Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s

Consumer Culture*
Kathryn C. Montgomery

A child clicks an icon on her computer and is immediately transported to a richly

graphic, brightly colored, interactive children’s playground on the World Wide
Web. Bathed in psychedelic colors of hot pink, lime green, and lemon yellow,
the site’s home page serenades with whimsical tunes and beckons with vibrant
flashing signs. “Bug your buddies with creepy crawly e-cards made by you”,
says one. “Zap your friends with Wacky DigSig cards sponsored by Fruit Gushers
and Fruit Roll-ups”, urges another. One click on “play”, another on “buzz”, and
the child is invited to display her own artwork on the “Kids’ Gallery” or “hang
out with the site’s Web characters”, Devin, Jessie, and Zach (www.mamamedia.
com).
The MaMaMedia site is just one of hundreds of “destinations” created for
children on the Internet. It is part of a new “children’s digital media culture” that
is swiftly moving into place, offering unprecedented amounts of material de-
signed specifically for children. The growth of this new culture is being fueled
by a powerful confluence of technological, demographic, and economic forces.
The rapid penetration of the Internet and other digital technologies into Ameri-
can homes, the increase in the youth population, and a corresponding upswing
in their value as a target market have all combined to create an explosion of
digital products and services for children. Anticipating the convergence of digital
television with on-line media, TV networks are producing children’s programs in
tandem with websites, as well as multiple distribution “platforms” such as CD-
ROMs and video games.
With their engaging, interactive properties, the new digital media are likely
to have a more profound impact on how children grow and learn, what they
value, and ultimately who they become than any medium that has come before.
“Generation Y”, the nearly 60 million youth born after 1979 [in the U.S.A., edi-
tors’ note], represents the largest generation of young people in the nation’s
history and the first to grow up in a world saturated with networks of informa-
tion, digital devices, and the promise of perpetual connectivity (Neuborne &
Kerwin, 1999). The burgeoning digital marketplace makes possible a cornuco-

189
Kathryn C. Montgomery

pia of content, providing a variety of experiences tailored to different interests,

age groups, and tastes. The interactive features of the digital technologies hold
great promise for empowering children by offering them new tools for self-
expression, communication, and education. Many of the new websites for child-
ren have been received with great enthusiasm, not only by children but also by
parents, teachers, and media critics. And some, like the MaMaMedia site, have
received awards (Montgomery, 1999).
But powerful commercial forces are shaping this new interactive media
culture. Advertising and marketing are quickly becoming a pervasive presence
in the “kidspace” of the World Wide Web. The forms of advertising, marketing,
and selling to children that are emerging as part of the new media depart in
significant ways from the more familiar commercial advertising and promotion
in children’s television. The interactive media are ushering in an entirely new set
of relationships, breaking down the traditional barriers between “content and
commerce”, and creating unprecedented intimacies between children and marke-
ters. Because marketing to children is already a well-established, profitable in-
dustry, its imperatives are influencing the design of digital content and services
for children in fundamental ways. These trends raise serious questions that will
need to be addressed by researchers, policy makers, health professionals, and
parents.
In this article, I briefly identify the roots of commercial culture in children’s
digital media; outline the key features of interactive marketing and advertising;
discuss the implications of digital marketing on children’s media; describe some
of the recent efforts by consumer groups to establish safeguards for the digital
era; and suggest a set of recommendations for research and policy. Because this
new marketplace is evolving at such a fast pace, it is impossible to provide a
definitive, exhaustive catalog of marketing, advertising, and selling practices.
Therefore, I will focus on outlining the key features of the digital marketplace,
discussing the major trends that are shaping it, and providing illustrations that
are emblematic of its overall direction.

The digital revolution

The trends in the children’s digital market are part of a much larger set of
developments in the digital revolution currently under way. The Internet, with
its graphically rich World Wide Web, is only one component in a rapidly grow-
ing digital media infrastructure. Its emergence and growth are emblematic of the
powerful role that new technologies are playing in transforming not only the
media system but also the entire economy. In its short history, the Internet has
undergone several critical transitions, evolving from a noncommercial, publicly
funded, closed network that connected government agencies and research insti-
tutions into a privatized and increasingly commercialized global “network of
networks”. The expected convergence of the Internet and television into one
seamless package of services using a digital set-top box (best exemplified today

190
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

by WebTV) will further transform this medium. Experts predict that, within the
next few years, these interactive services will become a communications, mar-
keting, retailing, and cultural medium similar in scope to what cable TV and
newspapers are today (Jupiter Communications, 1999b).
Driving the growth of the digital technologies is the promise of e-commerce,
which is already expanding at a rapid rate. Although few, if any, companies on
the Web have yet to make any money, the potential viability of the digital
marketplace has generated major investment in the many on-line ventures. The
recent spate of mergers and “strategic alliances” within the media, communica-
tions, and retail industries is intended to position these newly configured corpo-
rations to take advantage of the potentially huge profits of the digital era
(Wieffering, 1999). The Internet generated approximately $300 billion in U.S.
revenues in 1998, a figure approaching that of the automobile industry. Consum-
ers spent $8 billion buying computers, books, CDs, clothing, and other items
through the Internet in 1998 (Leibovich, Smart, & Dugan, 1999).

“Digital kids”
As “early adopters” of new media, children and youth are, in many ways, the
defining users of the digital media. Even as the digital future is still unfolding,
electronic media are already playing a significant role in the lives of [U.S., edi-
tors’ note] children and teens, many of whom enjoy access to their own personal
media devices. Among children ages 6 to 17, for example, 86% have access to a
VCR (23% in their own rooms); 70% have a video game system at home (32% in
their own rooms); 50% have a TV in their own room; 40% have their own
portable cassette or CD player; and 35% have their own stereo system (Roper
Starch Worldwide, 1998). Although TV remains the dominant media pastime for
children (who watch an average of 17.2 hours per week, along with another 5.5
hours watching videotapes), the time spent in front of that screen is declining,
while the time spent in front of the computer is going up. However, as a study
by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania points
out: “Rather than displacing television as the dominant medium, new technolo-
gies have supplemented it, resulting in an aggregate increase in electronic media
penetration and use by America’s youth” (Stanger & Gridina, 1999, p. 2).
Families with children represent one of the fastest-growing segments of the
population using the Internet. In 1998, according to Jupiter Communications,
approximately 8.6 million children and 8.4 million teenagers were on-line, fig-
ures that are expected to grow to a combined 38.5 million by 2002 (Jupiter
Communications, 1999a). According to an October 1998 study from the Graph-
ics, Visualization, and Usability Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
32% of 11- to 20- year-olds spend 10 to 20 hours a week on-line. Among that age
group, according to self-reporting, 18.6% of this time is spent on entertainment,
17.1% on education, 16.3% on personal information, 16% on “time wasting”,
11.8% on communication, 8.2% on shopping, 7.8% on work, and 4.2% on other

191
Kathryn C. Montgomery

activities (Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center, 1998). Among children 2

to 12, the most popular on-line activities are e-mail (with 46.4% of those sur-
veyed reporting this as a primary on-line activity), games (44%), “surfing the
Web” (37.6%), and homework (30.4%) (Jupiter Communications, 1998).
Because this is “the generation that spends the most time glued to a compu-
ter monitor”, explains the popular trade publication Selling to Kids, “online mar-
keting is going to be more important for this group than any previous” (Stark,
1999, p. 3). Children and youth are a particularly important target for marketers
because of their increased spending power, which has risen dramatically over
the past several decades. This rise has been attributed to several demographic
and economic trends. Not only has the number of children in the United States
increased, but the divorce rate has risen, more parents work outside of the
home, and more and more children are now responsible for shopping decisions
that used to be strictly the domain of parents. As a consequence, children’s
spending power doubled between the years 1960 and 1980, and tripled in the
1990s. Children under 12 now control or influence the spending of almost $500
billion (Russakoff, 1999). In 1998, teens spent $141 billion of their own money
in the retail market (Anderson, 1999).
These trends have spurred the production of a spate of new products and
services designed specifically for children and teens, including a proliferation of
television channels devoted exclusively to this valuable demographic group,
such as Nickelodeon, Fox Kids Network, the Disney Channel, and the Cartoon
Network (Mifflin, 1999). The value of children to advertisers has also spurred the
creation of an infrastructure of companies studying the “youth market”. As the
Washington Post observed:
With the number of children in America larger than at the peak of the baby
boom, and their purchasing power growing faster than economists can meas-
ure it, a vast service industry of market researchers, public relations firms,
newsletters and ad agencies has sprung up to lead corporate America to young
hearts, minds and piggy banks. (Russakoff, 1999, p. A1)
With the emergence of new media technologies, many of these companies have
been engaged in a variety of market research efforts – from focus groups to on-
line surveys to less orthodox methods – to determine children’s behavioral re-
sponses to new media. For example, at the Saatchi and Saatchi advertising agency,
anthropologists visited children in their homes to closely observe their interac-
tion with digital technology (Russakoff, 1999, p. A1). These experts found that
children, whose “learning skills are at their peak”, can easily master the new
media’s learning curve, which is often daunting for adults (Gruen, 1995). They
also determined that the on-line world corresponds to the “four themes of child-
hood… attachment/separation, attainment of power, social interaction, and mas-
tery/learning” (“Children Get Growing”, 1995, p. 5). And, perhaps most impor-
tant, they found that when children go on-line, they quickly enter the “flow
state”, that “highly pleasurable experience of total absorption in a challenging
activity”. All of these factors make on-line media a perfect vehicle for advertising

192
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

to children, according to advertising executives: “There is nothing else that exists

like it for advertisers to build relationships with kids” (Gruen, 1995).
Within the past several years, a host of market research firms and trend
analysis companies have begun offering seminars, conferences, and trade shows
with names like “Digital Kids”, “Interactive Kids”, and “Teen Power”. They charge
thousands of dollars for these events, and tens of thousands more for specialized
trade publications and reports offering strategies for cashing in on the “cybertot”
and on-line teen markets. For example, hundreds of eager digital “content pro-
viders” flocked to the 1999 “Digital Kids” trade show to market their services for
children and teens – from new Web-based entrepreneurs such as MaMaMedia
and HeadBone Interactive to established media conglomerates such as Disney
and Nickelodeon (Thompson, 1999). Market research has assumed such a cen-
tral role in the creation of the new digital children’s culture that the process is
becoming intertwined with the creation of on-line content. Some media compa-
nies have rooms in their headquarters for regular focus groups with children;
others use their on-line sites to conduct market surveys with children and teens.
This intense focus on research within the new media industries has produced a
wealth of information, much of it proprietary, which is guiding the development
of digital content and services for children.

The digital marketing paradigm

The unique features of the new media have made possible the emergence of a
new paradigm for interactive marketing, which is being proselytized by a legion
of new-media gurus (Godin, 1999; Peppers & Rogers, 1999). The key concepts
of this paradigm have already had a powerful influence on the forms and prac-
tices of marketing on the Web and are a basic part of the design for emerging
technologies such as digital television. They have also been woven into the
fabric of children’s on-line culture. What follows is an outline of the basic prin-
ciples of digital marketing, with brief illustrations of how they are currently
being put into practice, particularly in children’s digital media, as well as a
discussion of how they are likely to be employed in emerging new media.

“One to one”
Since it was published in 1993, The One to One Future, by Don Peppers and
Martha Rogers, has become the bible for on-line marketing, spawning an entire
generation of handbooks, seminars, articles, and conferences (Peppers & Rogers,
1993). Sometimes called “relational marketing”, the strategy is based on the
principle of developing unique, long-term relationships with individual custom-
ers to create personalized marketing and sales appeals based on their individual
preferences and behaviors. “Interactive technology”, espouses Peppers (1999),
“means that marketers can inexpensively engage consumers in one-to-one rela-
tionships fueled by two-way ‘conversations’ – conversations played out with

193
Kathryn C. Montgomery

mouse clicks on a computer, or touchtone buttons pushed to signal an interac-

tive voice response unit, or surveys completed at a kiosk” (p. 6). As one on-line
marketing company explained it:
This goes beyond simple transaction processing and secure payment systems:
it’s about building relationships with customers online – knowing each cus-
tomer by name, knowing their preferences and buying patterns, observing the
customers over time, and using this data to sell more effectively to them. (Perkins,
1996, p. 2)
At the heart of this system is the ongoing collection of personal information and
tracking of on-line behavior. Through the data collected, the right mix of infor-
mation, ads, and buying opportunities is designed in an irresistible package to
“microtarget” the individual customer.
Marketers employ a variety of techniques to get to know each customer as
intimately as possible. One method is the use of incentives such as games,
surveys, discounts, and prizes to get individuals to supply personal information
about themselves. For example, a survey can collect names, addresses, and e-
mail addresses along with information about income level, attitudes, fears, and
behaviors. Although a common direct marketing practice in “off-line” media,
these forms of data collection can become more intrusive in on-line and other
interactive media, where the response time is quick and the incentives (e.g., free
email, discounts, and other kinds of “instant” gratifications) can be hard to resist
(Montgomery & Pasnik, 1996). Another method is the covert tracking of on-line
behavior, often referred to as clickstream data. Unlike TV ratings, which gener-
ally use anonymous aggregate numbers to reveal the viewing behavior of key
demographic groups, on-line usage data can track how individuals respond to
and interact with advertising. A burgeoning industry has developed to provide
an array of “personalization technologies” that are being integrated into the basic
design of interactive marketing. For example, both Microsoft Explorer and Netscape
Communicator, the two most widely used Internet browsers, allow websites and
marketers to place “cookies” on users’ computers, which are designed to track
every move the individual makes on-line and store this information for later use
(Givens, 1997).
The principle of one-to-one marketing has been employed in many com-
mercial websites targeted at children and youth. In its 1996 report Web of Decep-
tion (Montgomery & Pasnik, 1996), the Center for Media Education documented
a number of data-collection practices in children’s websites, including games,
surveys, prizes, and the use of “product spokescharacters” to elicit information.
For example, one website offered “cybercash” to children, which could be redee-
med for prizes. Others required “registration” to participate on the site and then
used the information to send unsolicited e-mail to the child, urging a return visit.
At the Batman Forever website, supplying personal information was presented
as a test of loyalty. “Good citizens of the Web, help Commissioner Gordon with
the Gotham Census”, children were told (Montgomery & Pasnik, 1996, p. 8).

194
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

In response to complaints from the Center for Media Education and other
consumer groups, Congress passed the Children’s On-line Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA) in 1998, which directed the Federal Trade Commission to develop
rules restricting some of these data collection practices and requiring parental
permission for collection of personal information from children under 13. (See
the section “Need for Safeguards” for a fuller discussion of COPPA.) But market-
ers are continuing to devise other techniques for gathering personalized infor-
mation and establishing ongoing relationships with children. For example, a
number of children’s websites now ask children to sign up for on-line “newslet-
ters”, which are sent to their e-mail addresses on a regular basis and are little
more than thinly disguised advertisements for products (Center for Media Educa-
tion et al., 1999).
This and other forms of Internet-based marketing do not even require knowing
the real name and address of the individual, since the relationship can be estab-
lished and maintained solely on-line. With the increasing innovation in technol-
ogy, it has become unnecessary to ask individuals to volunteer personal infor-
mation about themselves. Technological methods can be employed to develop
and maintain “customer identifying data”, making it possible to track customers’
behavior, target them with personalized marketing messages, and marry the
information from individual websites with that from other sources (Givens, 1997).
Indeed, it is this ability of computer-based technologies to combine personal
information from a variety of sources that makes them so potent, and threatens
consumer privacy.
As more sophisticated computer interfaces are developed, the potential for
more compelling and engaging forms of one-to-one marketing is growing. The
next generation of digital marketing will employ human-like “interactive charac-
ters” to “build relationships based on familiarity, affection, and trust” (Hayes-
Roth, 1999, p. 61). Digital television, which has already begun operating in some
cities, will make possible another level of data collection and microtargeting by
linking the moving image and sound of television with the interactive capabili-
ties of the Internet (Larson, 1998).

Integration of advertising and content

One of the most prominent features of marketing in the digital media is the
blending of what has traditionally been called “content” with advertising so that
there is a seamless integration of the two. The familiar 30-second television
commercial is expected to become relegated to the annals of media history, a
now dysfunctional form of “interruption marketing” no longer appropriate or
effective in the digital age (Godin, 1999). Instead, advertising and marketing are
being skillfully woven into programming or are presented as programs or “con-
tent” themselves. According to Red Herring, a trade publication for investors:
What is really happening [on the Web] is what will ultimately happen on inter-
active television: the infomercialization of all programming. Services will de-
liver some content, with lots of appeals (some soft, some hard) to purchase.

195
Kathryn C. Montgomery

Requesting literature and additional information (read: volunteering for a mailing

list), and actual buying, will be easily enabled... This is not advertising as you
and I understand it, but a more viewer-engaged, browse-and-buy genre just
beginning to emerge as a form of programming unto itself. (Davis & O’Driscoll,
1995, p. 3)
This integration is a fundamental strategy in the design of children’s websites.
Unlike television, in cyberspace time does not restrain ad length – an ad’s effec-
tiveness is measured in part by the amount of time each child spends “in” the ad.
“If you create an ad that’s as much fun as the content”, such as “games that kids
can play that involve the products… then there’ll be a reason for kids to click on
the ads and interact with them and enjoy them”, explained one executive (Roberts,
1995). With children, explained another, “anything that is perceived as an inter-
ruption of the flow state, whether it’s artwork being downloaded or an ad that is
obtrusively splattered on a screen, is going to get a negative reaction” (Gruen,
1995). Consequently, the practice of disguising advertising as content may well
become the norm for commercial children’s sites.
Because of criticisms from consumer groups, many children’s websites now
put “ad bugs” or the word advertisement next to the “sponsored activities” and
sometimes place a “bridge page” between the home website and the ad’s website.
But the goal of merging the identity and the experience of both the “content”
and the ad is still well served. The “banner ad”, the familiar flashing brand name
on top of many websites, functions not just as a message from the sponsor but as
a kind of gateway, beckoning one to the sponsor’s own website. One click on
the banner and the child is transported through a “hotlink” to another engaging
playground with its own games, contests, and puzzles, the kinds of “sticky”
content designed to encourage children to stay for long periods of time and to
return often after the first visit.

“Branded environments”
Not only are marketing and advertising woven into many children’s content
areas, but the Web has spawned a new genre of sites in which the product is the
content. In many ways, this pattern turns the concept of sponsorship and adver-
tiser-supported programming on its head. Almost all of the major companies that
advertise and market to children have created their own websites, designed as
“branded environments” for children on the Web. Many are among the most
popular sites visited by kids. Companies such as Hasbro, Mattel, Frito-Lay, and
Lego are just a few that have created websites for children. Emblematic of this
trend is Mattel’s Barbie.com site. Positioning itself as a community for girls –
with links to high schools and other “.orgs”, the site offers a variety of on-line
activities designed to appeal to girls, such as sending e-postcards, receiving
newsletters, entering contests, and “voting” for their favorite Barbie. The site
profiles many of the popular doll’s new personas (including Soccer Barbie, Pet
Lovin’ Barbie, and Vintage Spring in Tokyo Barbie) as well as many of the classic
styles. Following its successful Barbie Fashion Designer CD-ROM, the site also

196
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

gives girls the opportunity to design their own personalized Barbie, choosing
from an inventory of physical features, clothing styles, and personality traits. The
personalized Barbie can then be custom-made for that child and purchased on-
line for $39.95 (Thompson, 1999).
The development of “brand loyalty” among children has become axiomatic
among marketers in recent years, a core strategy of the “cradle-to-grave marketing”
principle. As marketing expert James U. McNeal (1992) explains: “Children be-
gin developing brand preferences and store preferences in early childhood,
even before they enter school. And not just for child-oriented products, but also
for such adult-oriented things such as gasoline, radios, and soaps.” This tendency
is strongly rooted in the developmental needs of children, according to McNeal.
The belonging (affiliation) need, which causes us to seek cooperative relation-
ships, is very strong among children... Also, children are looking for order in
their lives. There are so many new things to encounter that some order is
necessary to cope with them all. A trusting relationship in which satisfying
acquisitions can always be expected helps give order to an increasingly com-
plex life. (pp. 92-93)
“Branding” is a pervasive theme in the digital media, one that is not restricted to
products but is increasingly used as a descriptive and organizing principle for all
aspects of media culture. Media companies refer to themselves as brands; even
public television calls itself a “brand”. When speaking of strategic alliances and
partnerships, companies refer to the practice as “sharing each others’ brand
space”. At the 1999 Digital Kids conference, participants spoke proudly of “branded
communities” for teens – websites built around products – invoking the slogan
“Love my community, love my brand” (Digital Kids, 1999).

On-line selling/e-commerce
A growing number of websites for children and teens feature on-line stores or
links to websites that are designed to make direct sales (Thompson, 1999). A
1999 survey by market research firm NFO Interactive found that 52% of children
between the ages of 5 and 17 have asked their parents to purchase an item that
they have seen on the Web (Cox, 1999; Thompson, 1999). According to Jupiter
Communications (1999a), “Kids and teens have become a growth sector for
online shopping”, which in 1999 made the important shift from “passive online
advertising” to “actively targeting kids and teens for digital transactions” (p. 1). A
recent Jupiter/NFO consumer survey, which queried 600 teens (13-18 years old)
and kids (5-12 years old), found that 67% of on-line teens and 37% of on-line
kids indicate that they have researched or bought products on-line. Jupiter fore-
casts that teens will account for $1.2 billion and kids will account for $100
million of the e-commerce dollars in 2002 (Jupiter Communications, 1999a).
Companies are employing a variety of strategies to facilitate on-line pur-
chases by children, including the creation of “digital wallets”, which allow par-
ents to use a credit card to deposit a set amount of money into a child’s on-line

197
Kathryn C. Montgomery

account. Websites such as IcanBuy.com (www.icanbuy.com) and RocketCash.com

(www.rocketcash.com) are among the first companies to offer on-line selling to
children, but others are expected to follow suit. Some are employing barter and
other kinds of transactions that do not use cash or credit cards but set up substi-
tutes for money to begin the process of getting children and their parents accus-
tomed to making purchases on-line (Thompson, 1999). The Jupiter Communica-
tions survey showed that the biggest obstacle facing children who want to buy
products on-line is their parents’ refusal to let them. A number of companies are
developing strategies to sweeten the notion of allowing children to spend money
on-line by offering to include educational messages teaching children about
financial responsibility. Some are also developing noncash forms of transaction
as a first step. For example, DoughNET.com (www.doughnet.com) offers to let
children “play with money” by investigating how the stock market works. And
Beenz.com has created a form of “virtual cash” that children and adults can
collect on-line by going to participating sites and taking part in surveys, promo-
tions, and other marketing enterprises (Weise, 1999). With more and more schools
being linked to the Internet, many of these same companies are targeting the
classroom as a site for marketing and on-line sales to children (Manning, 1999).
Many of the websites targeted at teens encourage on-line purchases. For
example, react.com (www.react.com) is a popular “one-stop-shopping” site for
teens. Here teens can get news or information about their favorite celebrities,
find out what styles are “in”, play games, share their concerns, and shop. A
growing number of these sites are linked to television shows, encouraging view-
ers to “multitask” (i.e., watch television and use the website at the same time).
(Market researchers have found that children and teens are much more at ease
multitasking than adults are.) For example, the Dawson’s Creek website enables
young people to interact with the main character, find out his innermost thoughts
and feelings, and learn what products he purchases. This website offers an
insightful glimpse into the future of interactive television, especially in the way
that program content is expanded and integrated into interactive website fea-
tures. By logging onto “Dawson’s Desktop”, a subsection of the program’s site,
users can click onto virtually any image on the screen, including the main char-
acter’s e-mail inbox and favorite “book-marked” websites, and link directly into
an advertiser’s site or on-line purchasing form (Anderson, 1999).

Interactive product placement

Product placement, a pervasive practice in film and an increasingly common
practice in television, is another central component of the digital marketing
paradigm. The merging of television and the Internet will create newer and
more powerful forms of product placement. “With the next generation of enter-
tainment”, explains Marc Collins-Rector, cofounder and chairman of the Digital
Entertainment Network (DEN), “there’ll be no differentiation between the enter-
tainment aspects… and the advertising aspect of what you are watching. ...We’ll
tie in the advertisements to what the characters are doing” (as cited in Frauenfelder,

198
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

1999, p. 122). The Web-based network targeted at teens was designed to become
an interactive television channel. Though it went out of business in spring 2000,
its combination of product placement, streaming video, chat, and instant polls
has already been widely adopted by other media companies. DEN’s advertising
strategy was a curious blend of old and new techniques. Modeled in part on
1950s TV programs in which actors pitched products within the story line, the
network also made use of cutting-edge youth marketing approaches such as
“discovery marketing”, which is “essentially a way to put a brand in front of
someone’s face yet make them think they found it on their own” (Frauenfelder,
1999, p. 122).
As digital television becomes more available, not only will products be
featured as part of the story but the viewer will be given the opportunity to buy
them on the spot. “Narrative strands” within a program will lead viewers to a
“buying opportunity” and then return them to the story after the purchase (Dig-
ital Coast, 1999). Precursors to this planned “embedded e-commerce” can al-
ready be seen in some of the websites associated with popular television shows.
For example, CBS recently began selling a bracelet on its website worn by a
character in Guiding Light, a popular soap opera. The silver-coated replica ($29.95)
was advertised during the program; promotional spots directed viewers to the
CBS website (Beatty, 1999). Another website that offers similar features is
AsSeenIn.com (www.asseenin.com), a project of successful TV producer Aaron
Spelling. Here, replicas of furniture, clothing, cars, and miscellaneous products
from Spelling’s popular teen shows such as Charmed and 7th Heaven are sold.
Viewers can go to the program’s website, click on a photo of the house used in
the show, then click on an individual room, and then click on an item within that
room. For example, clicking on a rug in the living room will immediately hotlink
the customer to the retailer’s website, where that exact rug can be purchased on-
line (Hunt, 1999).
The techniques currently in practice on the World Wide Web are only the
earliest and most embryonic representations of what is likely to become a highly
sophisticated marketing and e-commerce infrastructure in the digital age. The
zeal with which digital marketing is being embraced by children’s advertisers
and content providers alike suggests that the new digital children’s culture may
quickly become highly commercialized. Governed by the principles of brand
loyalty, one-to-one relationships, and e-commerce, marketing and advertising in
the new media are likely to become a particularly pervasive presence in children’s
lives.

Promise and peril in the digital marketplace

Much of the public debate over the Internet and children has been dominated by
concerns about on-line access to indecent and violent material, exposure to
predation, and similar harms that might befall children in cyberspace. Twice in
recent years, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the distribution of indecent

199
Kathryn C. Montgomery

content to minors on the Internet. Both laws, however, have been met with
constitutional challenges (Zick, 1999). To address parental concerns, the on-line
industry has come forward with a series of measures to protect the safety of
children on the Internet. Companies such as CyberPatrol, SurfWatch, and Net
Nanny offer parents software to block out inappropriate content on the Web
(Center for Media Education, 1999; Kennedy, 1996). In May 1999, the White
House announced the “One Click Away” initiative, in which on-line companies
have agreed to create “parents’ protection pages” on all major portals, search
engines, and websites. The pages are to provide access to blocking and filtering
software, tools for monitoring children’s activities on-line, and safety tips for
both parents and children (Clinton & Gore, 1999).
However vital these issues may be, the debate over pornography, violence,
and predation has in many ways diverted public attention away from other
important developments in this new medium that will have a significant impact
on children and youth. While there are legitimate concerns about children’s
access to harmful and inappropriate adult content on-line, it is also important to
focus attention on the content and services that are being created exclusively for
children. It is in these areas, after all, that children will be spending the vast
majority of their time on-line. And it is in these areas that the full potential of the
Internet – for both good and ill – will be realized.
The early trends in the development of the children’s digital marketplace
suggest the possibility for both promise and peril. On the one hand, children’s
value as a market could generate an abundant media universe, offering children
a richness and diversity of experience heretofore unavailable to them. The frag-
mentation of the youth market into smaller, more defined demographic and
interest groups also means that the new media should be better able to tailor
their content to meet the needs of more children, including those who may have
been underserved in the conventional media. On the other hand, the powerful
influence of commercial forces at this earliest formative stage is likely to leave
an indelible, long-lasting imprint on the structure and design of the entire chil-
dren’s digital media culture. With so much money to be made from children and
teens, the imperatives of marketing and sales will likely shape the vast majority
of content and services for children in the digital age.
This is not to suggest that digital media technologies will not offer children
multiple opportunities for education, communication, and creativity outside of
the commercial context. In fact, the World Wide Web has already made possible
a flowering of educational, cultural, and civic content for children, enabling
children to create their own websites and form communities across geographic
boundaries (Montgomery, 1999). Although these sites are an important part of
the Web, most are already being overshadowed by the much more heavily
promoted commercial sites, many of them tied to popular TV shows, films, and
other consumer products. The overwhelming presence of this commercial cul-
ture is reflected in the list of the most popular children’s websites maintained by
Web21 (www.100hot.com/kids). Of the top 25 sites on that list from May 1999,
the only noncommercial site was the Smithsonian Institution (number 17). Domi-

200
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

nating the list were media conglomerates (including Disney, Fox, Warner Broth-
ers, and Nickelodeon) and toy companies (Lego, Sega, Nintendo, and Toys ‘R’
Us). The convergence of television and the Internet could eventually mean that
the less popular noncommercial and civic services will be relegated to the
hinterlands of the digital media universe. Although they may be there, few will
know about them, and even fewer will find it easy to access them.
Even public television is being influenced by the new commercial impera-
tives of the digital media culture. Though there are rules that govern the role of
corporate underwriters on public TV, no such restrictions exist in cyberspace.
Although most of the websites for PBS children’s shows have been careful not to
incorporate advertising or marketing, some underwriters have been able to take
advantage of the fluidity of the Web experience by putting links designed to
transport children to their own “branded environment” (HR: Corporation for
Public Broadcasting Authorization Act of 1999). One of the most respected insti-
tutions in public television, Sesame Workshop (Children’s Television Workshop),
which produces Sesame Street, has introduced advertising into its website for
preschoolers and formed a partnership with E-Toys, an on-line toy retailer. Though
targeted to parents, the intrusion of advertising and marketing into what has
traditionally been a noncommercial service raises disturbing questions about the
viability of truly noncommercial children’s media in the digital era (Slatalla,
1999).
There have been innovative attempts by some Web content providers to
develop alternatives to the advertiser-based model. For example, JuniorNet bills
itself as a kind of “gated community” for children on the Internet. For a monthly
fee, the service provides an advertising-free space, offers “quality content” from
such producers as Scholastic and Jim Henson Productions, and promises to pro-
tect children from questionable content by monitoring chat rooms and screening
material from other sites (Flaherty, 1999). Whether noncommercial subscription
services such as JuniorNet prove to be financially viable in a digital world where
so much advertiser-supported content is available for free remains unclear. If
such services do succeed, they could set up a new digital caste system, where
only more affluent families would be able to provide their children with alterna-
tives to a media culture saturated with sales pitches.
Concerns about advertising reach beyond the scope of media in the home as
more Web-based companies are targeting the classroom as a site for marketing
and on-line sales to children (Manning, 1999). Given the controversy that has
surrounded Channel One’s introduction of advertising into high schools, the
growth of Web-based marketing to schools should be of concern to educators
and to parents (Hoynes, 1997). As law professor Angela Campbell warns: “Where
a Web site has two purposes – providing information and selling a product – it is
easy to see that the first may be subordinated to the second” (Campbell, 1997/
1998, p. 331).

201
Kathryn C. Montgomery

Need for safeguards

Because this new media culture is still in its early stages, there is an opportunity
– albeit a brief one – to develop safeguards for ensuring that children will be
treated fairly by marketers and advertisers. Although resistance from the media
industries to any regulation of “content” on the Internet or in other interactive
technologies is very strong, there is a long-standing tradition in the United States
of regulating advertising and marketing to children (Landesberg, Levin, Curtin, &
Lev, 1998). In 1998, the Center for Media Education (CME) and other consumer,
education, and child advocacy groups were able to help institute the first federal
rules on children’s marketing. CME’s 1996 publication Web of Deception raised
public and government awareness by documenting many of the emerging data-
collection and advertising practices targeted at children on the Web (Montgomery
& Pasnik, 1996). Along with Consumer Federation of America, CME petitioned
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to develop rules to govern children’s mar-
keting on the Internet.
The FTC held a series of workshops and hearings to consider the need for
more formal regulations and conducted its own analysis of marketing practices
on the Web (Landesberg et al., 1998). The commission’s rule-making authority
had been seriously weakened by legislation in the 1970s lobbied in by media,
advertising, and manufacturing interests in a successful effort to thwart regula-
tion restricting children’s advertising on television (Kunkel, 1988, 1992). As a
result, the FTC asked Congress in 1998 for authorization to develop rules for the
Internet. This authority was granted with passage of the Children’s Online Pri-
vacy Protection Act (COPPA). The law requires that commercial websites aimed
at children 13 and under must (a) give parents notice about their data-collection
practices; (b) obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting information
from children; and (c) provide parents with access to the collected information
and the opportunity to curtail any further uses of collected information (Child-
ren’s Online Privacy Protection Act, 1998). Final rules were issued in October
1999 and took effect April 21, 2000 (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule,
1999). The debate surrounding passage of the legislation and subsequent rules
also spurred on-line and advertising industries to change their present self-regu-
latory guidelines and to develop new ones (Quick, 1998; Teinowitz, 1997).
The new children’s privacy law is only the first, small step in what must be
a much broader effort to establish effective policies to curtail marketing abuses
targeted at children in the digital media. A comprehensive policy agenda will
need to be created if meaningful safeguards are to be put in place. The frame-
work for this agenda must be established now, before the most abusive practices
become not only firmly entrenched but also profitable and therefore very diffi-
cult to change. The new policies for the digital media system can be built, to
some extent, on the existing policy framework that has governed children’s
television, but policy makers and researchers may need to rethink many of the
existing rules (Campbell, 1997/1998). For example, children’s advertising on
digital television, while technically still subject to Federal Communications Com-
mission (FCC) regulations, will not conform to analog-broadcast restrictions.

202
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

Restrictions contained in the FCC 1974 Policy Statement on Children’s Televi-

sion, including prohibitions against sales pitches from the hosts of children’s
programs and the requirement for clearly defined separation between commer-
cial material and programmatic content (“After these messages, we’ll be right
back”), are hopelessly out of date and inadequate in the seamless world of the
Web and interactive digital television. Similarly, the Children’s Television Act
(CTA) of 1990 includes a provision that limits the amount of commercial time on
programming for children under 13 to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and
12 minutes per hour on weekdays (CTA, 1990). But on a digital television chil-
dren’s program with links to a commercial website, that 60-minute hour sud-
denly becomes virtually infinite.
Because the Internet and other digital media are part of a global media
system, there is also a need for safeguards that will transcend national bounda-
ries. Consumer groups from a number of European countries have created an
international forum with U.S. organizations called the Transatlantic Consumer
Dialogue (TACD). TACD is working to forge a common agenda for international
protections against marketing abuses targeted at children, and it recently devel-
oped a set of principles for “Children and Electronic Commerce”, which was
accepted by the European Commission. (See www.TACD.org.)

Research agenda
Commercialization of the digital media is taking place so quickly that there has
been little opportunity for serious scholarly research on its impact. Current TV
advertising safeguards are based on a substantial body of research, conducted in
the 1960s and 1970s, documenting the special vulnerabilities of children to the
powerful appeals of marketers (Wartella, 1984). However, research on the im-
pact of children’s advertising has declined dramatically in recent years, with
most of the attention in the scholarly community focused on ensuring the effec-
tiveness of advertising to children rather than assessing its social and behavioral
impact (Wartella, 1984). A multidisciplinary research agenda is urgently needed
to guide the development of digital children’s media. This should include sys-
tematic studies that begin to assess the ways in which children interact with new
media and the impact of new media on children’s cognitive, emotional, and
social development.
As part of this agenda, scholars should begin looking closely at the new
forms of interactive advertising, marketing, and sales that are developing so
swiftly in the digital media. As new techniques are developed, they will need to
be monitored closely. Timely, independent research will need to be conducted
to determine their impact. Several key issues will need to be taken into consid-
eration when designing a research agenda in this area. Because the lines be-
tween advertising, marketing, sales, and “content” are increasingly blurred, it
may be important to look at the on-line experience for children in more holistic
terms, rather than trying to isolate “commercial messages” to measure their ef-

203
Kathryn C. Montgomery

fects. For example, the integration of “content”, interactive advertising, and di-
rect selling is an unprecedented form of children’s media, which raises serious
concerns about the possibility of deception and manipulation. Researchers will
also need to look at the interrelationships among different “platforms” in a child’s
media experience (e.g., Internet, television, “programmable objects”, etc.). The
emergence of an increasingly immersive media environment, made more vivid
through virtual reality and human-like interfaces, may make it difficult to sepa-
rate the child’s so-called real-world experiences from those in the media (Calvert
& Tan, 1996). Finally, it will be necessary to think beyond traditional research
theories and methods and to draw on the expertise of scholars in a wide range
of fields (e.g., communications, computer science, anthropology, sociology, psy-
chology, etc.) to develop fresh approaches to the study of children and digital
media.

The future of digital media: Need for debate

Those who care about the well-being of children should join together to pro-
mote broad public debate about the future of our media system. As part of that
effort, we need to expand our thinking about notions of “quality” in the media.
Discussions about “safe zones” for children on the Internet have tended to frame
the concept of quality around the absence of harm. If a product, program, or
website contains no violence, sex, or other inappropriate material, then its very
“benignness” is often labeled “quality”. I suggest we begin thinking more broadly
about quality, developing criteria for how the overall media culture should help
prepare young people for their adult lives. Given current trends, there is little
doubt that this emerging media system will play a significant role in helping
children become consumers, and thus contributing to the growth of our economy.
But in a time of declining voter participation and great cynicism about the politi-
cal process, can the media also be a positive force in helping to raise the next
generation to be more engaged as citizens, contributing to the health of our
democracy?
William Damon, director of the Center on Adolescence and a professor of
education at Stanford University, has suggested some key attributes that young
people need to participate constructively in civil society:
First, intellectual abilities such as reasoning skills, literacy, and the knowledge
of history and economy required for making informed judgments. Second,
moral traits such as dedication to honesty, justice, social responsibility, and the
tolerance that makes democratic discourse possible. And finally, practical ex-
perience in community organizations, from which young people learn how to
work within groups, in structured settings. (Damon, 1998, p. B4)
Although major institutions such as the family, schools, and religion will doubt-
lessly continue to be the primary sources of a child’s civic education, the new
digital media – with their powerful ability to engage children in active learning,

204
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

to foster community, and to enable children to become creators and communi-

cators instead of just passive recipients – should also play a significant role in
helping to develop thoughtful, active citizens.
A key to achieving that goal will be the development of a healthy,
noncommercial civic sector in the new media landscape. Although there are
many promising content areas for children on the Web that could provide the
basis for such an “electronic commons”, there are also serious questions about
whether they can be sustained over the long run and whether they can become
a significant and prominent part of the new media landscape. With the growing
commercialization of the Web, the viability of noncommercial civic media for
children and youth is by no means guaranteed, and may very well be threatened
in the new environment.

Author’s note
I wish to thank the following people for their help in researching and writing this chapter: Jeff
Chester, Gary O. Larson, Charlene Simmons, Erin Fitzgerald, Ellen O’Brien, Yalda Nikoomanesh,
and Caty Borum.

Bibliography
Acuff, D. S. (1997). What kids buy and why: The psychology of marketing to kids. New York: Free
Press.
Aufderheide, P. (1996). Communications policy and the public interest. New York: Guilford.
Barnouw, E., Cohen, R., Roberts, G., Schwartz, T., Miller, M. C., Liberman, D., Aufderheide, P., &
Frank, T. (1997). Conglomerates and the media. New York: New Press.
Bok, S. (1998). Mayhem: Violence as public entertainment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bollier, D., & Firestone, C. M. (1997). The networked society: How technologies are transforming
markets, organizations, and social relationships. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Calvert, S. (1999). Children’s journey through the information age. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cronin, M. J. (1994). Doing business on the Internet: How the electronic highway is transforming
American companies. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Damon, W. (1995). Greater expectations: Overcoming the culture of influence in our homes and
schools. New York: Free Press.
Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1988). New media and American politics. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Frazier, D., Kurshan, B., & Armstrong, S. (1995). Internet for kids. San Francisco: Sybex.
Freedom Forum Media Studies Center. (1994, Fall). Media studies journal: Children and television.
New York: Author.
Furger, R. (1998). Does Jane compute? Preserving our daughters’ place in the cyber revolution. New
York: Warner Books.
Hughes, R. D. (1998). Kids online protecting your children in cyberspace. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming
H. Revell.
Jupiter Communications. (1998, September). Chat and instant messaging: Matching messaging tech-
nologies to diverging site applications [On-line]. [Retrieved April 21, 1999]. Available:
www.jup.com/sps/technology/briefs/9808/wt52/wt52-01.html
Kline, S. (1993). Out of the garden: Toys, TV, and children’s culture in the age of marketing. New
York: Verso.

205
Kathryn C. Montgomery

LaPlatne, A., & Seidner, R. (1999). Playing for profit: How digital entertainment is making big business
out of child’s play. New York: John Wiley.
Laybourne, G. (1993). The Nickelodeon experience. In G. L. Berry & J. K. Asamen (Eds.), Children
and television: Images in a changing sociocultural world. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McNeal, J. U. (1999). The kids market. Ithaca, NY: Paramount Market.
Minow, N. N., & LaMay, C. L. (1995). Abandoned in the wasteland: Children, television, and the First
Amendment. New York: Hill and Wang.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Roper Starch Worldwide. (1998, February 22). Kids favor Internet for homework, chatting, and
surfing: As in real life, girls are greater virtual socializers [On-line]. [Retrieved June 15, 1999].
Available: www.roper.com/news/archive1998.htm
Schoolman, J. (1998, August 24). “Nag factor” plays role in what parents buy: Only 31 percent of
parents are immune to their kids’ whining. Toronto Star, p. E3.
Schneider, C. (1989). Children’s television: The art, the business, and how it works. Lincolnwood, IL:
NTC Business Books.
Schumann, D. W., & Thorson, E. (1999). Advertising and the World Wide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Seiter, E. (1999). Television and new media audiences. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shirky, C. (1995). Voices from the Net. Emeryville, CA: Ziff-Davis Press.
Spigel, L. (1992). Make room for TV: Television and the family ideal in postwar America. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue. (1998, December 11). Comments on the Transatlantic Economic
Partnership (TEP) action plan [On-line]. [Retrieved October 29, 1999]. Available: www.tacd.org/
tep.html
U.S. Department of Commerce, Information Infrastructure Task Force. (1993, September 15). The
national information infrastructure: Agenda for action [On-line]. [Retrieved October 29, 1999].
Available: http://metalab.unc.edu/nii/toc.html
Zandl, I., & Leonard, R. (1992). Targeting the trendsetting consumer: How to market your product or
service to influential buyers. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Zollo, P. (1995). Wise up to teens: Insights into marketing and advertising to teenagers. Ithaca, NY:
New Strategist.

References
Anderson, L. (1999, June 17). Mixing teen cool with e-commerce savvy. Industry Standard, pp. 44-45.
Beatty, S. (1999, June 11). Latest soap-opera starlet? CBS casts a bracelet. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
Calvert, S. L., & Tan, S. L. (1996). Impact of virtual reality on young adults’ physiological arousal and
aggressive thoughts: Interaction versus observation. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.),
Interacting with video. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Campbell, A. (1997/1998). Ads2Kids.com: Should government regulate advertising to children on
the World Wide Web? Gonzaga Law Review, 33(2), 312-346.
Center for Media Education. (1999). Youth access to alcohol and tobacco Web marketing: The filter-
ing and rating debate. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for Media Education, Consumer Federation of America, American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, Junkbusters Corporation, National
Alliance for Non-violent Programming, National Association of Elementary School Principals,
National Consumers League, National Education Association, Privacy Times, and Public Advocacy
for Kids. (1999, June 11). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule: Comment P994504 [Com-
ments submitted to the Federal Trade Commission]. Washington, DC: Center for Media Education.
Children get growing online attention. (1995, November 10). Interactive Marketing News, pp. 4-6.
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, S.2326, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998).
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 312 (1999).
Children’s Television Act of 1990, H.R. 1677, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., Cong. Rec. H8535 (1990).
Clinton, W., & Gore, A. (1999, May 5). Keeping children safe on the Internet [On-line]. [Retrieved July
20, 1999]. Available: www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Work/050599.html

206
 Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture

Cox, B. (1999, June 9). Parents deluged with Web buy requests from kids [On-line]. [Retrieved June
11, 1999]. Available: www.internetnews.com
Damon, W. (1998, October 16). The path to a civil society goes through the university. Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. B4.
Davis, K., & O’Driscoll, R. (1995, March). Roadmap for the Internet. Red Herring [On-line]. [Re-
trieved November 18, 1999]. Available: www.redherring.com/mag/issue19/roadmap.html
Digital Coast ’99 Summit. (1999, September 8-9). Conference, Los Angeles.
Digital kids: Marketing to the postmodern kid. (1999, June 7-8). Conference, San Francisco.
Flaherty, J. (1999, March 11). Safer Web playgrounds are aimed at kids (and paying parents). New
York Times, p. G8.
Frauenfelder, M. (1999, June). Remote possibilities. Business 2.0, p. 118.
Givens, B. (1997). The privacy rights handbook. New York: Avon Books.
Godin, S. (1999). Permission marketing: Turning strangers into friends, and friends into customers.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center, Georgia Institute of Technology. (1998, October).
GVU’s 10th WWW user survey [On-line]. [Retrieved May 19, 1999]. Available: www.gvu.
gatech.edu/user_surveys-1998-10/graphs/use/q30.htm
Gruen, E. (1995, October 25). Defining the digital consumer IV agenda: Digital kids pre-conference
seminar, New York.
Hayes-Roth, B. (1999, September). Automating one-to-one customer care with smart interactive
characters. Web Techniques, pp. 59-65.
Hoynes, W. (1997, May/June). News for a captive audience: The case of Channel One. Extra! [On-
line]. [Retrieved June 20, 1999]. Available: www.fair.org/extra/9105/ch1_hoynes.html
HR: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Authorization Act of 1999, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999,
June 30). (Testimony of Jeffrey Chester) [On-line]. [Retrieved July 6, 1999]. Available: http://
com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/768dfofaa6d9ddab852564f1004886c0
Hunt, D. (1999, June 29). What you see is what you can get on Net: Shows test links to their viewers
with on-line sales. USA Today, p. 3D.
Jupiter Communications. (1998, August). Kids: Evolving revenue models for the 2-12 market [On-
line]. [Retrieved February 19, 1999]. Available: www.jup.com/sps/content/briefs/9808/cc42/
cc42.html
Jupiter Communications. (1999a, June 7). Kids and teens to spend $1.3 billion online in 2002 [On-
line]. [Retrieved September 20, 1999]. Available: www.jup.com/jupiter/press/releases/1999/
0607.html
Jupiter Communications. (1999b, April). Online customer service: Strategies for improving satisfac-
tion and retention [On-line]. [Retrieved April 21, 1999]. Available: http://jup.com/report/ocs/
ocs-01.html
Kennedy, M. (1996, Summer). Information superhighway: Parental regulation – the best alternative.
University of Louisville Journal of Family Law, 35(3), 575-593.
Kunkel, D. (1988, Autumn). From a raised eyebrow to a turned back: The FCC and children’s
product-related programming. Journal of Communication, 33(4), 90-108.
Kunkel, D. (1992, Summer). Children’s television advertising in the multichannel environment.
Journal of Communication, 42(3), 134-152.
Landesberg, M., Levin, T., Curtin, C., & Lev, O. (1998, June). Privacy online: A report to Congress.
Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.
Larson, G. (1998, Fall). Changing channels: How digital television will affect the public health.
InfoActive Health, pp. 1-8.
Leibovich, M., Smart, T., & Dugan, I. J. (1999, June 20). Internet’s e-conomy gets real. Washington
Post, p. A1.
Manning, S. (1999, September 27). Students for sale: How corporations are buying their way into
America’s classrooms. Nation, pp. 11-18.
McNeal, J. U. (1992). Kids as customers: A handbook of marketing to children. New York: Lexington
Books.
Mifflin, L. (1999, April 19). A growth spurt is transforming TV for children. New York Times, p. A1.

207
Kathryn C. Montgomery

Montgomery, K. (1999). Children’s media culture in the millennium: Mapping the digital landscape.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Montgomery, K., & Pasnik, S. (1996). Web of deception: Threats to children from online marketing.
Washington, DC: Center for Media Education.
Neuborne, E., & Kerwin, K. (1999, February 15). Generation Y. Business Week, p. 80.
Peppers, D. (1999). Foreword. In S. Godin, Permission marketing: Turning strangers into friends,
and friends into customers. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1993). The one to one future: Building relationships one customer at a
time. New York: Doubleday.
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1999). Enterprise one to one: Tools for competing in the interactive age.
New York: Doubleday.
Perkins, M. (1996, March). Mining the Internet gold rush. Red Herring [On-line]. [Retrieved Novem-
ber 18, 1999]. Available: www.redherring.com/mag/issue29/gold.html
Quick, R. (1998, July 22). Computer-industry group presents plan to regulate consumer privacy on-
line. Wall Street Journal, p. B7.
Roberts, J. (1995, October 25). Defining the digital consumer IV agenda: Digital kids pre-conference
seminar, New York.
Roper Starch Worldwide. (1998, November 24). Today’s kids – especially teens – are wired to the
hilt, gender gap still exists [On-line]. [Retrieved May 19, 1999]. Available: www.roper.com/
news/content/news93.htm
Russakoff, D. (1999, April 19). Marketers following youth trends to the bank. Washington Post, p. A1.
Slatalla, M. (1999, April 22). Sesame Street site: Serious child’s play. New York Times, p. E8.
Stanger, J. D., & Gridina, N. (1999). Media in the home: The fourth annual survey of parents and
children. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Stark, M. (1999, March 3). Savvy Gen Y-ers: Challenge, involve them. Selling to Kids, 4(4), 3.
Teinowitz, I. (1997, April 21). CARU to unveil guidelines for kid-focused Web sites. Advertising Age, p. 8.
Thompson, B. (1999, October 24). kids.commerce: The brave new world of marketing to children.
Washington Post Magazine, pp. 11-34.
Wartella, E. (1984, Spring). Cognitive and affective factors of TV advertising’s influence on children.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 171-183.
Weise, E. (1999, June 9). Parents pay for kids’ virtual wallets. USA Today, p. 9D.
Wieffering, E. (1999, February 15). Consumers could pay price when Web mergers with TV: As
media conglomerates consolidate power, the Internet is focusing more on selling stuff than on
spreading ideas. Star Tribune, p. 1A.
Zick, T. (1999, April). Congress, the Internet, and the in-tractable pornography problem: The Child
Online Protection Act of 1998. Creighton Law Review, 32, 1536-1555.

*
Source
Dorothy G. Singer & Jerome L. Singer (Eds.) (2001) Handbook of Children and the Media, pp. 635-
650, copyright © 2001 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by Permission of Sage Publica-
tions, Inc.

208