Search results matching tag 'children'

The 'Jigsaw Effect’

2545594 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:46:00 GMT

‘Hi! I’m TopKat and I just came third in the county’s under-14 cross-country.’

Looks innocuous enough, doesn’t it? Couldn’t possibly be dangerous for the child that posted it, could it? The sad truth, though, is that there is probably enough information in this one sentence for the wrong kind of person to identify the child that made the posting.All of us are sensitive of our duty of care to children and young adults.

Those of us running web sites, social networks, blogs and the like probably take what we think are sensible steps to ensure children are ‘safe’. No real names to be used! No addresses! No emails! We probably screen for ‘purple words’, we may also have the content of bulletin boards and chat-rooms moderated, just to be sure.The unfortunate fact though, is that however careful we are, however thorough, the very tools we so value on the internet can make it a potentially dangerous place.

Think about it from your own perspective. You know you shouldn’t, but how often do you use the same password? More important from the point of view of identifying you, how often do you use the same ID, even if it is a nickname?The reality is whilst most of us use the same password over and over, we have some protection because web sites take extraordinary steps to safeguard them, but we happily post our nicknames over blogs, bulletin boards and social networks.

Punch it in to Google and there is a good chance someone can find your unwitting web footprint. With a little detective work you’d be surprised how much those disparate and unrelated postings could tell someone about you.Same problem for TopKat! She, or he, probably uses that nickname on a number of their favourite web sites. And sports results are regularly posted to the web. Start sleuthing and you’d be amazed at what you can dig up.

The risk for children and young adults (and the rest of us) is the ‘jigsaw’ effect of data posted across the internet. So what to do? Regulation, both self-regulation and the statutory sort, clearly has a role, but short of shutting down the internet it is unlikely the risks can be eliminated. What we need to work towards is a situation where risks are reduced, and most important children and young adults are educated as to how to minimise the dangers to themselves.

The recent Byron Review makes a balanced assessment of the risks and the benefits for children of the internet, and sets-out some excellent recommendations. Taking as an analogy how we teach children to cross the road, Byron advocates educating children and young adults as to the potential risks of the web, with a view to achieving the following outcomes; an ability to manage (or find support in managing) the risks; and an ability to take ownership of their own online safety.

That said, Byron is quite clear that there is a responsibility on site owners and content providers to reduce the risks to children, and to encourage and promote safe behavior. So now may be the time to review how ‘safe’ your web site is. To ask the question ‘what more could I do?’, and to see what else you could be doing to help young children appreciate and manage the risks, but still enjoy, explore and grow with the internet.

Mark Wooding is MD of Soprano an agency that provides strategic consultancy, creative execution and build and implementation for all aspects of digital media. Mark is one of the UK’s web pioneers having established one of the first Internet Agencies – Nexus Multimedia. Mark has run BBDO’s Traffic agency, and helped found Proximity London and establish Proximity in the Middle East. He also ran Electronic Solutions and has consulted widely on user experience and e-marketing issues.

Advertising to Children

2425924 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:00:19 GMT

I was just wondering if anyone feels that it is right to advertise to children and why??

Ads aren't all bad, Gordon

2114008 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:04:00 GMT

So advertising got a mention in Gordon Brown's speech to conference. For those of you who switched sides after the first five minutes, the Prime Minister said 'there are new pressures on parents - worrying about balancing work and family life but also about advertising aimed straight at their children and what their children are watching or downloading'.

This should send a chill down the spine of marketers. The narrative has changed from a focus on junk food ads to all advertising targeted at children. Despite industry efforts to promote the positive power of advertising the message doesn't seem to be getting through at the top.

Re: Should children's books have age recommendations?

2364303 — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:01:35 GMT

I completely agree with Michael Morpurgo. If a child of 10 receives a book pre-printed with a recommended age range 5-9 it will put them off. We are an independent publishing house and publish the Trepets children's series by C.A.Chance, and while it's aimed at 4-9 essentially, we have people buying the books to encourage their older children to read, particularly those who have reading difficulties. This is essentially because of the books' unique page layout.

This feedback sums it up, I think: "I bought this book for my son," said one mother. "He's 15, he's never read a book, he can't read very well, has lots of problems. But this is the first book he's read and wants the next one. Thank you so much."

I wonder if the boy would have read the book if he'd seen "Ages 4-9" on it? Hmm, probably not!

Like an Enid Blyton title, fantasy and magical story elements can be enjoyed beyond "recommended" reading ages, and it is not our right as publishers, to limit any child's imagination.

It would be a detriment to put ages on books, not only to the publishing and bookselling industry, but most importantly to the children who may feel discouraged from reading books labelled as being suitable for children below their age.

So please, NO!

Are you creative? and understand TV ad's for kids?

2324237 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:20:01 GMT

Hi Guys Thank you for reading my post. I am new to the site so please bare with me. We are a new company called TagEm UK ltd and our range of products are aimed at kids age 6-16yrs, with our core target market being boys and girls 8-13. Tag'Em's products allow kids to "customise their world" with different types of products. Our first products will be shoe lace charms and shoes laces but our range will grow once the products are in store etc. Tag'Em is about fun, individuality, trendy, young, sport, extreme sports and being active. We are looking for people to work with us on the creative side of our TV adverts. We are looking to produce 3 x 10sec adverts. One targeting boys, one for girls, and one for Marvel (yes the spiderman people as we have a license with them) these will be launched on kids channels like Nickelodeon for quarter 1 of 2009. We are in talks with award winning directors to produce the adverts and have kids/teens ready to be in the advert. As we are a new company we are on a very tight budget all rounds and would like to work with people who love the Tag'Em concept etc and are looking to break into this area or just have a great idea they would love to see on TV. For more information please drop me an email daniel.keating@tag-em.co.uk we are happy to speak with people from outside the UK as long as everyone is happy to sign a NDA. Kind Regards ------------------------------------ Daniel Keating Tag’Em UK ltd o: +44 (0) 208 123 7809 mob: +44 (0)7788 740472 e: daniel.keating@tag-em.co.uk skype: Daniel Keating AP4

BBC's breathtaking bias against advertising

695124 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:21:41 GMT

The Wethey Forecast seldom gets written on a Sunday. I’m normally tucked away from controversy on the golf course. But yesterday I listened to Radio 5 Live instead (for the sports coverage, which is excellent), and caught a remarkable example of the BBC’s mission to discredit advertising.

The programme, called ‘Classroom Commercials’ and presented by Rachel Burden, was broadcast at 11.30. It had been trailed all morning as a news item: ….’The Government has been looking at a major enquiry into the possible harmful effects of advertising on children’. To call the 25 minute feature a mish-mash would be generous.

It started with a reference to the junk food debate and a link to the “Put the fizz into science” promotion by Mentos. In return for repeating the Mentos and cola experiment, schools can receive £2000 of teaching equipment for chemistry lessons. Adidas contribute to physics teaching by allowing teachers to demonstrate the properties of the Predator football boot. Among the other ‘villains’ are apparently BAE and the nuclear industry, who supply teaching materials to schools. Almost unimaginable evil apparently flows from Disney helping with dance teaching in association with High School Musical, and Revlon who offered money off vouchers for a new fragrance. There were no commercials in the classroom (despite the title), but at 11.52 the programme was – hysterically – interrupted by a commercial promoting DAB radio receivers! Also the producers appeared to have forgotten that the Government itself uses advertising to talk to school age children. Kids are also allowed to listen to 5 Live and other radio stations, which don’t hesitate to mix editorial with news content – like the trail for this programme. It is hard to imagine a feature which was more contrived, more biased, more trivial, or more potty. If Peta Buscombe or Hamish Pringle are interested, I actually taped it, to make it easier to prepare a riposte to this rubbish. Meanwhile an army of thought police are presumably covering up brand names in schools all over Britain, lest the corruption children suffer in the classroom could in any way influence the way they react to the commercial world they encounter the rest of the time.