The Baby Einstein scandal
Was Disney's "genius" marketing grounds for a mass refund, or should parents have known better?
Baby Einstein DVDs: Did parents expect a teacher, or a babysitter?
(Corbis/Jerry Arcieri)
For years, Disney suggested its Baby Einstein DVDs could make young children smarter, but the American Academy of Pediatrics said kids under 2 shouldn't watch TV at all. With the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood threatening a class-action suit, Disney is offering refunds to millions of consumers. Should parents feel justified cashing in? (Watch coverage of the Baby Einstein community react to the refunds)
Absolutely. The name Baby Einstein is deceitful: Everyone knows that hyperbole is part of advertisement, says Lou Carlozo in Walletpop. But the name "Baby Einstein" suggests "an undeniable connection between the product and some sort of brain development." It’s an outrageous lie, so Disney should go a step farther and find a more honest name.
"'Baby Einstein' Didn’t Make My Kid A Genius ... Duh"
Parents should be embarrassed to collect refunds: "Most parents no doubt understood at some level that Baby Einstein and similar tapes were primarily an electronic babysitter," say the editors of USA Today. So "it's just hard to imagine that many people will claim refunds" -- doing so would just be a public admission of stupidity.
"'Baby Einstein' flunks the test"
No, the product delivered what parents really wanted -- peace: Parents know that videos don't make kids smarter, says Rachael Larrimore in Slate’s Double X, as surely as they know that Fruit Loops aren't "part of a nutritious breakfast." Most parents didn't expect "any affirmative benefit" from the Baby Einstein DVDs they bought -- they just wanted to distract their kids so they could "shower in peace."
"If You're Willing to Admit You Thought a Video Would Make Your Kid Smarter, Disney Will Give You Your Money Back"
Show: Oldest | Newest
14 Comments
Posted by Whell Maybe, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 12:51 pm all experience makes one smarter. human interaction probably nets greater experience as compared to tv experience. still, when a video captures a baby's attention not all videos do that as parents probably know there is experience being gained. human interaction probably does better at emotional development. perhaps the videos did a little better at visual tracking and spatial relations development. well, maybe.
Posted by Archilochus, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 2:39 pm Hell naw, the baby's just watching neat colorful lights coming from a box, not once processing its portrayals. Baby's need human interaction, touch, contact. A baby would get more from being bounced on its daddy's knee than being dumped in front of a television emitting this dross.
Posted by Yeah, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 3:35 pm Disney's entire advertising campaign was geared around convincing parents that their children would be learning. Disney paid psychologists tons of money to offer medical 'opinions' to that effect. Go look at the ads people. Of course parents should demand a refund, if not more.
Posted by A Mom, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 7:51 pm Rachael Larrimore must have children or know those that do for that is exactly what these videos did for us. I never believed it would make my kids smarter and only used them from time to time to show a 30 min video of something benign with beautiful music. There is so much crap out there that ironically Disney puts out most of it for kids that I would never want my kids to watch it even for peace so I could shower.
Posted by Jerry deGuzman, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 10:35 pm My daughter lets my grandaughter, 8 months old, watch Baby Einstien. Its just a fantasy adventure to music. We have a 3 yr old in the house, he likes to watch Nickelodeon One of the characters is a cow showing its udder an talking in a male voice: How sick is that!Besides everyone knows that Einstien was a poor student. I still don't know if the th TV ad Baby can read is really effective. Just like Hook on Phonics children can read but like my youngest son, his first grade teacher branded him as a slow learner. Just read to them.
Posted by Ron, Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 6:43 am All experience DOES NOT make us smarter. Many experiences are damaging to the brain such as emotional trauma, inhibit cognitive development malnutrition, watching TV, etc. Please, do SOME research before you make such absurd statements. There isn't a competent developmental psychologist alive who would agree with your the statement. Just TALK TO YOUR KIDS and REACT to their utterances when they respond. It's simple, but not necessarily easy.
Posted by Rus, Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 1:13 pm The nonsense argument that tries to embarrass customers into not seeking redress because they'll be outed as some kind of bad parent since they fell for marketing hype by one of the big, powerful, well financed media conglomerates suggests that the author opposes the refund. Why would that be? Does the author have stock in Disney, or any other benefit that may be affected? The company is making the offer to appease dissatisfied customers! If I buy a product, find it to be not as advertised and accept a refund from the company I'm stupid?
Posted by Blah Blah, Thursday, October 29, 2009, 12:05 am Wow, Ron...way to take the all experience makes one smarter earlier comment out of its context. I'm sure Roman Polanski/SawVI experience wasn't part of the formulation of that statement. Let's try your approach on your own comment: Just talk to your kids and react to their utterances when they respond. Well, if ALL that I did was talk to them and react to their utterances, then they would die of starvation. Just do some research and you'll know that you have to feed children too, Ron. Talking to them and reacting isn't enough.
Post a Comment