No Longer "Just a Word" from Your Sponsor:
The Increasing Presence of Corporate Sponsorship on PBS Kids Television
Submitted by:
Angela Paradise
Department of Communication
University of Massachusetts
4th Floor, Machmer Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
(781) 504-8308
[log in to unmask]
No Long "Just a Word" From Your Sponsor: The Increasing Presence of
Corporate Sponsorship on PBS Kids Television
Introduction
Ronald McDonald. Tony the Tiger. Chuck E. Cheese. Twenty years
ago, these well-known, "kid-friendly" product mascots or spokes characters
would have been considered far removed from the assumedly noncommercial
world of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Today, however, as federal
funding for public television continues to wane and competition from cable
venues soars to new heights, PBS is increasingly turning to 15- and
30-second corporate underwriting spots to advertise products and services
in exchange for corporate funds. Indeed, corporate sponsorship, also
referred to as corporate underwriting or enhanced underwriting, has
escalated to new levels, leading public television to look more like
commercial television than ever before. Nowhere, I contend, is the
presence of corporate sponsorship more pervasive, or more troubling, than
during the PBS Kids programming block.
Sponsorship Defined
Sponsorship is the act of corporate giving to some
activity—sometimes for profit, sometimes not—in an attempt to capitalize on
the philanthropic ethos of patronage as well as the promotional functions
of advertising (McAllister, 1996, p. 178). According to Matthew
McAllister, author of The Commercialization of American Culture: New
Advertising, Control and Democracy (1996), the concept of sponsorship is
situated in the middle of a continuum in which anonymous giving is located
at one end while full fledged, self-serving advertising sits squarely at
the other end. Theoretically, sponsorship falls between these two
extremes; however, in the current social and economic climate, one might be
inclined to argue that in most cases, the promotional functions of
sponsorship far outweigh the corporation's philanthropic goals, thereby
pushing sponsorship closer to the concept of advertising. Indeed, such an
argument begs the question, "When corporations donate money, who really
benefits?"
A Brief History of PBS Sponsorship
In order to delve into the presence of corporate sponsorship within
PBS Kids, it is necessary to first start with a discussion of the
sponsorship of PBS as a whole. It may come as a surprise to many that
noncommercial television in America has never operated completely without
sponsorship. Well before PBS emerged, its precursor, National Educational
Television (NET), was funded primarily by the Ford Foundation, but also
accepted money from dozens of corporations, including Humble Oil, T.V.
Guide, Met Life, and the Xerox Corporation (Ledbetter, 1997, p. 141). As
public television moved from a medium dominated by National Educational
Television to the Public Broadcasting Service, it dramatically expanded the
role of private funding; by the mid-1970's, a full one-quarter of the funds
used to produce PBS programs came from 39 corporations (Ermann, 1976 in
Ledbetter, p. 142). This influx of massive, nationwide corporate
sponsorship of public television, according to Ledbetter, can be traced to
the federal budget threats brought about during the late Nixon
administration (p. 141).
In the years to follow, the role of corporate sponsorship
intensified, such that by the late 1980's, virtually no national PBS
program could be aired without some degree of corporate funding (Ledbetter,
p. 146). In fact, by 1996, PBS was pitching its shows to potential
corporate sponsors on Madison Avenue, alongside the commercial and cable
networks (McChesney, 1999, p. 252). Furthermore, in 1998, four of the
flagship PBS stations (WETA Washington D.C., WGBH Boston, WNET New York,
and WMPT Maryland Public Television) established a consortium, the PBS
Sponsorship Group (PBSSG), to "provide advertisers with one-stop shopping
to place messages nationally in the relatively uncluttered, upscale PBS
environment" (McChesney, 1999, p. 252). As a result, by 1998, PBS had
secured over 150 corporate sponsor partnerships totaling approximately $80
million (McChesney, 1999, p. 252).
These facts and figures, however, do not even begin to scratch the
surface of the expansive reach of corporate sponsorship within public
television. Whereas PBS steers its own national corporate sponsorship
campaign, public television stations across the country have established
their own corporate sponsorship operations, bringing in millions of
dollars. The sponsorship team at WGBH Boston, for instance, has generated
more than $150 million in corporate support in the last six years alone
(Business Wire, 2003), and according to WGBH's 2001-2002 Annual Report, the
greatest source of the station's total funding (23 percent) for fiscal year
2001 came from corporations (WGBH Annual Report, 2001-2002). As a result
of their past success in securing sponsors, WGBH launched the Sponsorship
Group for Public Television in July 2003, a full-service sales, marketing
and client services team which will secure national corporate sponsors for
signature PBS Kids programs, including Arthur, Zoom and Between the Lions
(Business Wire, 2003). What should be evident is that corporate
sponsorship on both the national and local levels yields tremendous power
in the overall public television landscape, thereby cultivating a
relationship in which public television is increasingly dependent on, and
responsible to, corporate America.
The Changing Face of PBS and PBS Kids Sponsorship
PBS defines a sponsor, or underwriter, as a third party that has
voluntarily contributed cash to finance, in whole or in part, the
production or acquisition of a PBS program (PBS, The Red Book,
2003). Federal law requires that those who help pay for a broadcast be
disclosed on air at the time of the broadcast (PBS, The Red Book,
2003). Thus, for example, if McDonalds sponsors the production of Sesame
Street, PBS must identify the program underwriter (i.e., McDonalds) in an
underwriting credit segment, generally both before and after the
program. It is important to note that Section 399B of the Communication
Act of 1934 forbids noncommercial broadcasters from airing any kind of
advertisement, defined as a message that promotes any service, facility, or
product for profit. However, as a result of an FCC loophole, donor
acknowledgments are permissible if they contain "value neutral descriptions
of a product line or service" without "qualitative or comparative
language" (PBS National Program Funding Standards & Practices, 2002). The
PBS guidelines of sponsorship, which flow from FCC policies, further dilute
these already weakened and seemingly ambiguous rules by stating, "Ideally,
announcements should contain value neutral descriptions and a message in
support for PBS, public television, or learning" (PBS Sponsorship Guide,
2002-2003).
It stands to argue that this FCC loophole might have been
acceptable during the late 1970's and early 1980's, when the FCC and PBS
limited underwriting segments to a "dull, tombstone-like on-screen message"
(i.e., The following program is brought to you by the Ford Foundation)
(Ledbetter, p. 142). However, in the last twenty years, the policies
governing promotional corporate underwriting segments have been watered
down in the hope of securing new corporate sponsors. In turn, the once
brief and seemingly innocuous corporate underwriting segments have
transformed dramatically, today increasingly resembling full-fledged
commercials that one would except to find on broadcast or cable television.
By and large, the major liberalizations in PBS's promotional
sponsorship messages can be traced back to March, 1984 during President
Ronald Reagan's administration. At this critical juncture, the concept of
"enhanced corporate underwriting" surfaced, whereby the FCC relaxed the
noncommercial policy to allow public broadcasters to expand or "enhance"
their scope of promotional corporate sponsorship credits to include the
following: (1) logograms or slogans which identify and do not promote; (2)
store location information; (3) value neutral descriptions of a product
line or service; and (4) brand and trade names and product or service
listings (FCC, 1986). In defense of their decision, the FCC states:
That action was taken as another step in our ongoing effort to strike a
reasonable balance between the financial needs of public broadcast
stations and their obligation to provide an essentially noncommercial
service. It was our view that "enhanced underwriting" would offer
significant potential benefits to public broadcasting in terms of
attracting additional business support and would thereby improve the
financial self-sufficiency of the service without threatening its
underlying noncommercial nature. In this regard, we emphasized
that such announcements could not include qualitative or comparative
language and that the Order should not be construed as allowing
advertisements as defined in Section 399B of the Communications
Act. (FCC, 1986)
This decision on the FCC's part, cloaked in the ideology of corporate
liberalism, opened the floodgates to a long line of deregulatory action in
which corporate underwriting policy has been increasingly liberalized.
In the nearly twenty years following this monumental change in
policy, public television—especially PBS Kids programming—continues to feel
the aftershocks of Reagan's 1984 decision. In fact, many of the most
drastic loosenings of sponsorship rules have occurred in the last
decade. For instance, in June of 1996, the PBS Board decided to allow the
use of brand names in sponsorship announcements for all programs, including
children's television—a policy change that was intended to correct an
unfair advantage the prior rules had given to sponsors whose corporate
identity served also a brand name, such as Visa or Coke (Bedford,
1996). As a result, however, this change in policy meant that brand names
of junk food could be attached to PBS children's television
series. Shortly following this policy change, a furor among media
activists and parents erupted when Cheetos, a brand of Pepsico's Frito-Lay
Corporation, offered $1 million dollars to sponsor the then-fledgling
children's program, Wishbone. Advocates of quality children's television
threatened to boycott public television, should PBS Kids compromise its
commercial-free oasis for child viewers by welcoming the likes of Chester
Cheetah (Cheetos' mascot) to the screen. In an attempt to alleviate the
concerns of activists and parents, the PBS Board approved a new set of
rules to guide corporate sponsorship decisions involving brands and
products that are especially appealing to children. Specifically, as of
February 2, 1997, sponsorship credits targeting children must now include a
brief, value-neutral description of the underwriter's product or services,
and use the remainder of the underwriting credit to offer a statement of
support for PBS Kids, or a message supporting learning and education (i.e.,
"Exercise your head. Read! Ghostwriter is brought to you in part by
Nike!) (Bedford, 1997). However, what I wish to suggest is that PBS's
revamping of their "rules" surrounding "kid-friendly" brands and products
did little to address the concerns of junk food and product mascots put
forth by parents and activists. In short, PBS Kids seemed to disregard the
public's concern, skirting the real issues by calling for value neutral
descriptions and statements in support of PBS Kids programming.
The turn of the century was marked with a surge of deregulatory
policy changes in the nature of promotional underwriting segments—an
indication of PBS Kids' move towards increased commercialization. As of
June 23, 2002, the PBS Board voted to allow still images of corporate
mascots to appear next to a sponsor's logo during underwriting segments
broadcast between PBS Kids television programs (Bedford, 2002). And in
January 2003, the PBS Board, caving further into corporate interests, voted
in favor of offering 30-second sponsorship acknowledgments during
prime-time television (up from 15-second spots) to heavy-hitting corporate
underwriters that asked for more airtime in exchange for their "donations"
(Jensen, 2003). While this ruling currently impacts only prime-time
television, the incessant unraveling of corporate sponsorship policies
suggests that it will not be long before the 30-second spots infiltrate all
genres and timeslots of PBS programming, including children's series. In
short, what should be clear is that corporations are essentially producing
full-motion video promotional segments to air during the PBS Kids
programming block—spots that bear strong resemblance to commercials seen on
network and cable television. Thus, it is due time that we start referring
to these spots for what they truly are. After all, isn't an ad by any
other name still an ad?
The Sponsorship of PBS Kids and its Programming
C.U.Kt PK Kw
Currently, hoards of corporations fund children's television
programs that broadcast on PBS stations throughout the United
States. Popular restaurant chains (i.e., McDonalds, Chuck E. Cheese), food
products (i.e., Kellogg's, Juicy Juice, Spaghettios), and even toy store
chains and toy manufacturers (i.e., KB Toys, Hasbro) are among the many
companies that provide funding for children's public television
programming. During the fiscal year 2001, the Kellogg Company, Playskool,
Post Alpha-bits, and the Lego Company each contributed over $1 million
dollars to PBS Kids children's programs; meanwhile, Chuck E. Cheese, KB
Toys, and Libby's Juicy Juice provided between $500,000 and $1 million
dollars to PBS children's series (PBS 2001 Annual Report). In turn, we
are witnessing on PBS Kids television an increase in corporate sponsorship
acknowledgements—many which promote products or services that are highly
appealing to young children.
Allow me to point to a few examples of corporate sponsorship
credits, past and present, that air (or have aired) during the PBS Kids
programming block. Currently, the WGBY (Springfield, MA) station airs a
15-second announcement for Chuck E. Cheese, sponsor of the popular
children's show, Barney & Friends. This brief announcement, however, looks
strikingly like a commercial, with happy children frolicking about, music
in the background, bright colors, and the like. As the face of the Chuck
E. Cheese mascot flashes repeatedly across the screen, a voiceover states,
"Barney & Friends was made possible by Chuck E. Cheese, proud supporter of
PBS Kids. Opening a door to all the joy and fun of learning. PBS
Kids. Where a kid can be a kid." If something sounds strikingly familiar
here, it is because the last phrase, "Where a kid can be a kid," is also
the well-known tagline of the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant chain. Thus, one
could argue that the integration of this catchphrase is an attempt to
establish a connection among PBS Kids, educational activity and the
restaurant chain.
Pointing to another example, WNET (New York) recently featured an
underwriting segment funded by fast-food giant, McDonalds. Like the Chuck
E. Cheese underwriting clip, the McDonald's segment aims to put forth a
pseudo-educational theme. Here, viewers see an animated Ronald McDonald
opening a book, only to find inside a Happy Meal box donning the familiar
golden arches. Immediately thereafter, the empty, lifeless room in which
Ronald McDonald is located transforms into an animated, magical wonderland,
as a voiceover exclaims that McDonalds is "happy" to support children's
television (Pohlman, 2002). Again, one could argue that the segment was
aired to create a visual link between McDonald's Happy Meals, PBS Kids, and
the fun of learning.
One of the most widely cited examples by media critics is
pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer's funding of Sesame Street. In an effort to
boost its sales of Zithromax, an antibiotic commonly used to treat
children's ear infections, Pfizer's marketing executives created a lovable
product mascot, "Max the Zebra," to promote the drug. In addition to
creating a "kid-friendly" mascot, Pfizer realized that PBS possessed an
impressive child (and adult) audience, which led to a funding partnership
in 2000 between the Pfizer and PBS Kids (Polhman, 2002). Because of
Pfizer's strategic move to sponsor Sesame Street, today, rather than
hearing that the episode was brought to you by the letter Z and the number
2, you now might hear, "Pfizer brings parents the letter Z—as in
Zithromax," accompanied by images of a zebra and children playing with a
giant toy block (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, 2002). Indeed, in an
age of antibiotic over-prescription by doctors and antibiotic resistance
among patients, the marketing of antibiotics during children's television
programming is an especially alarming cause for concern among media
activists, parents and health professionals. Familiar with this issue is
Carrie McLaren, editor of Stay Free!, an award-winning anti-marketing
magazine based in New York City. In her perspective, "There may be good
reasons for children to take an antibiotic, but the association with cute
cartoon friends is not one of them (McLaren quoted in Seipp, 2001).
While many of the corporate sponsors promoting themselves during
PBS children's television series are in fact the makers of products aimed
at children, there are numerous partnerships with corporations that one
would not necessarily associate with children (i.e., Internet providers,
car manufacturers, supermarkets, etc…). As an example, McAllister (1996)
points to the now cancelled PBS children's series, Where in the World is
Carmen Sandiego?, underwritten by car manufacturer, Toyota. According to
McAllister, each episode of Carmen Sandiego was bracketed by two distinct
Toyota segments; in the pre-program spot, a Toyota pick-up truck brings a
television set to the audience, and in the post-program spot, the same
Toyota pick-up truck takes the television away. Both the pre- and the
post-program underwriting spots include a child narrator who informs the
audience, "This program was brought to you by [pause] Toyota" (McAllister,
p. 205).
Such a segment raises two issues; first, the visual and verbal
message to viewers is that Toyota literally supplies the show—a notion that
young children may find confusing. Second, one might ask why Toyota, as a
car manufacturer, would want to advertise its products to an audience of
child viewers who lack driver's licenses. Two pieces of data help to shed
light on such a query. First, according to PBS, one-fourth of the viewers
of PBS children's programs are 18 or older (PBS, Sponsorship Guide, 2002)—a
clear indication as to why a car company, or any other adult-oriented
product, might want to advertise during PBS children's shows. More
telling, however, is the fact that children tend to play a vital role in
the family's purchasing decisions. According to James McNeal, a retired
professor from Texas A&M University who is considered to be the "godfather
of kids' marketing," children between the ages of 2 and 12 influenced an
estimated $320 billion in family purchases in 2000 (McDonald & Lavelle,
2001, p. 75). Certainly, this phenomenon—what psychologists have coined
the "nag factor"—offers insight as to why a corporation might want to
advertise their adult-oriented products to children.
All of the aforementioned sponsorship partners—Chuck E. Cheese,
McDonalds, Zithromax and Toyota—share common ground in that their role as
corporate sponsors, and their respective underwriting segments aired during
PBS Kids television, contributes to the overall commercialization of
children's public television. As such, they represent a mere handful of
corporations that are penetrating the realm of public television,
particularly children's public television. Marked by flashy graphics,
product mascots, musical tunes, and catchy taglines, many of the enhanced
underwriting segments aired during the PBS Kids programming block are
arguably almost as explicit as advertisements found on commercial or cable
television. Moreover, what I hope to suggest is that corporate sponsorship
segments, particularly those bracketing PBS Kids programs, are frequently
characterized by full-fledged advertising techniques, and in many cases,
can hardly be considered "value neutral." Furthermore, regardless
of whether or not the messages of corporate underwriting are discreet, the
case in point is that these messages are promoting a product or service,
which in turn promotes consumption. In short, the world of children's
public television has undoubtedly collided with that of commercial
television—the private market structure for which public television was
supposed to serve as an alternative.
The Mounting Evidence of Advertising on PBS Kids
Until recently, research on the presence of corporate sponsorship
(or advertising) on PBS has been limited. While the issue has periodically
surfaced in the popular press since the mid- 1980's, it is only in the last
decade that scholars have started to take a vested interest in the
corporate sponsorship of PBS, and more germane to my scholarly inquiry, PBS
Kids. In fact, Judy Puritz Cook's (2003) study of underwriting segments on
PBS is perhaps most in tune to my own work. Through content analysis of
WGBH-2 (Boston), Cook examines the extent to which corporate sponsorship
has marked its presence on public television. To secure her sample,
two-hour blocks of programming were randomly selected between February 12
to February 26, 2000 until a twenty-four hour composite day was
achieved. Content was then coded as a.) an underwriting spot, b.)
programming, or c.) station promotion. The underwriting spots were also
coded for the genre of programming to which the segment was associated
(i.e., Chuck E. Cheese as a sponsor during children's programming). Spots
were then categorized by product type (i.e., food and beverages, toys,
education, healthcare, etc…) and by visual type (i.e., static image of
company logo versus full-motion video). In addition, the segments were
coded for product features mentioned in the spot, products appearing in the
spot, "calls to action" included in the spot, and the presence of web site
addresses, 1-800 numbers, corporate logos, statements in support of PBS,
and messages promoting learning.
Cook's findings were numerous and revealing; moreover, they
contribute much support to the study at hand. In coding for content type,
underwriting spots accounted for 47.8 percent of the sample while PBS
promotion spots and actual programming accounted for 32.5 percent (n=66)
and 19.7 percent (n=40), respectively. The nearly 2:1 ratio of
underwriting spots to programming type (in terms of simple frequency)
suggests that many PBS programs are sandwiched between underwriting
segments. Of all the two-hour time slots recorded, the largest number of
underwriting credits appeared during the 8:00am to 10:00am timeslot (21.6
percent, n=21); tellingly, the 6:00am to 8:00am timeslot was not far behind
(15.5 percent, n=15). Of significance is the fact that these two time
blocks consist only of children's programming, indicating that children are
being targeted the most as consumers. Interestingly, 82 percent of the
underwriting segments (n=80) appeared before or after a children's program,
while 15.5 percent (n=15) and 2.1 percent (n=2) were associated with
arts/culture and history programs, respectively—a finding that lends
support to the notion that children are being targeted as potential
consumers drastically more so than other segments of the PBS audience.
Cook's study also unearths an interesting trend in terms of the
products promoted through underwriting segments. Food, beverage and toys
and technology were the most frequently featured products in underwriting
segments. Cook's analysis also reveals that the toy company, KB Kids,
appeared seven times in the sample, and spots for Kellogg's Frosted Flakes
and Chuck E. Cheese aired twice during the PBS Kids line-up. Among other
significant findings, Cook found that 93.8 percent (n=91) of the
underwriting segments featured company logos. Cook contends that this is
an important finding, stating:
The presence of corporate symbols is significant for a variety
of reasons.
Since the target audience appears to be children, many of whom
may not
even be able to read, the symbols serve as something they can
understand.
Additionally, the symbols aid in memory retention and message
identification. (p. 92)
Thus, the presence of corporate logos during the underwriting segments, and
the repetition of products normally associated with (and craved by)
children, testify to the creeping commercialization of children's public
television.
In essence, Cook's work provides evidence that the
commercialization of public television is particularly robust within the
genre of children's programming. While Cook set out to explore the overall
presence of underwriting spots across the various genres of PBS
programming, her research findings indicate a particular cause for concern
over PBS Kids programming. In fact, this contribution of scholarly work
suggests that the current state of public television is "reducing children
to commodities and serving them up to underwriters," which, according to
Cook, is "not exactly something one normally associates with public
television" (p. 93). In short, the targeting of children as consumers,
suggested by the timing of the underwriting spots, the types of products
advertised, and the program genres associated with the "kid-friendly"
products, serves as a particularly useful springboard from which to further
the study at hand.
The Contradictions of PBS Kids
Historically, children's public television, because of the
character, quality, integrity, and noncommercial nature of its programs,
has garnered an impressive reputation and captured a special place in the
minds of the American public. From Arthur to Zoom, PBS Kids supports and
provides airspace to a wide range of innovative, educational programs, many
that are extremely popular among children and their parents. Perhaps part
of PBS Kids' success lies in the fact that its program producers and
researchers have long since realized that children watch and understand
television in a remarkably different fashion than adults. As a result,
nearly all of the children's programs televised on PBS member stations are
informed by summative and/or formative research to ensure the educational
impact of television on children. Given the painstaking research that has
gone into making the PBS children's programs, it would stand to argue that
those at PBS are well-informed of how young minds see and comprehend
television. In fact, such a sentiment is supported in PBS's
literature. For example:
PBS and its member stations believe that children are a special audience
with few critical skills and greater vulnerability with respect to televised
messages. In addition, public television has a special place in the minds
of the public with respect to children's programming. Therefore, every
effort must be made to avoid even the possibility that children are being
exploited by public television programs, including the underwriting credits.
(PBS National Program Funding Standards & Practices: Rule 3:
Children's Programs, 2002)
The above excerpt reveals two pertinent strands of information. First,
this statement recognizes PBS's understanding of children as a distinct and
special audience, with heightened susceptibility to televised
messages. Second, at the conclusion of this statement, PBS acknowledges
that the underwriting credits aired during PBS children's television should
not in any way exploit the viewer. Yet, given what researchers now know
about children, television, and advertising, what are we to make of the
growing presence of enhanced underwriting segments during PBS Kids
television programming? Does PBS Kids run the risk of exploiting the child
audience by airing ad-like underwriting segments? And if this is the case,
is such a course of action in the best interest of the child audience?
To address, situate, and perhaps complicate these very questions, I
found it useful to draw from the annals of research that have helped to
broaden our current understanding of the relationship between children and
television advertising. Beginning in the early 1970's, arguments emerged
that advertising to children was inherently unfair, based on theories
developed by child psychologists and exploratory research conducted by
consumer researchers that revealed young children to have little
understanding of the pervasive intent of advertising, viewing it as
informative, truthful, and entertaining (e.g., Blatt, Spencer, & Ward 1972;
Ward, Reale, & Levinson 1972). At the heart of these debates were
questions about children's knowledge and beliefs about advertising, as well
as assessments of the age at which children attain an "adult-like"
understanding of advertising messages and their intent.
Today, we fortunately have a much richer understanding of children
and television advertising, given the large body of findings that has
accumulated over more than 30 years of research. For instance, we know
that by the age of five, almost all children have acquired the ability to
distinguish commercials from regular television programming (Blosser &
Roberts, 1985; Levin, Petros, & Petrella, 1982; Palmer & McDowell, 1979;
Stephens & Stutts, 1982; Stutts, Vance, & Hudleson, 1981). In some cases,
a substantial percentage of three- and four-year-olds have been shown to
discriminate commercials above chance levels (Levin et al.,
1982). However, the ability to identify commercials does not translate
into an understanding of the true difference between commercials and
programs (entertainment versus selling intent). In fact, an understanding
of advertising's intent usually doesn't emerge until the time a child is
seven or eight-years-old, at which time they begin to realize that
advertisers are trying to persuade people to buy something (Bever, Smith,
Bengen, & Johnson, 1975; Blosser et al., 1985; Ward, Wackman, & Wartella,
1977). Moreover, by a child's eighth birthday, they not only have an
understanding of advertising's persuasive intent, but they also recognize
bias and deception in advertising—an ability that increases with age as
children move into their preadolescent years (Bever et al., 1975; Ward,
1972; Ward et al., 1977).
It is important to give careful consideration to these research
findings, especially if we are to further the argument that corporate
sponsorship announcements increasingly serve the purpose of
advertisements. Based on the vast number of pre-school oriented programs
constituting the PBS Kids line-up, we know that PBS caters to a very young
audience. According to PBS, 40% of the viewers of PBS children's programs
are between the ages of 2 and 5 years old (PBS Sponsorship Guide,
2002). Reflecting on the research, we also know that children, prior to
age 5, lack the ability to distinguish commercials from regular television
programming, and it is only at 7 or 8 years old that children begin to
understand advertising's intent. Given that a large percentage of the PBS
Kids' audience consists of pre-school aged children, coupled by the ad-like
quality of the corporate underwriting segments, it is indeed questionable
whether or not PBS is truly taking the necessary steps to "avoid even the
possibility that children are being exploited." In short, the research
informing the relationship between children and television advertising is
critical if we are to successfully argue against the presence of corporate
sponsorship on children's public
television.
It is also interesting that on its official web site PBS
emphasizes that "PBS Kids programs are commercial-free and do not seek to
sell anything to young viewers except the fun and excitement of
learning." To compare this statement with other written material published
in PBS's Sponsorship Guide (PBS's promotional literature intended for
potential corporate sponsors, we find that PBS's discourse is riddled with
contradiction. Take, for example, the following excerpt drawn from the PBS
Sponsorship Guide:
From a very young age, children learn that PBS is a place to learn,
laugh and live. Preschoolers are the most frequent viewers of public
television among all age groups, averaging three-and-a-half hours of
PBS viewing every week. Nationwide surveys and top-of-the-chart
ratings show that parents choose PBS for the best, safest, most valuable
children's programming. We also know that one-quarter of our
children's programming viewers are 18 or older, which means your
message receives additional impact. (PBS Sponsorship Guide, 2002-2003)
Examining this statement, we can recognize the ways in which PBS is perhaps
departing from its original goals. Indeed, for PBS to express to potential
sponsors that "your message receives additional impact with an adult
audience" is to imply that the child audience is influenced by the messages
put forth by corporate sponsors. Could it be that PBS is taking advantage
of its young audience, one lacking the cognitive capacity to understand
persuasive intent of corporate donor announcements?
Beyond the Exploitation of the Child Audience: Other Concerns Over
Corporate Sponsorship
As stated above, PBS Kids' ad-like corporate sponsorship segments
run the risk of exploiting young minds that are unable to distinguish
commercials and comprehend their intention. Nonetheless, these segments
continue to air during PBS Kids programming, and as I have illustrated, the
rules governing these segments continue to unravel—a shift,
that unless reversed, will undoubtedly lead corporate sponsorship into the
realm of full-fledged advertising. However, beyond risking exploitation of
young viewers, several other issues surrounding corporate sponsorship abound.
It is true—at first glance, corporate sponsorship arrangements,
such as the case with PBS, seem like a win-win situation: the institution
receives the much-needed funding and the sponsoring corporation is
compensated with public acknowledgement and, in most cases, a tax
break. Yet, because sponsorship has edged closer to the world of
advertising, this "win-win" line of thinking no longer holds
true. According to McAllister (1996), early sponsorship arrangements (both
at PBS and elsewhere) did not grant a high degree of economic control to
the corporate sponsor. Nevertheless, with the buyer-seller mentality
surrounding many sponsorship agreements since the 1980's, we find that
sponsors are increasingly expecting a significant amount of financial
influence over the sponsored institution (McAllister, p. 189). Examining
PBS as a whole, we are able to pinpoint many instances in which PBS has
caved into corporate interests—allowing multinational corporations like
ExxonMobil and General Motors to underwrite programs that are a far cry
from the diversity of opinion that was PBS's original mandate (Strauss,
2000). According to Strauss:
The cost of survival for PBS has meant the expansion of five-second
underwriting acknowledgments into 30-second commercials, a dwindling
number of public affairs programs critical of industry and government,
and an increase in business news shows that cater to the few Americans
actively involved in the buying and trading of stock. (2000)
In this excerpt, we are able to pinpoint what Strauss conveys to be some of
the ramifications of a corporately sponsored PBS; namely, a lack of
critical programs and the proliferation of series that cater only to
selective "desirable" audiences. Indeed, we are increasingly unearthing
evidence (see Hoynes' 1994 and 1999 analyses of the corporate voice in PBS
public affairs programming) testifying to the fact that corporate
sponsorship can, and does, influence programming decisions and
content. Here, I wish to suggest that if such is the case with other
genres of PBS programming, it is indeed probable, if not certain, that PBS
Kids faces the same potential risks and ramifications. One needs only to
recall the Sesame Street segment (sponsored by AOL) in which Elmo's
computer shouts out AOL's popular catch phrase, "You've got mail!" This
incidence seems a far cry from happenstance, and illustrates that the
corporate voice is not always absent on children's public
television. Building on Hoynes' revealing research of the corporate
presence on public affairs programming, it would be useful to engage in a
systematic study in which to unveil the corporate voice on children's
public television.
It is evident that PBS Kids (and PBS as a whole) has become
increasingly dependent on corporate sponsorship, and as I have attempted to
illustrate thus far, the relationship between the sponsor and the sponsored
is not without consequence. As PBS's dependency on corporate funds
intensifies, so too does the power that corporations yield over public
television. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that sponsors seek to
maximize the frequency of their sponsorship by wanting to squeeze every
possible promotional ounce from their sponsorship efforts
(McAllister). Evaluating the current landscape of public television, we
now realize that the 15- or 30-second on-screen "acknowledgement" is no
longer sufficient to lure in corporate sponsorship dollars.
These days, what exactly do corporate sponsors except in return for
their "donations"? The answer to this very question lies in the PBS
Sponsorship Guide, where PBS showcases its long-list of programs in search
(and in need) of corporate sponsors. Among the many children's programs
seeking sponsorship, one finds Between the Lions, an Emmy-winning
children's literacy series from WGBH, Boston—which, incidentally, has
halted production due to lack of funding (Ryan, 2003). In order to attract
potential funders for this program, PBS not only offers a sponsor message
at the beginning and end of the original broadcast, but further entices the
corporate sponsor with an extensive sponsorship package including: 1.) a
sponsor logo on the Between the Lions web site with a hyperlink to the
funder's site, 2.) sponsor credits on home video merchandise, 3.) a sponsor
logo on pre-broadcast and national promotional materials, 4.) a sponsor
logo on Extensive Outreach materials, on Between the Lions preschool
activity guides, on the teacher's guide, and on educational materials and
workshops, and 5.) opportunities for the sponsor to license Between the
Lions characters and logo (PBS Sponsorship Guide, 2002-2003).
Reflecting on the comprehensive array of benefits and opportunities
offered to corporate sponsors, it is evident that in today's economic
climate, the acknowledgment of corporate sponsors extends well beyond the
confines of a brief announcement bracketing a program. Today's corporate
sponsor, it would appear, wants to seek control, economically, of the
mediated environment that surrounds the advertising (or underwriting)
message. Because sponsors are increasingly expecting a sizable amount of
financial influence over the sponsored entity in exchange for their funds,
and because PBS greatly depends on corporate money, PBS has become
accustomed to expanding the range of benefits in order to sweeten the
sponsorship package. Exploring, and perhaps complicating, the sponsorship
arrangement further, McAllister explains:
In reality, of course, rarely does a sponsor need to exert such explicit
control.
More likely, the payer of the piper does not have to call the tune: The piper
knows exactly what the payer wants to hear. The economic control
embedded in modern sponsorship has led to unintentional control. It has
socialized the sponsored to alter their "product" for what they believe
sponsors want. (p. 192)
It is here that McAllister perhaps best describes the dynamic relationship
between the sponsor and the sponsored. Surely, there are instances in
which the sponsor explicitly calls the shots, knowing that they have the
power to influence the sponsored institution, desperate for corporate
dollars. Yet, as McAllister points out, the act of sponsorship fosters a
relationship in which the sponsored entity molds itself to what it thinks
the sponsor desires; in turn, the sponsored institution relinquishes some
of its power over to the sponsor—an act, according to McAllister, that
leads to unintentional control by the sponsor. Through this analysis, I
wish to articulate and emphasize that the relationship between the
corporate sponsor and the sponsored is often dynamic, complicated and
consequential.
The Positioning of the Child Audience as Consumers
In today's society, the barrage of materialistic marketing thrusts
children into the role of consumer at an increasingly young age. Public
television, created to serve as an alternative to the commercial clutter of
advertising-supported media, hoped to provide people, young and old with a
renewed sense of citizenry. However, I contend that the increased
dependency on and presence of corporate sponsorship is part and parcel to
the transformation that is taking place in PBS's positioning of the child
viewer. As such, public television is increasingly valuing its child
audience as consumers—a conceptualization that mirrors that which has
historically characterized commercial television.
Again, one need not look far to find evidence of PBS's positioning
of the child as consumer. Delving into PBS's Sponsorship Guide, one is
perhaps shocked, and disturbed, by the blatant tones of commercialism and
consumerism expressed by PBS, especially that which is found in its
literature promoting the sponsorship of PBS Kids programming. In the
attempt to convince companies why they too should sponsor a PBS Kids
program, the Sponsorship Guide includes a section entitled, "Hear What Our
Sponsors Have to Say About PBS." Here, we find a testimonial of sorts
offered by Libby's Juicy Juice, sponsor of the PBS Kids program, Arthur:
Libby's Juicy Juice, 100% Juice, takes great pride in its reputation for
providing quality juice that kids love and parents trust. What better way,
then, for Juicy Juice to reach millions of parents and children and
reinforce
the brand's quality than to sponsor PBS's most popular children's program,
Arthur?…Juicy Juice reinforces its Arthur connection through a variety of
promotional activities designed to increase product visibility and its
association
with the series. In addition to featuring both the Arthur logo and a
tune-in
message on virtually all of its juice products, Juicy Juice included special
Arthur 'activity' trading cards in its shrink-wrapped juice packs for
several
months during 1998. (PBS Sponsorship Guide, 2002-2003)
Taken from this perspective, it is evident that Juicy Juice, by associating
its brand with the popular children's series, Arthur, is attempting to cash
in on the reputation that PBS has garnered during its history. The
implications of sponsorship are thus two fold: both children and the public
airwaves are vulnerable to exploitation. In short, Juicy Juice's
testimonial offers even greater evidence that public television has taken
drastic steps towards commercialization, and children, much like adults,
are being targeted as consumers.
While this paper sought to examine the overall commercialization of
PBS Kids, my reasons for exploring the presence and ramifications of
corporate sponsorship within the context of PBS Kids are two fold. On a
microscopic level, my analysis suggests that children may indeed be
unfairly manipulated by the messages put forth by corporate sponsors. By
dissecting an array of sponsorship segments aimed at children, and by
tracing the liberalizations of underwriting policy, I argue that PBS Kids
is embracing what are, in every sense but the wording, product
advertisements. In turn, with the influx and the expansion of corporate
sponsorship announcements, it is increasingly difficult to determine what
makes public television commercial free—a distinction that is particularly
troublesome within children's television.
On a macroscopic level, this analysis puts forth the opportunity to
consider the far-reaching implications of a corporately sponsored public
television system; i.e., the way in which sponsorship mirrors some of the
fundamental characteristics of advertising, the ever present threat of a
sponsor shaping programming decisions and/or content; and the way in which
sponsorship places economic value on the viewer. In addition, this
analysis has provided a window through which we can contemplate the "bigger
picture"—by that, I am referring to the overall ramifications of an
increasingly corporately sponsored world. As such, we must consider the
ways in which the commercialization of PBS Kids, accelerated by increased
corporate sponsorship, contributes to, and reflects, the commercialization
of childhood. As public funding decreases, support services dry up, and
extracurricular activities are eliminated from schools, young people find
themselves with fewer public spaces that are not already part of a
commercialized (and commodified) culture. PBS Kids has the opportunity,
however, to provide a genuinely noncommercial media outlet for children of
all ages, and to offer a unique service—one that would truly differentiate
itself from its commercial competition. Indeed, as we find ourselves with
fewer and fewer noncommercial spaces and as young people grow up in an
increasingly corporately sponsored landscape, the challenge to provide a
truly noncommercial public service medium for children has never been so
urgent.
References
Bedford, K.E. (1996, November 11). When a funder arrives bearing cheese
puffs. Current. Retrieved on May 10, 2002 from
http://www.current.org/cm/cm703c.html.
Bedford, K.E. (1997, February 17). Rules tightened on underwriting spots
aimed at kids. Current. Retrieved on May 10, 2002 from
http://www.current.org/cm/cm 703c.html.
Bedford, K.E. (2002, July 8). Corporate mascots (still as rocks) and
celebs appear in sponsor credits. Current. Retrieved on July 10, 2002
from h cm/cm0202pbs.html.
Bever, T.G., Smith, M.L., Bengen, B., & Johnson, T.G. (1975). Young
viewers troubling response to TV ads. Harvard Business Review, 53
(November-December), pp. 109-120.
Blatt, J., Spencer, L., & Ward, S. (1972). A cognitive developmental
study of children's reactions to television advertising. In E.A.
Rubenstein, G.A. Comstock, & J.P. Murray (Eds.), Television and social
behavior, Volume 4, Television in day-to-day life: Patterns of use (pp.
452-467). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Blosser, B.J. & Roberts, D.F. (1985). Age differences in children's
perceptions of message intent: Responses to TV news, commercials,
educational spots, and public service announcements. Communication
Research, 12 (October), pp. 455-484.
Business Wire. (2003, July 1). WGBH launches sponsorship group for public
television. Retrieved on July 1, 2003 from http://www.businesswire.com.
Cook, J.P. (2003). Advertising on public television: A look at PBS. In
M.P. McCauley, E.E. Peterson, B.L. Artx, and D. Halleck (Eds.), Public
broadcasting and the public interest (pp. 85-94). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. (2002, March 27). Action alert: The
commercialization of children's public television. Retrieved on June 6,
2002 from http://www.fair.org.
Federal Communications Commission. (1986). Commission policy concerning the
noncommercial nature of educational stations. Retrieved on March 9, 2002 from
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/nature.html#ENHANCED.
Hoynes, W. (1994). Public television for sale: Media, market and the
public sphere. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hoynes, W. (1999). The cost of survival: Political discourse and the new
PBS. Retrieved on March 3, 2002 at:
http://www.fair.org/reports/pbs-study-1999.html.
Jensen, E. (2003, Feb. 4). PBS votes to accept 30-second ad spots: Board
of directors allows extended corporate messages to entice more
sponsors. Los Angeles Times, p. 6.
Ledbetter, J. (1997). Made possible by…The death of public broadcasting
in the United States. New York City: Verso.
Levin, S.R., Petros, T.V., & Petrella, F.W. (1982). Preschoolers'
awareness of television advertising. Child Development, 53, pp. 933-937.
McAllister, M.P. (1996). The commercialization of American culture: New
advertising, control and democracy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McChesney, R. (1999). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics
in dubious times. New York: Seven Stories Press.
McDonald, M., & Lavelle, M. (2001, July 30). Call it
'kid-influence.' U.S. News & World Report, v. 131, i.4, p. 32.
Palmer, E.L., & McDowell, C.N. (1979). Program/commercial separators in
children's television programming. Journal of Communication, 29 (Summer),
pp. 197-201.
PBS. (2001). PBS Annual Report. Retrieved on May 5, 2002 from
www.pbs.org/insidepbs/ annualreport/fiscal.html.
PBS. (2002). PBS National Program Funding Standards & Practices:
III-Rule 3. Retrieved on May 12, 2002 from
http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/guidelines/iii03.html.
PBS. (2003). Beyond TV: PBS Sponsorship Guide, 2002-2003. Alexandria, VA:
PBS. Retrieved on January 1, 2003 from
http://sponsorship.pbs.org/secure/messages _credit.htm.
PBS. (2003). PBS: The Red Book. Alexandria, VA: PBS. Retrieved on
February 5, 2003 from http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/redbook.
Pohlman, K. (2002, March 15). The commercialization of children's public
television. Retrieved on June 15, 2002 from
http://www.fair.org/activism/pbs-kids.html.
Ryan, S.C. (2003, May 28). In a first, WGBH series goes
commercial. Boston Globe, p. A1.
Seipp, C. (2001). KIDS: The new captive market. Child Magazine.
Retrieved on August 27, 2003 from
http://www.jbcc.harvard.edu/media2/press_seipp.htm.
Stephens, N., & Stutts, M.A. (1982). Preschoolers' ability to distinguish
between television programming and commercials. Journal of Advertising, 11
(2), pp. 16-26.
Strauss, T. (2000, April 20). With corporate influence shaping the PBS
agenda, two new organizations push for change. Alternet. Retrieved on
November 3, 2002 from http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=745.
Stutts, M.A., Vance, D., & Hudleson, S. (1981). Program-commercial
separators in children's television: Do they help a child tell the
difference between Bugs Bunny and the Quik Rabbit? Journal of Advertising,
10 (Spring), pp. 16-25.
Ward, S., Reale, G., & Levinson, D. (1972). Children's perceptions,
explanations, and judgments of television advertising: A further
explanation. In E.A. Rubenstein, G.A. Comstock, & J.P. Murray (Eds.),
Television and social behavior, Volume 4, Television in day-to-day life:
Patterns of use (pp. 468-490). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
Ward, S., Wackman, D.B., & E. Wartella. (1977). How children learn to
buy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
WGBH. (2002). WGBH Annual Report 2001-2002. Boston, MA: WGBH. Retrieved
on July 1, 2003 from http://www.wgbh.org/about/report/annualreport2001
/text/fiscal.html.
|
