• Popular:
• Get out of Debt
 | 
• Savings Account
 | 
• CD Rates
 | 
• Credit Cards
 | 
• Insurance
 | 
• Best of GRS

4 Responses to “links for 2007-03-06”

1. learning lurker says:

   06 March 2007 at 7:00 am

   I’m not sure I understand why you linked to the utube about merchandising. In my experience, kids shoes at at Target all cost about the same, regardless of whether they have a character on them or not.

   I think the bigger issue with this clip is the fact that this mother is standing in front of her child, asking a 2-3 year old if she wants something and then telling her no. That doesn’t teach the toddler about merchandising, that teaches her not to trust her mother when she offers her something. Thta’s not a message I would wnat to send.
2. J.D. says:

   06 March 2007 at 7:12 am

   Good question, LL.

   Mostly I linked to the video because I thought it was ineresting. There are a lot of things going on there, as you noticed.

   First, many people, including this woman apparently, are opposed to wearing clothing with corporate logos or other readily-indentifiable symbols like the “characters” this woman describes. I can understand their point, as I say, but for me the comfort and utility of a piece of clothing is most important.

   What’s interesting to me is that though this woman entitled her video “My kids are not walking advertisements”, she doesn’t actually address the advertising aspect in her message. She’s more concerned with getting the kid hooked on “characters”. Or is she? She let’s her daughter play with Hello, Kitty toys, but she won’t let her wear the clothes. Except that maybe she will. She says she finds the shoes not so offensive.

   It’s also interesting that at a young age, children are well-aware of the presence of certain kinds of products. I once went to a five-and-dime with a young friend and her mother. My young friend — who was three or four at the time — wanted a Barbie. What do you know? There was a Barbie for five bucks. I bought it for her. Her mother wasn’t pleased, and in retrospce, I can’t blame her. These “characters” are like crack for kids. By putting them on everything, companies hope to lure the kids in.

   So, yeah, I don’t have one specific point I’m trying to make by linking to that video. I just think it’s interesting. And though it may be wrong of the mother to tease her daughter with something she cannot have, I think that ultimately she’s probably a good mom if she’s thinking about stuff like this.
3. learning lurker says:

   06 March 2007 at 7:45 am

   I’m not trying to be argumentative and I can appreciate taking a look at the effect of merchandising. I just don’t think that this clip does a good job of addressing the issue.

   You’re right, if the point was that she was against merchandising, then she would be against all merchandising. But she isn’t, as the Hello Kitty stuff might be OK. So what’s the difference? One is a latino girl and the other is a pink and white kitty. The point is that she finds some merchandsing tacky(her word).

   Also, when a woman who self describes herself as “definately a snooty Mom” “I’m a real big snob” has an issue with Dora being tacky but not Hello Kitty, I have to wonder what she is really saying.

   OK, off my soapbox, back to scheduled programming.
4. John Wesley says:

   06 March 2007 at 9:41 am

   I liked the Lifehacker story. I can’t wait for a chance haggle with some poor salesperson using the those tips.