It’s one of the greatest disparities in child-focused spending.
Each year, companies spend billions on children’s digital media, both to produce it and to put it in front of young children.
According to MediaRadar, US ad spending in children’s content alone surpassed $1.6 billion in 2022, jumping nearly 50% in a single year, with 70% flowing through digital channels. Globally, according to Market.us, the kids digital advertising market was valued at $3.4 billion in 2023 and is on track to reach $25.9 billion by 2033.
The return on that investment is staggering: according to CNBC, children’s programming has become the primary subscriber retention engine for major streaming platforms, with a single preschool series like Bluey logging more than 25 billion viewing minutes in just the first half of 2025, making it one of the most-watched streaming properties of any genre. And programs like Cocomelon have been viewed nearly a quarter-trillion times.
That’s a lot of time and influence over our youngest and most vulnerable minds during a critical period where approximately 90% of brain development happens before age 5.
Now let’s compare that to what gets invested in truly independent research to understand the impact this content has on young developing brains.
I’m not talking about money spent on research commissioned by the companies producing the content, or delivering the content.
I’m not talking about internal “formative evaluation” used to optimize engagement.
I’m talking about truly independent, peer-reviewed science that has no financial stake in the outcome, or any production, distribution or advertising influence over the process.
This gap isn’t just large… It’s completely unfathomable! In fact, funding for independent evaluation exists only in the rarest of circumstances.
This has real consequences. Companies often use an assortment of misleading labeling that is designed to quickly garner parents’ trust: “Educational”, “Research-based”, “Developmentally aligned”, “Age appropriate“, “Baby safe”.
These claims are largely unregulated and often unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, the actual science (what independent researchers have learned about attention, language acquisition, parasocial relationships, and media stimulation in early childhood), thrives in academia, but remains buried within the pages of academic journals that most parents will never read.
How do we fix this?
Let’s look at an example of how a different industry tackles a similar issue. Corporations that have a negative impact on the health of the environment often pay “green taxes” or “environmental taxes.”
I’m no expert on the logistics of these taxes, but on the surface, this helps offset some of the potential harms that these companies have on the environment by allocating these funds toward research and programs that are designed to help when regulation alone doesn’t suffice.
But perhaps the most relevant analogy isn’t actually environmental taxes. It’s tobacco.
For decades, tobacco companies funded their own “youth smoking prevention” programs. They didn’t do this because they wanted fewer kids to smoke, but because it let them argue against taxes and regulation. A landmark 2006 federal court ruling found that those industry programs were “minimally funded” relative to what those same companies were spending on targeted marketing at the very same group. The truth was that these initiatives were never validated for effectiveness, and were actively used to fight legitimate public health legislation. Research later confirmed that some of the parent-directed industry campaigns actually INCREASED the likelihood that kids would start smoking.
Sound familiar?
We already see large platforms and production companies funding their own “research arms,” commissioning impact studies that conveniently validate their existing content, and pointing to those programs as evidence that additional regulation is unnecessary. Often drawing a double benefit by creating Corporate Social Responsibility programs to show that they take this seriously, but then allocating this funding to organizations and programs that are in-line with the corporation’s objectives, not ones that may research and investigate their potential harmful practices.
These programs aren’t broken. They’re working exactly as designed… just not for the benefit of parents and children.
Children deserve the same care and reverence that we’ve finally started imposing on other industries. The funding mechanism needs to be independent of the companies it oversees. The tobacco playbook showed us exactly what happens when it isn’t.
These are the issues that we’re investigating and developing solutions for through our work at Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL).
If you, or someone you know, is looking to tackle these systemic challenges across the children’s media landscape, please reach out and connect so that we can maximize our collective impact. Every second, every dollar, every resource is needed in order to reform the multi-billion-dollar media and tech industry that profits at the expense of our children’s health and wellbeing.
About Will Maurer
Will Maurer is the Executive Director of the Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL) and a leading voice in children’s media reform. A veteran media executive and keynote speaker, he specializes in bridging the gap between developmental science and digital literacy. Will contributes to conversations on digital wellbeing, systems change, and ethical media design to provide parents, educators, caregivers and practitioners with the digital literacy skills, resources and tools to ensure that the ‘digital home’ meets the same care, intention, and evidence-based standards as the physical one.
About Children’s Media Research and Reform Lab (CMRRL)
CMRRL is a nonprofit dedicated to supporting digital wellbeing through rigorous research, evidence-based standards, education and public advocacy.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.