4 ms·

Parents Are Taking the Fun Out of Toys

9 points by grellas 16y ago

steve918 16y ago
I've heard a few people refer to this type of thing as 'gamification' these days. The term seems to be skewed in the same way in that achievements are the way people seem to think anything becomes a game.
nazgulnarsil 16y ago
if the kids enjoy the toys who cares how they market them to parents.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Dylanlacey 16y ago
This is not a new phenomenon. Any time there is a commercial interest to be had pushing one variety of thing over another, people will try to extend their value propisition by listing advantages inherent in their product (Or in the users!) All To-do lists can help you get organized. All social networks can help you connect with friends, but being connected is why people are friends in the first place. It's sad that people need to deliberately emphasize these points, but if they don't, the more complex systems for which benefits NEED to be explained get more attention, deserved or not. I don't see the need for use-cases for most products, but once you mix in other, competing products with the inherent fear people have of being a bad [Responsible Entity] (Be that parent, boss, developer), giving them becomes a more attractive option. As long as your own work advertises its use fairly, without fear, you're on sturdy moral ground AFAIC.
lurker19 16y ago
I do not understand the author's vehement opposition to marketing that encourages parents to take an interest in their children's development. (Actually, I do. Like Amy Chua, she is using the WSJ to promote her book, while she hypocritically condemns toymakers for promoting their work) Sure, these claims are cheesy and not backed by scientific method; most advertising shares these flaws. But I would rather these toys be marketed by promoting actual meaningful developmental benefits and getting parents thinking, rather than relying on Mickey Mouse's or Dora's face. It is a step in the right direction. Is the author similarly opposed to foodmakers promoting nutritional benefits? Would she argue that parents should just thoughtlessly feed their kids whatever seems like kid food? About the stationary trike she resents, I think that is a great toy for a city family that doesn't want Junior triking into the street in front of the apartment. Live and let live.
zwieback 16y ago
Parents go through this phase when their kids are 0-5 where they are already aggravated and think complaining about toys/diapers/preschool/food is interesting and funny. Other parents in the same situation might find it interesting, I know I did. I also know my kids liked certain toys but not others when they were little but they always preferred pots and pans and cardboard boxes to their toys, which quickly got sent to Goodwill. Then, when your kids start to think for themselves it's amazing how quickly they figure out whether something is lame or awesome. And it's not at all obvious to me where my daughters draw the line. They think Justin Bieber is lame and Lady Gaga is awesome (no big surprise there) but they also think Doc & Merle Watson playing "Twin Sisters" is awesome.

9 points by grellas 16y ago

I've heard a few people refer to this type of thing as 'gamification' these days. The term seems to be skewed in the same way in that achievements are the way people seem to think anything becomes a game.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago

if the kids enjoy the toys who cares how they market them to parents.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Dylanlacey 16y ago

This is not a new phenomenon. Any time there is a commercial interest to be had pushing one variety of thing over another, people will try to extend their value propisition by listing advantages inherent in their product (Or in the users!) All To-do lists can help you get organized. All social networks can help you connect with friends, but being connected is why people are friends in the first place. It's sad that people need to deliberately emphasize these points, but if they don't, the more complex systems for which benefits NEED to be explained get more attention, deserved or not. I don't see the need for use-cases for most products, but once you mix in other, competing products with the inherent fear people have of being a bad [Responsible Entity] (Be that parent, boss, developer), giving them becomes a more attractive option. As long as your own work advertises its use fairly, without fear, you're on sturdy moral ground AFAIC.

lurker19 16y ago

I do not understand the author's vehement opposition to marketing that encourages parents to take an interest in their children's development. (Actually, I do. Like Amy Chua, she is using the WSJ to promote her book, while she hypocritically condemns toymakers for promoting their work) Sure, these claims are cheesy and not backed by scientific method; most advertising shares these flaws. But I would rather these toys be marketed by promoting actual meaningful developmental benefits and getting parents thinking, rather than relying on Mickey Mouse's or Dora's face. It is a step in the right direction. Is the author similarly opposed to foodmakers promoting nutritional benefits? Would she argue that parents should just thoughtlessly feed their kids whatever seems like kid food? About the stationary trike she resents, I think that is a great toy for a city family that doesn't want Junior triking into the street in front of the apartment. Live and let live.

zwieback 16y ago

Parents go through this phase when their kids are 0-5 where they are already aggravated and think complaining about toys/diapers/preschool/food is interesting and funny. Other parents in the same situation might find it interesting, I know I did. I also know my kids liked certain toys but not others when they were little but they always preferred pots and pans and cardboard boxes to their toys, which quickly got sent to Goodwill. Then, when your kids start to think for themselves it's amazing how quickly they figure out whether something is lame or awesome. And it's not at all obvious to me where my daughters draw the line. They think Justin Bieber is lame and Lady Gaga is awesome (no big surprise there) but they also think Doc & Merle Watson playing "Twin Sisters" is awesome.