Stephanie Clifford, “A Fine Line When Ads and Children Mix,” The New York Times, February 15, 2010

This article claims that recent efforts to monitor and regulate marketing to children has had “an interesting side effect,” that is, a shift away from traditional tactics to “games, contests and events where the advertiser has only a subtle presence— exactly the opposite of what some of the advocacy groups were aiming for.” According to New York Times journalist Stephanie Clifford, children’s publications have increasingly sought to integrate corporate sponsorships with contests and features that emphasize their content. “Instead of just a straight selling of product, it’s all about how we tell the message in the magazine and how we engage with the kids,” stated one spokesperson for National Geographic Kids, which reported a decline in ad revenue “largely because of the economy but in part because of heightened concern about food advertising.”

“But these kinds of strategies, created in part to sidestep advocates’ criticisms, are upsetting them all the more,” writes Clifford. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, apparently described the sponsorships as “powerful and incredibly insidious,” despite strides made by federal regulators and some companies, like those supporting the Children’s Food and Beverage Initiative, to set nutritional standards for advertised products. As a result, some magazines have decided to sidestep marketing altogether. “We don’t have that potential conflict in the needs of our readers, in the wants and desires of our readers, with those of our advertisers,” one publisher was quoted as saying.