Let Us Prey
Worried about porno online? Marketers Are A Bigger Threat to Your Kids
by Lawrence J. Magid

Computer Currents
May 20 1997

As regular readers of this column know, I've written a great deal about keeping kids safe on the Internet.

I even have a new Web site (www.safekids.com) dedicated to the subject. Most of what I and other people have written deals with protecting children from sexual predators and with helping parents steer children's Web surfing so that they don't wind up looking at pictures of naked--or mangled--bodies. As a strong believer in the First Amendment, I believe that parents--not the government--should regulate children's online use.

Despite the horror stories promulgated by Jenny Jones and other TV talk shows, the actual number of children victimized by sexual predators is quite low. Children are at a far greater risk of being sexually abused by a relative than by someone they meet online. And if it's pornography you're worried about, check out your local bookstore or magazine stand. It's everywhere.

KIDS AS DATA POINTS

I'm far more worried about the Net's potential commercial impact on children. True, most Web sites are aimed at adults, but cereal makers, toy vendors, and other companies with a stake in the booming kids' market are going online. There's nothing wrong with that. But if Saturday morning TV is any indication, they're not going to be getting the online equivalent of "Sesame Street." As Jeff Chester, executive director of Center for Media Education, reminded me, kids influence $150 billion in spending, and they directly spend about $50 billion per year. By using the Web and online services, says Chester, advertisers can not only influence children's brand loyalties--the way they do with so-called Saturday morning TV shows that are really thinly disguised infomercials--but can also entice kids to actually buy products online or provide advertisers with valuable, and potentially dangerous, information.

Online advertising directed at kids can have even greater impact than TV, radio, or print ads. With traditional media, the advertiser speaks to children en masse; online, it's possible to target an individual child. Any child who fills out an online profile with his or her name, age, gender, and other data could easily be involved in a direct, almost personal, relationship with advertisers and the characters they use to hawk their products. I watched Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny on TV when I was a kid; today, kids can interact with Mickey and Bugs on a first-name basis. That might be fun, but companies can use those characters to solicit data and dollars from children.

At least children's TV programming is more or less regulated by the FCC. But there is no such agency policing the Web. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation set up Circuit Breaker, a hip Web site aimed at twenty-somethings, and failed to identify the company's connection. Only after pressure from critics did the tobacco giant admit its sponsorship.

I'm sure we can all agree that kids shouldn't be encouraged to smoke. But our society condones other forms of marketing to kids, by the likes of Disney, Warner Bros., and Paramount, that encourage them to buy tickets, merchandise, and even memberships in child-oriented pay-per-view Web sites. Most of these sites just promote the company's products, but some are gathering information that can be used for marketing purposes. That bothers me. I don't like anyone asking kids to reveal information about themselves or their families. And I worry that this data could fall into dangerous hands. No, I'm not antibusiness. Companies can gather information about consumers--as long as the consumers are adults and there is informed consent.

But consider what Dr. Pepper and NBC did in March and April. They joined forces to create a "teen tip" Web page, which, without any warning or attempt to secure parental consent, asks teens to submit their name, age, gender, address, and email address along with a teen tip. Winners of the site's online contest, which ended April 25, were promised a trip to Los Angeles and tickets to the taping of an NBC teen program.

FIGHTING FOR KIDS' PRIVACY

The Washington-based Center for Media Education has raised this issue of privacy and informed consent before Congress, the Internet community, and businesses. In June 1996, the CME, along with the Consumer Federation of America, submitted privacy guidelines to the Federal Trade Commission. They called upon the FTC to issue regulations to prevent collection of "personally identifiable information" from children "for commercial marketing purposes" without full disclosure and parental consent. It asks data collectors to follow four rules: 1) Disclosure of such motives must be full and effective. 2) Parental consent must be obtained. 3) Parents must be able to correct information collected about and from their children. 4) Parents must be able to prevent the further use of their children's information after it has been collected. (See the full guidelines at tap.epn.org/cme/cmprsu.html.)

In the meantime, a business group, the Children's Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, has issued its own set of self-regulatory guidelines for online advertisers. These guidelines aren't nearly as strong as the CME's, but they're a start. They also recommend that there be a clear delineation online between editorial (entertainment) and advertising.

I'm all for voluntary guidelines, but I'm afraid we'll need something a bit stronger to protect our children. I hesitate to suggest new laws or further government intervention, but it's the government's job to protect kids against abusive commercial practices. You can't leave this task to the fabled marketplace, and parental controls go only so far--especially when the perpetrators are your kids' favorite cartoon characters.