to allow unrestricted advertising to children.
When children are young they don't have not fully developed critical
judgement, thus the instilling of ideals becomes simpler.
Children receive toys at younger and younger age's and they get more
of it, they get a new toy get bored and move to the next and newest. Is it time
to call for the protection of children's psyches just like we protect
them from the physical harms of toys? In Crosses opinion absolutely.
In this modern world we as a society have much
more leisure time, giving way to play and waste time, does that call
for the imitation and control of the toy companies? The issue for me
is this by who's standards do we limit toy licencing to? will we mandate the
must have a certain degree of intellectual stimulation? In a perfect world
absolutely, children should be brought up to see the joys and satisfaction
derived from education, and experiences. Maybe someday the private and
public sector will come to terms with each other, but today is not that day.
So unfortunately parents need to try to teach there children proper
reason based decision making so we as a people can evolve and grow.
