“I don’t care if a baby holds up a Playboy bunny rattle.”  Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy. 

It’s certainly disappointing, but not surprising, that jewellery chain Diva has teamed up with pornography brand Playboy.  In the two years since I blogged about Playboy’s infiltration of the kids’ lunchbox treats aisle in Coles with their strategically placed merchandise rack in front of the Rollups,  retail outlets aplenty with the bunny logo emblazoned on their shop windows have proudly announced that they’re in bed with Heffner’s porn empire.  It was only a matter of time before a store like Diva would jump in too (particularly considering that the same company who owns Diva also owns Playboy promoters Adairs and Bras n Things). 

But amidst protestations and threats of boycott, even if Diva makes a she-roic decision and kicks their new BFF to the curb, Playboy wont be going anywhere.  There will still be plenty of other retail outlets happy to stock the crap, and plenty of teen girls willing to buy it.  Sex sells.  When I was growing up, brandishing the Playboy logo was an expression of rebellion and a statement that you were cool with ‘hot’.  Even more so today, girls are sold the line that women are bodies rather than somebodies, and that resembling a porn star is a noble aspiration that could bring fame and fortune.  A quick scan of Facebook profile pictures or a visit to any suburban shopping mall presents no shortage of self-proclaimed teenage ’pornstars’, donning t-shirts announcing this.  We shouldn’t be so surprised that Diva would defend their choice to sell Playboy, considering their market is predominantly teen girls.  Diva is after all, a business.  Of course nothing has changed in the way Playboy and the majority of its male clientele view women of porn (a.k.a. Playboy Bunnies), so it’s understandable that parents of young children would be concerned about their girls being suckered in to advertise Playboy’s wares through a store like Diva.  It’s so important for people to speak out and express their concern directly to retailers, but like most things there’s a bigger picture at play.

“The rabbit, the bunny, in America has a sexual meaning, and I chose it because it’s a fresh animal, shy, vivacious, jumping – sexy…A girl resembles a bunny.”  Hugh Heffner. 

The elephant in the room is consumption.  Playboy Inc. may be sneaky and opportunistic in their marketing, but what they’re doing is completely legal.  They’re not directly selling pornography to children.  They’re not even using porn models to advertise jewellery in Diva.  They’re using their little bunny logo.  They’re simply branding our kids to be loyal consumers of their products.  As many corporations do - all day, every day, with very little fuss from the community.  If anything, the visability of the Playboy brand at least gives us the opportunity to make conscientious consumer choices – and to voice our concerns, yet when it comes to other brands who aren’t so transparent about their interests, there’s often blissful ignorance.  At the end of the day, we should really be concerned about ALL marketing to children.

Considering the consumption treadmill we’re all on, and the fact that children have such control over the purse strings, the corporate sector is hardly likely to show any responsibility for their wellbeing over economic profits – be it Playboy or any other corporation.  According to the U.S. documentary ‘Consuming Kids: The Commercialisation of Children’,  children under 12 years of age spend $40billion p.a. on everything from clothes, music, electronics, etc, and they directly influence $700billion p.a. of adult spending.  Advertisers have now recognised children as a major force in spending, and the marketing to them is relentless.  We need to go beyond just kneejerk reactions to individual retail outlets stocking specific brands, and stamp out advertising to young children altogether.  Possible?  More so than stopping Playboy from manufacturing baby rattles.

*I highly recommend taking the time to watch ‘Consuming Kids’.  It’s an eye-opener. 

Branding our kids

I took these photos in my local Coles supermarket recently, coincidently on my way home from a seminar on The Sexualisation of Children in the Media.  Hanging directly in front of the Roll Ups, Fruitsies and Milkies, was this merchandise rack advertising ‘PLAYBOY The New Fragrance for Men’.  I looked around for the men who would likely purchase this product, but lo and behold, the only people I saw in that particular aisle were mothers with their preschool and primary school age children filling their trolleys with school lunchbox treats.

I spoke with the store manager, who agreed that it was inappropriately placed, and he assured me he would have it removed.  Two weeks later, it’s still there.  Still empty.  Of course there’s not much point filling it – it’s hardly in the right spot to move product, but it is in the right spot to introduce children to the little white bunny logo – and all it stands for.

As James McNeill states in his book The Kids Market, ‘Brand marketing must begin with children.  Even if the child does not buy the product and will not for many years…the marketing must begin in childhood.’

So could it be for the Playboy brand, they’ve found a way to target children?  They don’t even need the product - the logo covered rack itself will do!  Not allowed to actually ’sell’ porn to kids, as the next generation of consumers, branding our kids would appear to be the next best thing.  Intoduce them to the logo early, particularly in a ‘feel good’ setting like the lunchbox treats aisle, and they’ll be friends with the little white bunny for life.

Wouldn’t it be great if Coles showed some responsibility and leadership, and refused to allow a porn brand to market to its younger customers?

UPDATE 23/09/09:  Pleased to report that Coles have now removed the above mentioned merchandise rack.  It pays to speak out!