Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Groups Bemoan Google's "Deceptive" Ads for Kids In FTC Complaint
Mark Wilson writes A number of consumer groups have filed a complaint with the FTC suggesting that Google is targeting children with 'unfair and deceptive' ads in YouTube Kids for Android and iOS. A letter signed by Children Now, Consumer Watchdog, Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, and others says that ads are displayed in a way that would not be permitted on broadcast or cable television. The letter makes three main complaints about the app. The first suggests that Google mixes programming and ads, while another says that the relationship between Google and the manufacturers of advertised products is not clear. The groups ask for the FTC to take action to stop the advertisements. Also covered by The Verge and VentureBeat; here's the complaint letter.
These ads must be AWFUL indeed if they wouldn't be allowed on TV. Now, to be fair, I mostly skip ads on TV, but I do see some occasionally (such as when I can't pick up the TIVO remote in time, or a live sports event). Most of the ads I see on TV are blatant misrepresentations, disingenuous, or lies. OK mostly lies. Showing products working under conditions in which they cannot, doing thing they cannot, etc. If these are worse than those - wow, just wow. Of course they probably aren't worse.
Hello, Google is all about targeted ads. Its how it makes most of its money. Gee, Parents, you have no problem buying your young kids smartphones. Then complain about everything that the kids are subjected too with them. From over buying apps, to content issues, and now ad's targeting them. All I can say is duh.
Mobile is obviously the new format for ads and no matter what OS you are using Android, IOS or something else. The ad revenue stream is most important.
No doubt this kind of litigation will be tied up in courts for years, wasting tons of money complaining rather then simply not participating in this kind of ad marketing. I question how many kids need a smartphone? In general I agree that some ads are not appropriate for some age groups. But I also question if many of these ads are simply placed within apps that are also inappropriate for that age group? Are the ads simply being targeted correctly and its the end user who should not have access to that app?
You're equating porn with advertising? Surely you are joking. One is filth-ridden trash, demeaning to women and men alike, imagined by sociopaths and enjoyable only to the sickest of perverts, the other is just people having fun in bed.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Sponsors pay for content either in production or distribution and that's how they get their brand recognition to their targeted audience. It's been that way for decades and when it comes to kids shows, most of them are toy manufacturers or clothing or related products that get the kids to desire the things that are advertised. with targeted marketing on platforms like IOS or Android now content sponsors can drill in even further with ads that are identifying a specific child. "Hey Billy, buy this.."
is it unfair? In some ways yes and in others it's not because there's no such thing as free content.
In Kids programming that's what PBS did for kids with Sesame Street etc.
If you want to fix this, fix how content production and distribution are funded but you're never going to outlaw Barbie.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Childless Troll
then you are the product.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The internet isn't TV or radio, tough shit if the FCC doesn't like it.
How much are parents paying to use YouTube Kids as a baby sitter?
If anything, stop paying it and problem solved.
Or even better, stop letting the computer/tablet/smartphone raise your kid for you.
A while back our children discovered videos that are so called unboxing videos. It is unclear to me what the exact revenue source is, but there are videos that are nothing but a set of hands opening surprise eggs for an hour (not an exaggeration - we're talking about a literal hour long video of hands opening up a big pile of surprise eggs, and there are many like it). Now, is this disturbing? Yes, absolutely. What is even more disturbing is that the advertisement has become the content.
That being said, I think the fact that many of these videos have 1 million plus views indicates that parents are ok with their children watching this.
I think the moral of the story is that if you don't want your children watching ads, then don't let them watch youtube, or at least careful curate for them.
I do not blame Youtube or Google for this though.
We cut the cord years ago and have used a mix of Hulu, Netflix, and the various network apps for content (PBS Kids, etc). YouTube has always been problematic, not just for the ads, but also for the content and the "next up" algorithm. As a result, we only let the kids use YouTube (and YouTube Kids) when we're in the room with them and have our finger on the remote.
Here are the specific problems with YouTube:
Ads: The ads are not targeted at all. If you've ever paid attention to ads, you already know the promise of targeted advertising is bunk. The problem with YouTube is that it's doubly bunk when it comes to kids programming on normal YouTube (and apparently on kids' YouTube as well). Completely inappropriate ads will pop up after kids shows. It's not rocket science to tweak your algorithm to play a kid appropriate add after a cartoon, even if it means the occasional adult will get the wrong ad.
Content: This is trickier. A lot of the cartoon content on YouTube consists of collections of episodes bundled into a single video. The problem is, the bundles are created by fans and you have no idea what's in it until you watch it. Sometimes they're crappy screen captures. Sometimes they're dubbed in another language (without calling it out in the title). In those cases, you spend 10 minutes with the kids just trying to find one they can watch. The worst, however, are the ones that are "archival" and created by superfans. My best example is a compilation of Donald Duck cartoons that includes the WWII episode where Donald fights Hitler*. Great episode... for adults who understand the context. Terrible episode for kids. YouTube has no good way of warning parents about this.
Next up: This is easy. The algorithm appears to randomly pick something that has the same word in the title as the previous or has been tagged to be similar. It's very easy to go from Donald Duck to Duck Hunting to Duck Dynasty to an unhinged Phil Robertson rant. Leave your kids alone with YouTube at your own risk!
Look, Google has more money than God and a lot of smart engineers. If they cared about this, they could fix it. YouTube Kids isn't the solution.
-Chris
*does that count for Goodwin?
I was watching some music videos on youtube and was interrupted with an ad with 2 women drinking wine on a couch, and one of them says "THIS PLACE IS THE SHIT" what the fuck is that? commercials with swears? AWESOME
The internet isn't TV or radio, tough shit if the FCC doesn't like it.
That bill with the name "Net Neutrality"? The fear of internet-aware conservatives was that it gave the FCC just such authority: to regulate content. Time will tell who was right, but vigilance is certainly required here if was want to keep the FCC out of it.
Now, blanket bans on certain kinds of ads regardless of medium, that's different. The government certainly has an interest in fraud prevention that has nothing to do with how the ad is delivered.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.