Kids don't distinguish between content and advertising
Jakob Nielsen's research suggests that children do not distinguish between advertising and content on the web. Apparently the kids were aware of privacy issues. "Don't give your name to strangers" is burned into the neurons, but parents aren't teaching their kids what advertising is and how it differs (if it does) from other content.
Media literacy, or whatever you want to label it, is important. See the related AlertBox Column, the complete report ($125 to download), and coverage of the report in Newsweek.
I wonder if the children were frightened of Jakob?
On a more serious note, I have two young, school-age children and I honestly don't know if they would be able to distinguish between an ad and the content they are viewing.
Take TV, for instance. They seem to know what a show is, since they've never asked what time that Cap'n Crunch thing is on, but does that mean they understand why the show they are watching is interrupted with these other cartoons for cool toys? And if there was an infomercial aimed at children, would they understand that it was just an ad?
I think that many shows blur the line as it is. He-Man and GI Joe cartoons from my childhood served mainly to market the toys of the same names. And even more mainstream movies have charcters and plotlines that serve primarily to boost the merchandising kick of the movie. George Lucas is a master of this. Both the Ewoks and Jar Jar were primarily designed to attract the interest of younger Star Wars fans and sell more licensed merchandise. I think he was consideraby more successful with the Ewoks.
I wasn't aware that there actually was a difference between "content" and "advertising" any longer. Or, indeed, that there ever was.
Most would argue that, say, The National is content. But isn't it simply advertising for a particular viewpoint ("The CBC will reflect the strength of our countrys past, the promise of our future, and the remarkable regional and cultural diversity of our people."), a way of looking at the work that the CBC has developed little different in form that, say, the way Archer Daniels Midland has its own way of looking at the world ("ADM applies the latest technology to agriculture so that we can add the most value to crops such as oilseeds, grains and cocoa.")
I'm sure Jakob Nielsen would view his report as "content" too, but isn't it simply an extended advertisement for his own world view?
Why do we insist on saying that one type of vision is pure (content) and another is impure (advertising)?
My goal for my own son is not for him to be able to make distinctions based on form, but rather to be able to critically examine anything anyone is telling him, regardless of who's doing the talking or how.
