Breaking News - UCLA and Moonbug, home to Cocomelon and other popular children’s series, are partnering to incorporate child development research into their content. Based on my knowledge of the inner workings of the systems that shape the children’s media “industry”, I have some questions, concerns, and thoughts for the parents in my network.
While I admittedly don’t know all the facts and details, the premise of this collaboration seems promising and sound. The press release, however, may not be giving us key details.
Here’s what I can see…
Moonbug is aligning with the expertise, gravitas, reputation of UCLA StoryTeller Center while receiving the “badge” of a respected University and a research group who I believe are genuinely trying to do their best for families.
UCLA gives Moonbug parent-cred at a time when children’s content creators are under fire for their overstimulating production techniques.
At the same time as being a major PR coup for Moonbug, this model has the potential to become an important step in the right direction for children’s content...
All good news, right? But then I read this:
“The research center will... review scripts and early cuts of episodes to ensure learning is clear and age-appropriate.”
Emphasis on these two terms: EARLY CUTS and AGE-APPROPRIATE.
Two alarm bells for me.
As a Dad, and based on my extensive research in this field, I have some questions and concerns. We know that so many children’s programs rely on overstimulating production techniques and other developmentally-inappropriate “ingredients” as a method to capture attention and draw kids into an endless viewing loop.
If Moonbug restrains UCLA’s ability to review content to simply “scripts and an early cut”, which is typically prior to the stage of the production where overstimulating elements and techniques are incorporated, it limits UCLA from advising on arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS of the programming for this intended audience, which can directly impact cognitive overload and the long-term wellbeing of the child who is viewing the content.
My next concern… What does the term“age-appropriate” really mean? When it comes to Children’s media, nearly all global health organizations recommend “no screen time before the age of 2”. Yet, many of Moonbug’s YouTube channels use the term “for babies” in the title of their most popular shows.
Parents Deserve Details Beyond the Carefully Crafted Headlines
We know what the Brain science tells us - that young children are not able to process or comprehend any “educational” elements buried beneath layers of rapid cuts, frenetic action, disorienting audio-visual effects, loud sound effects and fast camera movements, all engineered by producers who understand how to capture attention and extend watch time. In fact, these techniques used to pull children into repetitive viewing are the same elements that their brains cannot process, sift, or make sense of causing distraction, an inability to focus and dysregulation.
Parents typically have no way of knowing or recognizing how to distinguish content that is designed to capture a child’s attention, which many parents confuse with ‘being engaged’. As a new father and former animation exec, neither did I. It wasn’t until I undertook years of focused and extensive research on this topic that I began to understand the how and the why children’s media is designed.
For parents, the news of a collaboration between a well known children’s media producer and a respected research institution is welcome. It’s a ‘green-light’ for parents that when they choose this content for screen time (no shame or judgement - parents already endure enough of that) they ‘should’ now have a trusted program that applies and incorporates “child development research”. Parents will feel validated in their choice, thinking, my child will be better off because of this. Most parents will tell themselves, “How can I not choose research-backed educational programming that is co-constructed and validated?” And the proof is right in front of me... my child seemingly can’t get enough of this content. Red Flag!
I advise parents: “when ‘engaged’ turns to ‘enraged’ once the screens are shut off, the problem lies with the content, not the screen or device.”
Developmentally appropriate content designed for co-viewing does not typically lead to this same outcome.
So, I have a few simple requests: if Moonbug truly wants to design experiences that are in the best interest of children’s well-being, then:
This partnership must not have limitations in terms of restricted access to the production process. Researchers need to be able to review the full program and provide actionable guidance based on clear rules that are established from the start.
The definition of “age appropriate” content needs to be clearly defined by researchers and producers alike, as should the intended age group. Saying that the content is made for ‘preschool’, ‘0-5’, ‘toddlers’ or other terms that have large gaps between what is appropriate within that age range, matters greatly.
The content should also meet 3rd party validation from an organization like the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab to verify any “educational” or “age appropriate” claims that are being made. It is important that the organization understands early childhood development as well as the effects of media on a child’s development to ensure the best interest of the child is at the center of the review.
Parents are eager for safer options - and this is top of mind for media marketing firms. I’m hopeful that UCLA and Moonbug will heed this advice and place children’s wellbeing at the heart of the programming (from development through distribution) so that this blossoms into a blueprint for the change that parents have been demanding - instead of another strategic marketing headline that lures weary parents who are looking for safer options into an endless screen time loop.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.