Friday, October 28, 2011

My kids are watching TV so I can write this blog post

We must all be obsessed with children's media.

Seriously. It feels like not a day goes by without a headline touting the ill-effects of kids' media use and screen time. And that's just for this week.


More Kids Sleep With TV, Study Finds (Wall Street Journal)

Screen Time Higher Than Ever (New York Times)

Infants and iPads? It’s Not As Farfetched As You Might Think! (ABC News)

Kids Increasingly Staring at Glowing Screens, Study Finds (PBS NewsHour)

Trying to gauge the impact of growing up digital (Boston Globe)

Common Sense Media released a report this week, and the results are not surprising: Kids ages 0 - 8 spend an average of 1.44 hours watching TV or videos in a typical day. Forty-seven percent of babies (gasp!) watch TV too; up to two hours a day. And...(double, draw dropping gasp!!) kids have TVs in their bedrooms.

And here I sit, writing about all of this as my kids sit in front of the Disney Channel so I can write this blog post.

I'm not so shocked by the results of the study or the news media coverage, but by our collective obsession as a culture. Are we in denial? Clearly, the TVs and iPads and mobile devices are ON. And despite YEARS and YEARS of negative coverage when it comes to the ill effects of children's media consumption, we're not slowing down. Maybe it's the American Way. More, not less! Why should someone tell me what, where and when my kids can watch?

Meanwhile, apps abound. Good apps, too. And really excellent educational TV. It's all part of living in the modern age... or is it?

Thoughts?

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Pop! Goes the Brilliant Marketing Strategy: Teen Vogue Gets it Right

As any teen fashionista knows, shopping malls are SO yesterday. To get a head start on the hottest trends, fashion-savvy teens are browsing online boutiques, Googling their favorite designers and devouring images from the hippest fashion blogs. And then there's Fashion Week.

Which is why Teen Vogue is so smart to drop their pop-up mall store strategy and move to Lincoln Square where the real action is about to begin. As Ad Age reports, Teen Vogue's "Haute Spot" will be open from Sept. 8 through Sept. 15, including makeovers sponsored by Maybelline, book signings, IMG Worldwide casting agents, fashion bloggers and editors, and "screenings" where visitors can view runway show videos.

Okay, so it's not like anyone is going to actually get a front-row seat at Fashion Week, but it's pretty darn close to the action, and a brilliant marketing promotion. Here's how Teen Vogue gets it right:

1. Fashion focus. Teen Vogue isn't another run-of-the-mill teen magazine. It's the sister publication of Vogue and that means fashion, fashion, fashion.

2. Awareness of core audience trends. The trendiest, savviest, most fashion-forward youth aren't shopping at the mall. Or maybe they are... but they no longer want to admit that. Downtown New York City in the middle of Fashion Week is way, way cooler.

3. Perfect partnerships. While Maybelline is not exactly high fashion, it's price point and accessibility is perfect for teens. Paired with makeovers, style experts and runway videos, the package is sure to draw visitors in.

4. Image is everything. Did someone say casting agents?? Attracting a bunch of gorgeous would-be models is sure to draw in... more gorgeous would-be models. Not to mention anyone who wants to be seen standing next to a gorgeous would-be model.

5. Brand synergy. The entire promotion not only promotes the magazine Teen Vogue and its partners, but everything the brand stands for. Fashion, high style, and savvy insider tips. Oh yeah, and high magazine sales, too.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Scholastic Ceases In-School Corporate Propaganda Program

Way to go Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood! After more than 55,000 people signed a petition through Change.org last May, Scholastic has just announced that it will limit its “InSchool Marketing” program so that school kids are less subjected to corporate marketing propaganda via their classroom materials.

The black mark on Scholastic’s image began with coal, a lesson packet paid for by the American Coal Foundation, which contained all kinds of information about benefits of coal - but none of the nasty stuff like toxic waste and greenhouse gases. Oops.

So now Scholastic is on the retreat. According to an article in this week’s New York Times, “in addition to the coal curriculum, Scholastic distributed a program stressing the environmental wrongs of plastic water bottles, sponsored by Brita, which sells water filters. It also had a $3 million Microsoft campaign in which schools could earn points toward prizes for each Microsoft search, as well as a program featuring Playmobil’s small plastic figures. Those programs have ended, according to Kyle Good, a Scholastic spokeswoman — and last week, after a reporter inquired about them, all traces of them were removed from the Scholastic Web site, as other programs, sponsored by Disney, NestlĂ© and Shell, already had been.”

Cool! Gotta love what can happen when parents speak out. As for me, I'm not really sure why corporate marketing has any place in school curriculum in the first place, but maybe that's just me.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Rethinking kids, COPPA and online safety

Do you let your kids use Facebook? MySpace? Club Penguin? Webkinz? How about Imbee, KidsWorld, Togetherville, Everloop or Yoursphere?

Maybe you haven’t even heard of some of these sites. Which is too bad, since most are terrific and offer wonderful, safe online experiences for young children. Believe it or not, the tween space online is extremely competitive and has been for a long time. It’s also extremely difficult to create a sustainable business model. But not everyone knows that. On more than a few occasions, I’ve received calls from the CEOs of promising new startups, business plan and beta website in hand, claiming “we’re going to be the next Facebook for kids under age 13!”

The question we should all be asking ourselves is: do parents – or kids for that matter – even need or want a “Facebook for kids?” Isn't it just easier to lie about your kid's age? But wait - what kind of message does that send?

This recent NPR article, Social Networks: Thinking of the Children, got me thinking. The conversations still very much focuses on online safety. But is that even the main decision factor for parents?

When COPPA was enacted back in 1998, I was running a website for tweens called FreeZone.com. Online safety was a big deal for us and we worked closely with the FTC and CARU in getting it right. Chats were monitored. Ads were labeled. We had each and every parent fax in a signed registration form before we'd allow their kids to interact on the site. Yup, pretty labor intensive. Maybe that's why the site isn't around anymore.

We wrote to the FTC in 1999: “Our business is based on the highest possible safety and privacy standards that have become our competitive advantage in drawing kids into the FreeZone community. We are eager for technology to catch up to our standards, so we can implement more convenient and cost-effective ways to gain parental consent.”

Today online safety PSAs abound. It seems like there isn't a day or an hour that goes by without a well-informed article about online safety, cyberbullying, sexting,"Facebook depression," predators and the like. The general public is more aware. Yet COPPA hasn't changed since 1998. It's clunky and it forces tween sites to stay within antiquated boundary lines, creating a permissions process that is a pain in the ass for both parents and website developers. Meanwhile, Facebook is allowed to keep paving the way into the 21st century simply by stating that their site is open to anyone over 13 years of age. Leaving parents two choices:

1. Lie about my child's age and let them go on Facebook, where I will keep tabs on what they are doing.

Or

2. Let them play around on one of the tween sites listed above, safely, of course - which means active, parental involvement.

Hmmm.

Actually, there's a third choice: Skip any sort of online social networking until the child turns 13.

Crazy? That's what I'm going to do. Easy for me to say. I've got an 8 year-old and a 4 year old (neither of whom has expressed any interest in Facebook let alone any other social networking site) so ask me in a few years. Maybe this whole dilemma will be solved by then.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Guilt-Free Kids TV

Finally, a report on children's media that doesn’t make parents feel bad! Released this week in the UK as part of the Hello Campaign, an initiative focused on making communication a priority in homes and in schools, a quarter of parents who have young children admit using the television as a babysitter. And 70% percent of them do not feel guilty about it.

Surprising? Not really. Amazing? A little. Even though the American Academy of Pediatrics has long advocated or reduced screen time, setting guidelines that children watch no more than 2 hours of television per day, the data demonstrates that kids are watching much, much more than that. Which, we all know by now, can lead to problems. As recently as April of this year, a study came out linking kids TV to heart disease.

Feeling guilty yet? Don't. The reason why parents in the UK feel good about their children’s TV watching is because there are so many wonderful, educational shows. 42% of respondents said that quality children's television is a great way for kids to learn. It's all about context.

Take Babycenter's posts Why you should never feel guilty about kids watching TV and Watch that TV, guilt-free! CommonSense Media's Best TV for Kids provides even more reasons to enjoy a little screen time.

I also like what Dimitri A. Christakis and Frederick J. Zimmerman, authors of "The Elephant in the Living Room: Make Television Work for Your Kids, have to say: "At its best, TV can educate and inspire. High-quality documentaries offer insights into history that no book can equal. Children's educational shows have the proven ability to help children learn to read to be kind, and to share. In short, when used appropriately, television has the power to expand horizons and help children's cognitive, social and emotional development."

Spokeswoman for the Hello campaign, Wendy Lee, also points out how parents can get more involved and use television as a launching point for communications in the home. "TV can be used as a fantastic opportunity to bring children's favourite characters and shows to life beyond the box as well... chatting about characters, making up stories and even acting out adventures can help parents develop their child's language and communication," she said.

In short, children's TV doesn't need to hide in the closet as a guilty, forbidden pleasure. And we as parents can actually admit to feeling good about it. Companies like my clients Ameba TV (http://amebatv.com) and The Mother Company (http://themotherco.com) are redefining screen time by offering high-quality, educational, slow-paced, commercial-free shows for kids - and that's something both parents and kids can feel pretty great about.

Monday, March 28, 2011

‘Baiting outrage’ and other social media marketing tactics

The way I see it, ABC News and the Today Show just ran a ten-minute infomercial for Abercrombie & Fitch. The lure? The “oversexualized” push up padded bikini on Abercrombie Kids. Mommy bloggers and social media parenting experts all took the bait and jumped right into the outrage feeding frenzy. It’s bad for girls self esteem. Who needs padding when you are 8? The only reason for a push up anything is to push sexuality.

Okay, okay, we get it.

Actually, we all got it a long time ago, as in the 1970s, which is why I think this whole outrage thing is kinda silly. Even my 8 year-old daughter was rolling her eyes at the experts on the Today Show this morning. “Bad for girls? Huh? It’s just a boring striped bathing suit.” And then... “Mommy, what does ‘oversexualization’ mean?”

Thank you, Meredith Vieira, for today’s word of the day!

Lucky for Abercrombie & Fitch, they’re back in the news as being an “edgy” brand targeting youth, which is exactly where they want to be. The moms who ban Barbies and Bratz dolls aren’t shopping there anyway, so for them, this latest stunt amounts to a whole lotta free publicity and traffic. I can just hear the A & F execs in their closed-door meetings... "oh yeah, nice boost in traffic... all we had to do is name the product 'push up' and then change it to something boring like 'triangle' and the hub-bub will be forgotten by tomorrow... meanwhile, sales are great."

Baiting outrage, a term coined by Amy Jussel, media literacy expert and founder/executive director of ShapingYouth.org, seems to be the new normal for going viral. Amy pointed me to a new Tufts study on media and incivility, further proof that the headlines just keep getting worse and worse even while the hard data on news and trends often proves otherwise.

Here’s the problem. Traditional marketing doesn’t really work anymore and we’re all getting a little tired of social media and blogging and e-mail marketing, with all of those #giveaways we can #win and #promo codes that are about to expire and #exclusive offers that aren’t really exclusive at all. Every marketer is clamoring for attention so it’s not surprising that “padded push up bikini for 7 year-olds” was able to cut through the clutter and actually grab out attention. Only… you’re smarter than that and you’re not going to fall for it next time. Right? Right.

I was in a client meeting this morning discussing – you guessed it – an upcoming marketing campaign for a product targeted to children and one of the partners mentioned in an aside, “You know... my husband is one of those tech people who’s always a year or two ahead of the trends. And guess what he just did? He erased his online profile. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare… poof! Gone.”

In a virtual world full of media frenzy – one that doesn’t necessarily mirror the real world we actually live in – erasing one’s frenzied social media presence has a lot of appeal.

So, marketers, how will you reach your customers then?

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Oh Baby! Here’s what a little Bieber can do for you.

Justin Bieber is making headlines again with his recent haircut, a cute new ‘do that I happen to think says a lot about the crossroads Bieber is facing in his career – and the longevity of his brand.

Depending on how you look at it (for all you Beliebers and non Beliebers alike), Bieber had either a not-so-great week or a pretty awesome week last week. There was the Grammy’s snub, the Rolling Stone’s controversy and the New York Times article, that according to E! Online, “practically predicted his obituary.”

Personally, I think the haircut was a great career move. Bieber is back in the news and he didn’t have to resort to sex tape making, pole dancing or drunk driving! And… word on the street is that his recently-released movie, Never Say Never is a true delight. (This just in from my 70 year-old mother and my 8 year-old daughter: “We went to see it to see how bad it was, but now we love him! It’s the most inspirational movie we’ve ever seen!”)

Now. What the heck does this have to do with you and your brand? A lot. Right now things may be humming along with your latest product launch or ad campaign, but even the best companies eventually face a few blips and start to lose their mojo. The buzz simply begins to peter out. When this happens, you can either choose to make a lot of noise and generate a lot of hits with a sex-tape type of brand strategy move, or you can pull a Bieber and simply get a haircut. He even turned it into a positive PR spin by donating his locks to charity!

Any recent controversy aside, the message that's still stuck in my mind (and I'm willing to bet is still in the minds of millions of fans) is that Bieber’s message is 80 percent squeaky clean. He sings pop music. He's a kid. He's got a whole lifetime ahead of him that he can fill with silly love songs, so I just don't think the jury is out yet. Perhaps most importantly, his ultimate propaganda vehicle at the moment, Never Say Never, focuses entirely on his back story. This is what I truly believe (Belieb) is his most powerful tool. Yours too. The best way to connect with fans of any kind is to reach them at a deep emotional level and to pull at the heartstrings a little bit. A compelling back story or archetype can work wonders for a brand's longevity and one could even argue that without one, you don't really have a brand. Bieber’s is all about overcoming obstacles and unleashing the hero within.

What’s yours?

Monday, January 31, 2011

Move over, virtual worlds, it's all about "entertainment ecosystems"

I don't normally cover the video game industry but this weekend's New York Times article, Allowing Players to Assume The Ultimate Role: Game Creators by Seth Schiesel definitely caught my eye. And it wasn't just because of the cute bunny. One of the things that has been a little puzzling over the last decade is how traditional media and new media have collided into a user-generated frenzy of information and entertainment while the video game business has left players on the user-created content sidelines. “One of the saddest aspects of the electronic age is that even as computers have become more powerful and pervasive (ubiquitous, even),” writes Schielsel, “the ability to create software for them has escaped the reach of everyday people.” Until now.

Enter Sony's LittleBigPlanet 2. The game allows everyday folks to create their own games - and share them. Amazing, really, in today’s world of daily YouTube hits and reality TV and blog-turned-book-turned movie deals that it took this long. Schiesel likens the game to a "stunning new entertainment ecosystem," a game that is so much more than a game because the users are literally in control of the play. "Of course making anything that lots of other people will actually enjoy still takes a tremendous amount of dedication and perhaps even skill. That is true in any realm of creation," writes Schiesel, "but if you are, say, a parent who worries that video games are melting your children's brains, ask them if they wouldn't like to try their hand at actually making a game."

But of course! Couldn't it be this easy? We can solve the kids-on-the-couch epidemic and foster the technological leaders of tomorrow by simply providing kids with the tools they need to create their own entertainment. Now that's what I call 21st century play. How about you - what kinds of things are your brands doing to engage kids in tomorrow's technology?

Monday, January 24, 2011

Ire of the Tiger

I’m still not quite over it. Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, a.k.a “Tiger Mom” and I shared a tense moment Friday night at her book reading at Seattle’s Elliot Bay Book Company. Given her continued media coverage, perhaps your thoughts are lingering in tiger territory too.

First of all, I’m still not even sure what compelled me to attend the event, but I just had to go. I don’t know if I was expecting a train wreck or a Jerry Springer show or an Oprah confessional but what I was not anticipating was a mostly middle-aged, older (about half Asian, half white) smartly-dressed-with good haircuts overwhelmingly-sympathetic crowd. When Ms. Chua came out, she paused right in front of me (it was standing room only; I snagged a spot in front) for a few moments before walking to the podium, our auras intersecting. Awaiting a sense of revulsion, I instead felt drawn to her. I suddenly had this urge to tap her on the shoulder, give her a wink, a smile, even a hug. What’s the big deal? I thought. Why do so many people hate her? Petite, holding her head high, dressed in a red sweater, black mini skirt and pointy red and black shoes, she looked very much like a neighborhood mom on her way to work. Like someone I might have gone to college with or (gasp) even a close friend. On stage, she was self-deprecating and funny and the audience laughed at all of her jokes. I did too–- at first; feeling her pain when she told us that the Wall Street Journal had chosen an obnoxious, unfortunate headline and that all of the resulting vitriol was because her words had been taking out of context. She was misunderstood. Her text is a memoir, not some soapbox prescription for parenting.

So she did what any self-respecting author would do. She read from her book. “My story is a journey,” she told us, “writing this book was like family therapy. I’ve learned from my mistakes!” she said, flinging her tiny arms in the air with exasperation. Ms. Chua chose to read seven pages from the last chapter of Battle Hymn and this is when my emotions took a turn. In a matter of seconds my blood shifted from a happy mellow soup to a perturbed simmer and then into a hot, rolling boil. I wondered if I had anything suitable in my animal-print purse that I could throw at her.

Ms. Chua read a scene that takes place in a Russian restaurant during a family vacation where she bullies and berates her youngest daughter, then 13, into taking one bite of caviar. Astonishingly, the audience roared with laughter as she read.

“Do you know how sad and ashamed my parents would be if they saw this, Lulu—you publicly disobeying me? With that look on your face? You’re only hurting yourself. We’re in Russia, and you refuse to try caviar! You’re like a barbarian. And in case you think you’re a big rebel, you are completely ordinary. There is nothing more typical, more predictable, more common and low, than an American teenager who won’t try things. You’re boring, Lulu—boring.”
“Shut up,” said Lulu angrily.
“Don’t you dare say shut up to me. I’m your mother.” I hissed this, but still a few guests glanced over.
“I hate you. I HATE YOU.” This, from Lulu was not in a hiss.
“You don’t love me,” Lulu spat out. “You think you do, but you don’t. You just make me feel bad about myself every second. You’ve wrecked my life. I can’t stand to be around you. Is that what you want?”
A lump rose in my throat. Lulu saw it, but she went on.
“You’re a terrible mother. You’re selfish. You don’t care about anyone but yourself. What—you can’t believe how ungrateful I am? After all you’ve done for me? Everything you say you do for me is actually for yourself.”


In an instant, everything that was wrong with my own childhood-- the Chinese mother-like terror, the threats, the verbal abuse over A- grades and swim races lost -- flashed in front of me. Lulu was now my heroine. I’d never had the guts to tell my mother how much I hated her, and now I felt the rage welling up inside of me. Even now, as a 40 year-old, I harbor so much resentment over my upbringing. Go Lulu go, I thought. Your mom is a mean, self-righteous bitch. She has Totally Wrecked Your Life.


Then the strangest thing happened. Someone in the back of the room collapsed. A few people knelt down around the collapsee; others stood back, annoyed. Ms. Chua held a fixed position at the podium with her arms crossed in front of her chest. A woman with a cane who was seated near me shouted “someone should call 911!” and I dug into my bag for my phone. The woman standing next to me saw what I was doing and hissed, “She’s old. I’m sure she just fainted because she was standing up too long. These things happen.” Oh, right. Sorry. I guess I missed the part about not helping old people at an Amy Chua event. Browbeaten into submission, my phone remained untouched.

A few minutes later, with the old woman in question hydrated and revived, Ms. Chua continued her reading. The scene ends with her daughter Lulu smashing class in the Russian restaurant and Tiger Mom running through Red Square. She returns later and says to her daughter “You win. It’s over. We’re giving up the violin.” This is the big cathartic moment. As Ms. Chua read these last words she looked around the room as if to say, “see, I’ve changed. I let my daughter win the battle. This is what the whole book is about.”

I shifted uncomfortably against the table behind me, horrified.

Ms. Chua began to take questions and a few people began to leave. Part of me hoped that their exits were due to the fact that they were just as disgusted as I was, but it could have had more to do with the fact that the room was hot or they were bored or had to get home to feed the dog. It’s Seattle, land of the passive-aggressive, so I guess I’ll never know.

The Q & A did nothing to reduce my temper. Chua took the opportunity to further tout the benefits of Chinese parenting and hard-working immigrant work ethics, railing against ‘Western’ values, like “coddling one’s children” or “focusing on self esteem.”

I raised my hand. “How can you make these broad generalization about Western parenting vs. Chinese parenting?” I asked. “I have a Chinese mother and there haven’t been any immigrants in my family for several generations.”

Chua was disarmed only slightly by my ‘Chinese mother’ comment. It’s fairly obvious from my appearance that I’m not a Chinese descendant.

“I clearly state this in chapter 1,” she responded, annoyed, “weren’t you here when I read from chapter 1?”

I nodded. I did hear her description of how she was using Chinese and Western parenting “loosely,” as she wrote (and I have since read the actual chapter), but still found it to be totally judgmental, stereotypical and racist. I guess that was my real question: how can you be such a blatant racist? How can you be so rude and mean?

Chua looked around the room for some friendly faces, as if to say, this stupid woman in the tan sweater on my left, she doesn’t get it, does she? “I’m an academic,” she said, looking me in the eye. “This is what we do. We come up with a term for something and use that description throughout our texts. I’m just so surprised that I have to keep defending my footnotes.” There were a few chuckles from around the room.

My voice began to crack. “You’ve said that people have written to you and said that they are scarred for life due to this style of parenting. What’s your response?” I asked.

“I really can’t say,” she shrugged. “I don’t know the particulars of each family. Perhaps there is some mental illness.” Later, she talked about her Chinese father, a “black sheep” in his family because he rebelled against his parents by pursuing “creative” endeavors. He immigrated to America and never spoke to his family again. Scarred for life, I assumed.

Other audience members spoke. One was a woman of Chinese descent who said, “I really identify with you (to which Chua responded with “Thank you! At least someone does!!”) before explaining that she has two special needs children and that this kind of parenting doesn’t work with her kids. Chua told us about her sister with Downs Syndrome and how her mother worked with her relentlessly, drilling multiplication tables. Today the sister happily works at WalMart. Another woman in the back said that she was a “type A person, very successful in everything I do” but that she completely lacked creativity and couldn’t think out of the box. Chua’s response: “I think there have been some books written about creativity. Maybe you should read them.” It went on like this for almost an hour.

In the end, I had more questions than answers. Why does Chua think she’s learned from her mistakes if no mistakes were actually made? Why is she so convinced that her methods represent love even though she says the word "love" isn't actually used in her family? How does she sleep at night? Why does my (Western, Texan) husband, with his two advanced degrees and incredible work ethic, call his parents every Sunday and talk for an hour whereas I cringe every time I see “Mom” on my caller ID? Why am I so bothered by Amy Chua? Why do I even care? I tortured myself by thinking about all of the mean things that my mother has ever said to me -- and me to my own children -- and wondered if I might be a Tiger Mom myself.

I suppose if I were a Tiger Parenting "success story" I would suck it up and recognize the "tough love" for what it is. I would appreciate the criticism and thank my parents for pushing me beyond my limits. According to Chua, "the proof of the superiority of Chinese parenting is how the children end up feeling about their parents" and I knew in my heart that nearly everyone in the room at Elliot Bay would have absolutely no sympathy for the wimp that I was as a child or perhaps the wimp that I will always be.

There’s a scene in the American Girl Movie “Chrissa Stands Strong” that I've watched multiple times with my 8 year-old daughter, when the art teacher (played by Jennifer Tilly) explains to Chrissa that bullies bully because they’re really insecure and by putting other people down they can feel better about themselves. Given the recent attention on kids and bullying, we also know that bullies learn from other bullies. Not that long ago, when my Grandmother was still alive, my mom and I paid her a visit. She looked up at my mother from her wheel chair and exclaimed “Your hair looks gawd awful! And that’s a really doggy looking outfit.” My mom’s response: “At least I’m not in assisted living!”

So, I guess, it takes one to know one. My mom, my grandmother, her mother and grandmother perhaps -- and yes, I have to include myself in here as well -- we’re all insecure, self-loathing wimp/bullies. Mean, bitchy Tiger Moms.

On the drive home, I turned on the radio. It was an NPR re-run, an interview with Karen Armstrong, author of Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life. "There's a mood of despair around, whether we're Easterners or Westerners," Armstrong said. "And despair is a dangerous thing, because once people lose hope, they can resort to extreme measures."

Armstrong goes on to say that compassion isn't an easy or popular virtue. "People often prefer to be right," she says.

The last line of Battle Hymn reads "Lulu will plug her ears, and we'll fight, but I'll have gotten my message out, and I know she knows I'm right."

I was going to end here with a line about how I'm right about Amy Chua but that would be a little too ironic. So instead I'll just say that I'm looking forward to reading Battle Hymn in its entirely, in addition to Twelve Steps.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Chinese mothers, clash of the parenting styles (again!) and what this means for kids


I finally figured it out! My mother is Chinese! Not literally (mom is blond and blue-eyed and likes to cast judgment by looking down at her children over her pointy, up-turned caucasian nose) but, according to Amy Chua in her controversial WSJ article, Chinese Mothers are Superior, my mom fits the stereotype in a lot of ways.

Here's how Chua, author of Battle Hymm of the Tiger Mother, spells it out:

"A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin
• not play the piano or violin."


I can relate. Childhood was no fun. In between the piano lessons and grueling swim team workouts and extracurriculars, there was little time for eating and sleeping. My sisters and I were forced into activities, punished for grades below A- and brainwashed into thinking that these efforts had some sort of bearing on our future success and happiness.

“You’ll thank me later” mom used to say.

No, I won’t.

In theory, pushing your kids to do their best and not letting them quit and give up before they’ve had a chance to really excel makes sense. But here’s the thing: not everyone can be a winner. As a parent, if you accept nothing less than perfection, you’re either setting your kids up to be perfect (unlikely, since nobody is perfect) or insecure, neurotic and highly competitive (yep) or – rebellious and hateful. Nice choices!

Recently, Harvard researches put the theory to the test (see the recent CNN article, Want to Get Your Kid Into College? Let Them Play). What they found is that kids who are encouraged to play (encouraging emotional development) do much better in school than the children who focused on skill and academic development.

Whatever you call it – east versus western values; skills vs. social and emotional learning - it’s not new. Of course, I'm sure Chua’s article adds more fuel the Mommy War debate, which was getting a little stale anyway. MediaBistro just reported that the Chinese Mother article had already generated over 2,500 comments so there you go. When it comes to raising kids, everyone’s got an opinion.

As a consultant in the world of children’s and parenting media, I am aware of the challenges and concerns on both a professional and personal level. Recently, my daughter (a TV addict, a little on the heavy side, not doing any activities right now because I couldn’t get it together) asked me: “When I grow up, are you going to be mean to me like Grandma is mean to you?”

“No,” I replied, “and you’ll thank me later.” But I didn’t say that out loud.

Here’s what I think: there are a lot of really smart, really creative parents out there who are raising their kids in new and different ways, challenging stereotypes and redefining boundaries. We live in a time of intense scrutiny but also of tremendous opportunities. You can be a slacker mom. Or you can go free range. Eco chic. Zero-waste. The playing (er, battle) field is wide open. Knock yourselves out.

Your thoughts?