Wow, you made me wonder. As for the reject/embrace branding, I could say that more embracing is in the way. Yet this is my limited view on the children around me perspective.

On the other hand, isn't this the lovely part of human nature? Wanting to be a part of something bigger, yet being individual? While having more wanting less? Or having less wanting more?

You have raised sociological questions here. :-) Or is it just a question of needs again? What would we as kids give for having everything in "Superman"? Superman-bike, Superman-hat, Superman-books, Superman-clothes, Superman-boots,...?

So actually, it's the phase of our lives that perhaps has a great need towards identifying with a group? And marketing/branding is here just to satisfy this need? Would all these products exist if there wasn't a strong need in children to identify with something?

Toad,

Excellent questions Toad. However, in thinking back to my youth, brands were important then, as well. For example, I didn't want any book, I wanted a Golden Book. I didn't want any truck, I wanted a Tonka. I didn't want any bike, I wanted a Schwinn (sp?) However, I do think that because of TV the incidence of brand awareness by young children is greater than in my day. The brand strategy isn't new, but the tactical channels are greater.

@Dusan: I agree. Kids do have a strong need to identify with something. My fear is that we're limiting their options of what they can identify with. On the other hand, they tend to make these characters their own and not follow scripts- Dora is just another friend in their adventures.

@Lewis: The difference between your (our?) childhood and now is that Schwinn only made bicycles and Golden Books only made books. There was no Schwinn racing jacket and hat and online Schwinn club and... well, you get the picture ;)
But you make a good point in that brands have always been important to kids.

Succinctly put, Lewis.

Tonka trucks, Lincoln Logs, Tinker Toys, Fisher Price, Milton Bradley, Garanimals, Converse All Stars, John Deere, Levis, "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet".

Branding has its roots in our grandparents' generation with General Mills' foods, but it is pushed on our children much harder and in more venues than we ever saw.

In our day (as I adjust my shawl with creaky limbs...) we had TV, magazines, and billboards, and the physical presence of something in the stores or owned by friends.

Now there's 1000 channels of TV, more exposure to more friends and their glitzy, throwaway stuff (given in guilt or indulgence by busy parents) in the daycare & school & sports settings, product placement in movies and videos, targeted text messaging, online video games and websites accessible by computer, PDA and cellphones that we just can't do without, magazines and direct mail targeted to specific demographics, and the overall message that we just can't live our lives in a truly happy manner unless we are wearing a certain sign on our bodies or our things, and that somehow you are lacking if you don't own as much of that product as you can get...

*deep breath*

Hopefully some of the issues facing us with weakening economy, teetering ecology, and the geopolitical storms over petroleum, we'll stop living our plastic coated lives and "get real" again.

Interesting observation.

This kind of branding is similar to how we describe branding in that they both imply a sort of credibility (Just for different reasons).

For awhile, my son loved Batman and Spider-Man. Then he moved on to Captain Underpants and SpongeBob Squarepants.

Now that he's been to Disney World, he's all about the Disney characters.

He doesn't need them on *everything,* to trust or want a product though, so maybe the case is a bit overstated in his example.

I still don't know what's in store for me with my little girl. Right now she's still at a point that her parents are her world -- but she still gets a funny, knowing smile when the "Noddie" song comes on Sprout.

I think the truth is that parents love Dora and whoever else will entertain their kid so that they can actually get some time away from their kid.

I've had many parents admit to me that the TV (and Dora) is their savior.

If you really wanted to eliminate these brands from your kid's life, you could. But you'd also be eliminating that hour away so you could write a blog post or watch a football game.

This is the kind of thing I wonder about, too, TT... nice post.

I see this as part of a larger cultural discussion, about how the constant branding/marketing to kids plays out, long-term. The other day I witnessed a kid having a tantrum in the grocery store, because "I DON'T WANT MACARONI AND CHEESE! I WANT SCOOBY-DOO MACARONI AND CHEESE!"

As a mom, I'm of two minds with this sort of thing(and I had PLENTY of empathy for the poor mom in the store, too): Yeah, it's fun to slurp cute pasta shapes. But what kind of people will these kids become? Will they need a constant supply of new experiences to satisfy them?

As I've said before elsewhere, does everything have to be a thrill? Will we start to expect some sort of entertainment at every turn, else the entire experience feel lacking?

Toad, as a father who just spent a painful hour in line (with daughter) yesterday to visit Disney princesses at D-land yesterday, I can relate.

On a parallel track, it's also interesting to see what the Mattel group has done with the Barbie franchise over the past 5+ years.

Toad, Ann, don't worry, it's just a phase in their lives. I think our kids will become the same old us. Yet we will be old and wonder: "oh my god, these youngsters...". Sounds familiar? :-)

I think we are giving these things too much importance. Branding won't change the human nature. Yes, it will change some behavior and certainly raise some other values in the society. Yet I think there's just too much in the human gene's to make big impact on relatively short term with branding.

Makes me think back on my sociology professor that was explaining some political future based on facts from past. His projections were true. History repeated. :-) We just look at our kids with different eyes now.

@Cam:Most kids don't fall into the character thing 100%. But if a kid is "into Spiderman" then chances are their birthday and Christmas presents will have a Spiderman theme to them, especially from relatives in distant places.
It does evolve- the oldest Tadpole is very into sports and now his gifts and wardrobe is comprised of items emblazoned with the logos of his favorite teams.

@Tim: it's a lot more complicated than "if you wanted to eliminate these brands from your kid's life, you could."
If you home schooled them and lived in the Alaskan wilderness, perhaps. Otherwise, it's everywhere you look and-- more importantly-- on all their friends and in their friends' houses, etc. Like I said, plenty of kids find Disney Princesses or Thomas The Tank Engine long before they've even thought about watching one of the movies. There's something almost instinctual about it.

@Ann- I hear you about the "thrill" experience. I think my wife almost did a cartwheel in the supermarket aisle when Annie's (the healthy Whole Foods mac and cheese) started featuring characters, thus providing a valid alternative (in the Tadpole's minds) to Kraft.

@Paul: ITA about Barbie-- the female Tadpole is a huge fan of both the Barbie web site and the Barbie movie series. What's fascinating, given Barbie's prior incarnation as the epitome of unattainable female beauty, is that the new series has repositioned her as a smart, strong woman of the 2000s. She's the "star" of about a half dozen CGI retellings of classic children's stories (e.g. "The Princess and the Pauper") which are surprisingly well done and promote a very powerful "girl power" message featuring strong, capable female leads.

Who'd of thunk it?

@Toad @Paul Interesting about Barbie... that's a separate post right there (ahem! to one of you!) about the re-position/branding of the blonde icon: Is she the Madonna of the toy world?

@Dusan You might be right -- kids turn into boring grownups whether they eat Chuckie-shaped pasta or Dora the Explorer Lunchables nachos. But at the same time, there's something there that gnaws at me... not sure what, exactly, maybe it suggests a kind of cultural indulgence?

I'm not even sure I'm saying it's a negative thing, necessarily... but I wonder about what that brings a generation or two hence. Maybe it'll spawn a new generation of highly creative types, and maybe it'll bring a generation bored by nothing short of spectacular? Hmm.

my niece, now 5, refuses to acknowledge anything not associated with a recognized brand. Her idea of playing make-believe is for everyone to choose to be one of the Disney princesses. If you suggest you don't want to be a princess and would rather be, say, a talking mushroom, she gets very angry and won't play. It's sad. These brands are so pervasive, there isn't much room for kids to apply their own imaginations. Why "make up" Belle's next adventure when there's a whole DVD library, interactive website, electronic toy, etc., that will walk you through the whole thing?

And don't even get me started on the marketing juggernaut that is American Girl.

@Ann: Well perhaps I'm just a too positive person, but I belive that it can go only for better. If they'll be bored by non-spectecular, it means they will do things more and more spectecular.

But then the question of contrast raises. For me, after few months of work and spectacular events and things in the city, the most spectecular thing is this:

http://www.svetijuraj.com/english/sveti-juraj-croatia/interesting/Kroatien_see_svetijuraj_foto.aspx?s=16&sp=11&j=3

Easy, lazy village at the seaside. So it will be for them. Just wait that they get to their 30's or so. :-)

Great series of posts. I accidentally slipped up yesterday in conversation when I referred to children as "brand extensions" of their parents. It's not surprise that this phrase slipped out - especially when seeing how branding pervades childrens' relationship with their clothings, toys, activities, friends, and family.

Dusan: Fantastic! It's about 20 degrees and pelting slushy stuff from the sky in New England.... so I enjoyed that indulgence.

AnnaMaria: Laughed out loud at that one....!

Interesting post!

It's scary that the typical child nowadays probably knows more about branding than the typical adult - or at least, off the top of their heads, can recount a dictionary of what's in and what's not.

It's becoming much easier to market to childrens' insecurities of 'fitting in' with the group. Everyone liking (for example) WWE is a conversation starter - if you don't like it, there's (a) something wrong with you or (b) you're just not cool.

It's so much more about the brand than the product nowadays. As teenagers we all probably liked one 'star' or 'tv show' or 'sports star' - it seems like the age for starting that just got 10 years younger!

This is all great commentary!

In my youth there was She-Ra, Princess of Power and the G.I. Joe phenomenon.

There was New Kids on the Block with their beach towels and bed sheets.

Now every time I pick up a box of Ritz Crackers, I see Rachel Ray's face.

Or when I walk into Macy's, I can't escape Martha Stewart's home accessories line.

It's not just children who face the daily onslaught of branding.

We've all been consumed or influenced by it.

My colleagues and I had a trivia challenge in a meeting last week. Our Creative Director read from a list of the top 100 tag lines from the last 50 or 60 years, and nobody missed one.

Maybe it's because we work in this marketing realm every day, but maybe it's because these companies have built legacies on the backs of logos and taglines, creating a world where the life you live is defined by the brand you use, forcing us to embrace branding, whether we want to or not.

I've been a ton of research of kids lately for a work-related project and the interesting thing is that there are two tiers of kid focused branding. First of all your have the Dora example, which is directly focused on the child, which works as they have increasing Pester Power. However, you also have umbrella brands like Fisher-Price, which are more focused on targeting parents. If you do a comscore run on any web property adults are overindexed by a fair margin.

Love to hear feedback from parents. I'm 22 what the hell do I know about kids.

Interesting, Seni -- love the concept of "Pester Power," which (to extend the alliteration) is Pretty Powerful!

That is interesting Seni.

I suspect that within the Fisher Price umbrella brand there are character-oriented sub-brands that are aimed at kids. (I'm almost positive that FP makes Sesame Street merchandise)

Another related insight: I was in a DIsney Store yesterday and noticed that they were selling a fairly upscale line of clothing for little girls. Princessses were on the clothes, but not front and center. (e.g you had to look to see the Princesses). The clothes were very fashion forward and were definitely more expensive than say the Gap.