Michael, my husband, recently commented on a post that suggested our Year Without Disney was based solely on the fact that Disney is big: “After all, they’re . . . big. And bad. And all that bigness and badness just can’t be good for anybody. Can it?” Here’s a slightly edited version of his response:
. . . A Year Without Disney is not solely about drawing attention to Disney’s hypocritical image; it’s also about drawing attention to the sheer size of it and corporations like it. The larger the corporation, the more the consolidation of power, and the less choice we as consumers have. And when that consolidation of power occurs in media, the less diverse the message, and the more likely that message is, at the heart, about money. Michael Eisner himself says he has no obligation to create art or to be concerned about the messages Disney sends, which would be bad enough if much of the Disney focus weren’t on children. But when many of its images sexualize children, perpetuate sexism and racism, then size does matter. There are fewer sources of counterbalances and fewer competing images.
The conservative, pro-capitalist argument that corporations create jobs is valid, but when only a few conglomerates control employment, the opposite is true. Corporations consolidate to downsize jobs; less competition means fewer opportunities, lower wages and more outsourcing to lesser-developed countries with cheap labor. Yes, corporations create jobs, but this means small corporations, small business. Small businesses create jobs domestically; large corporations shed jobs and ship jobs overseas.
But doesn’t Disney’s sheer size mean that it offers choice, that even if I don’t like Hanna Montana, I can still go to a Pixar movie? In fact, not only can I pick and choose, the argument goes, I want to and should support Pixar, for example, because most of its films are gems, almost little works of art. I thought Up and The Incredibles were great. The problem is that being a buffet-style consumer doesn’t mean I can control what the corporation does with my money. My $8 for Toy Story 3 funds Hanna Montana, allows ABC to reduce its news reporting, and helps fund the distribution of lead-laden kids’ jewelry, so no, I can’t simply take what I like and leave the rest. It’s all a part of the same. That’s why they call it a conglomerate. That’s why big is bad. That’s why we have anti-trust laws. Big reduces choice, competition, and yes, jobs.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Having read your blog and seen your face book page as well as page for a commercial free childhood, I would like to offer a differing opinion.
First, I find it a delicious irony that you are using a blog with Disney in its name to a) advertise your own family’s personal journey b)advertise your face book page c)advertise the center that you’ve started. Clearly you know that the Disney name carries a certain weight and you are willing to use it for your own purposes. If you had named your blog “A Magical Year Without A Certain Cultural Touchstone) you would have received no notoriety and therefore no interest. Congrats on the open and obvious hypocrisy. I also suspect that this might be being done for the hope of future book deal, but since that [deleted per comment policy] I would hope that you would have more sense than that. (Seriously [deleted per comment policy] if you failed to notice your child’s Pooh sheets for several weeks)
Second, in response to your husbands arguments that Big does mean Bad. Let’s clear up a few things. Larger companies can afford to hire more people, to take risks where small companies can’t, to afford better benefits and generally be more appealing to employees. Ma and Pa Hardware might be a nice idea, but they can’t afford to pay your health insurance or provide a paid vacation.
And even if we eliminated giant companies and forced everyone back down to small business level, eventually competition will step in and some companies will grow. Its called capitalism and that’s just the facts ma’am.
Concerning Disney, your husband stated “many of its images sexualize children, perpetuate sexism and racism, then size does matter” If its offensive, its offensive and size doesn’t matter. In fact a large company with more to protect is probably going to be a lot more careful. But beyond that if you are going to accuse Disney or any other company of sexism, racism and the sexualization of children then should at least mention where you might believe this is happening. I wouldn’t write an article about you and claim that you were a racist without a fact or two to back it up.
How does seeing “UP” allow ABC news to reduce its news reporting. Those are two separate divisions of a large company, each with their own budget. Do you really think someone at the ABC table said, “Princess and the Frog failed to meet expectations, so we’re not going to send a reporter to the Gulf?” And as for the Hannah Montana thing, goodness knows I’m not a fan, but as long as there have been TV and music there have been teenage and child idols. Most have succeeded without much talent and then have had spectacular adult falls. To blame Disney for that kind of crap seems to be the worst kind of revisionist history.
Ultimately if you want to blame a company for being large and “evil” don’t look at the company, but at the consumer. The product is there because there is a demand. And the company is large because they are very good at meeting that demand. That’s something to aspire to, not demonize.
Finally I went and had a look at your website for Commercial Free Childhood. I’m sure you are well-intentioned, but so were the Spanish missionaries who brought small pox to the natives of the Americas. I’ve taken the liberty of commenting on many of the statements on your page in an effort to show that what you think are facts, may not be.
Bullet Point Facts from Commercial Free Childhood are presented in Bold below. My own commentary is present below each of the web site’s facts
Children Are Awash in Materialistic Values
(When haven’t they been? The idea of doing a little bit better than your parents has been a dream of every child since money was invented)
This generation of children is the most brand conscious ever.3 Teenagers today have 145 conversations about brands per week. Adults invoke brand names about half as often.4
(Of course they are the most brand conscious ever – there are more brands available. In ten years the next generation of children will be the most brand conscious ever and again ten years after that. This may be a fact, but where is the harm)
44% of 4th through 8th graders report daydreaming “a lot” about being rich
(First of all, until you quantify “a lot” this is a useless and questionable fact. Also, what type of kids were surveyed? Wealthy kids who want to be wealthier? Kids from under-privileged families? Who? But even if you knew those facts this statement makes not sense without placing it in context. For example, when was this survey taken and how does it compare to kids 75 years ago when there was less marketing. This info is needed to make any sense of the above statement. Without any context this is a simple useless statistic that sounds interesting to someone with no knowledge of statistics)
Over half of children say they would be happier if they had more money to buy things for themselves. Nearly that many say the only kind of job they want when they grow up is one that pays a lot.
(Again no context. “over half of children” What does that mean? Kids 5-10? Kids 2-15? And isn’t it entirely possible that the reason they want a job that pays a lot is because they see their either struggling with money or enjoying the benefits?)
A survey of parents found that 63% believed that their children define their self-worth in terms of what they own.
(So do adults. That’s why we buy new cars, boats, bigger houses, etc….The human race has done this since the beginning of time. But that’s unimportant since again this “fact” is presented without any link to Brand Marketing nor does it reflect what children believe, but what they’re parents think their children believe. (Goodness knows that many parents truly have no idea what they’re children are really thinking)
Children Who Are More Materialistic:
Are less happy, more depressed, have lower self-esteem, and report more symptoms of anxiety.
(First of all, I would question who has labeled the children as more materialistic. Then you wonder who exactly are they less happy, more depressed, have lower self-esteem and have more symptoms of anxiety than? Are they compared to children of the past? Children of a remote village? Or did you get the answers you wanted, because you asked the right question. We know that children want to please and will give you the answers that they think you want to hear. Children are unreliable witnesses, having been shown to make up sexual abuses because they thought that’s what an adult wanted to hear. Bad Fact)
Engage in fewer positive environmental behaviors such as reusing paper, and using less water while showering.9
(What? We’re raising the Greenest Generation ever. How do you link this to advertising? I’d point out that advertising uses a lot of Green buzz words to sell products and that as a result perhaps children need more exposure to advertising to get the message, but that would assume that this fact is anything other than meaningless)
Report less generosity and allocate less money to charity when they imagine receiving a windfall
(Compared to Who? As recently published in the SuperFreakonomics the whole question of how generous people can be when they receive money greatly depends on whether or not they are being watched and how much of a windfall they receive. Also if you are saying that kids who are more materialistic tend to keep money for themselves aren’t your really saying that kids who are more materialistic tend to be more materialistic? Logical? Yes. But only if you like your logic circular.)
A number of studies have demonstrated a link between children’s exposure to advertising and their purchase requests.17 Reducing TV viewing reduces children’s requests for toys.
(Let me see if I get this straight. Kids who don’t know that a certain toy exists are less likely to request that toy? Someone please stop the presses we’ve got a hot one here)
There is a relationship between children’s purchase requests and parent-child discord. Family conflict is also directly correlated with children’s exposure to advertising
(Cart before the horse here! It certainly seems possible that those children who have an unhealthy relationship with their parents would be the ones spending more time in front of the TV and therefore exposed to more advertising. Right?)
Now, I know that you have referenced each and every one of these facts and there does appear to be an effort to give each fact a source. But as they are presented they are entirely meaningless and the worst kind of factoids. I’d shudder if my children were exposed to such “facts” without any attempt to place them in context. I’d also point out that more than one of these claims comes from the Center For A New American Dream and simply from the name (and the fact that you have linked to them) they hardly sound like a group of impartial researchers.
In closing I would hope that you might revisit your thoughts and your motivations. And might I suggest a good Donald Duck short to lighten up your over concerned brain.
-I understand that the chances of you approving this post are slim to none, but nothing would prove my point more than by you failing to allow this response. If you choose not to allow it to post, I will have to post it to one of the many sites discussing your blog. And I will have to let those good people know that you failed to allow an open discussion when that seems to be the very thing you are calling for.
Sincerely.
J. Bobbitt:
Just a couple responses: If you go back and read the introduction to this post, you will notice that it is a reprint of a comment made on another blog. Some of the “accusations” against Disney of sexism, racism and childhood sexualization are found in those comments and in other information on this site (see “Why Disney?” tab).
Second, the website for the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is not mine, so I cannot address those concerns.
Thanks for your advice and your obvious concern for the integrity of this blog. However, I am quite comfortable with my thoughts and motivations.