Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Is deodorant the new tobacco? | Main | Overdosing the elderly »
Textbook advertising
A few years ago, McGraw-Hill published a sixth-grade math textbook littered with product placements. Exercises required students to find the diameter of an Oreo cookie ("The best-selling packaged cookie in the world") and informed them that "Consumers can purchase unique clothing and accessories, and products for the home [from Land's End]." A spokesman for McGraw-Hill denied that the product plugs were put there for any commercial or promotional purposes... which is funny because the Toronto Star recently discovered (reg. req. - use BugMeNot) that McGraw-Hill is now slyly marketing textbook ads to corporate advertisers. A pamphlet makes the pitch:
Reach a hard to get target group where they spend all their parents' money.... Do you really think 18-24 year olds see those on-campus magazine ads? Do you really think they could miss an ad that is placed in a very well-respected textbook?"
McGraw-Hill is not only turning curriculum materials into product ads, they're keeping their insanely overpriced textbooks overpriced. According to a spokesperson, the new advertising "won't affect the price of the textbooks." Yes, the lucky students will get the ads for free!
(Via Erika Shaker)
Posted by carrie on 06/13/2005 | Permalink
Comments
I taught a college Precalculus class, and our book (Sullivan's "Precalculus") was riddled with ads for Motorola. At the beginning of each chapter were pictures of people happily chatting on their cells, and scattered throughout the book were profiles of random Motorola employees.
The obvious rationale was to connect the (often abstract) material being presented to real-world applications. And that's a worthy goal. But come the hell on -- it was like watching a semester-long Motorola employee pep rally. (And it provided the publisher with a nifty excuse to make a new edition -- by the time we were using that book, the cell phones in the pictures were looking ridiculously dated.)
Posted by: John | Jun 14, 2005 2:47:51 AM
"A spokesman for McGraw-Hill denied that the product plugs were put there for any commercial or promotional purposes..."
Remember that for the next time you see an innocent (that is, unpaid) brand name placement, in a book or a play for example.
First they just mention products because it's cool, or it makes the material seem more relevant. No integrity problem there. Later, they introduce the paid version and figure most of us won't notice. It's happened time and again.
I propose a name for the unpaid precursors to the paid placements: Trojan horse ads.
Posted by: Rich Garella | Jun 14, 2005 10:45:55 AM
Why does this seem so proper? The compulsory schooling system has always been the incubator of consumer culture, since the emphasis is upon following the leader and not on thinking for oneself -- top-down "giving" of virtual education dictated by experts who never enter a classroom rather than lateral sharing and obtaining of such through experience. The system wouldn't survive a single generation who were taught critical thinking skills.
The fuzzy-mindedness required for the acceptance of virtual imprisonment as education is perfect for the imprinting of the corporate sponsor's products.
Posted by: Peter Stanislaw | Jun 14, 2005 1:51:29 PM
Both in preschool and then in kindergarten, my niece's teachers did a specific reading exercise with the kids. Each child was to bring to class brand names that they cut out of magazines. My sister in law objected. She said something to the kindergarten teacher, but the teacher really didn't get why it was a problem.
Posted by: Rebecca | Jun 19, 2005 7:55:09 PM
The plot grows thicker when you consider that McGraw Hill owns Standard and Poor's, the stock ratings firm. S & P has recently downgraded Ford and GM to "junk" status. How long until the onslaught of ads starts for cars in the textbooks?
“See Dick drive a Ford. Drive, Dick, drive. Jane drives a GM. Is Jane’s GM bigger than Dick’s Ford? Dick will buy a new car. What kind of car will Dick buy?”
Some people think car advertising should be banned on philosophical and moral grounds, as it encourages the sales of a dangerous substance. What's in it for McGraw Hill?
See http://www.allderdice.ca, the home of BACON (Ban Advertising Cars Over Night), a.k.a. the international movement for a moratorium on automobile advertising.
Posted by: Jacob allderdice | Jun 25, 2005 4:40:15 PM
