Feature Article:
|
 logo created by FawnDoo |
Other Articles
|
Toy to Toon: Commercial Cartoons and How They Affected Saturday Morning
by Dark Star
|
|||
Why Do We Need the Kids Anyway? by Perceptor II
What's Your Outlet? by Coyotek
|
These are all tied into the original plans of the toy companies back in the 1980s when the shows first came out. Toys and merchandising has been going on for years, since the time of Mickey Mouse and Little Orphan Annie. The only difference is that Annie was around before Oveltine offered decoder rings, and other trinkets that they gave away when a kid mailed in a number of box tops or candy wrappers. Dick Tracy had the watch, and boys could buy Davie Crocket coonskin caps before the days of He-man and Skeletor. Yet it is only during these times that critics have voiced complaint about cartoons using kids shows to market toys. `By the following year, Film Daily reported that consumers all over the world were snapping up, "Felix handkerchiefs, Felix toys, Felix chinaware," (Kanfer)
In fact toys and toons have been linked from the start of Cartoons, Mickey had walking toys, driving toys, and toys that did flips. The Loony Toons got stuffed toys, and toys that waddled. In fact once the Syndicated Cartoons came on the scene older cartoons were given a rougher treatment. Daffy duck became a foil for Speedy Gonzals, and the road runner cartoons were done with out Chuck Jones with lower resulting jokes and more pratfall and the like.
Even during this time Hanna -Barbera started going into the toy commercial cartoon idea. In the 1960s the Taft corporation bought out the studio and created many merchandising items that went along with shows like Scooby-doo, and the Jetsons. `In 1967, when Hanna-Barbera was purchased by the Taft Corporation for $12 million, the licensing agreements for the Flintstones, the Jetsons, and all the rest promised more income then the programs on which they were based (in one year, the Pebbles doll earned close to $20 million).' (Kanfer)
This just shows that the trend to sell toys with cartoons was beginning to become a growing trend even back in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. So it is no surprise that this marketing strategy grew up over the 1970s when toy manufactures and corporations bought out other animation studios. With the addition of Filmation, DIC, and Nelvana, Canadian animation studios which cost less to use and utilize verses their American counterparts, who charged more to animate the shows, became standard to use when making a cartoon in the 1980s.
In fact Nelvana created The Care Bears Movie in 1985 for only $4 million, no surprise that the movie was a cheap way of making a major ad campaign for the new toys rather then creating numerous commercial. Later in 1986 the second movie Care Bears II : A New Generation introduced yet another marketing ad for the new Care Bear Cubs and cousins. These two movies racked up 10.4 million just at the box office, that is not counting the unsung millions in additional toy sales which were sold during this time.
In addition to the Care Bears movies, Rainbow Bright, My Little Pony, Transformers, Go-bots, and the video released G.I. Joe movies followed suit of the theatrical market for the toys. The fact that there wasn't any kids movies out to combat these Saturday morning cartoon movies allowed for them to make a good chunk of money at the box office, even if they were churned out quite quickly with lack luster animation and even lousier stories. `(DIC reportedly produced "Rainbow Bright and the Star Stealer" in three months- a record for an animated feature)' (Solomon)
These theatrical movie ads can still be seen in the likes of Pokemon the first Movie: Mew two Strikes back, and Pokemon 2000. Not to mention the Digimon movie, and the other Pokemon Movies that are forth coming to the states. When Pokemon the First Movie came out Hasbro had a large jump in sales of the Pokemon toy line, just as it did in 1985 when Transformers came out with their movie.
Criticisms of the cartoons have been happening since the early 80s, back then it seemed appalling to the leaders of child advocates groups who saw these cartoons only as half hour commercials, which they were, and began to voice that the FCC should regulate the cartoons that children watch. `Surveys announced that some 16 million minors started their weekends by turning on the television set. Not unreasonably, advertisers concluded that commercials, shrewdly produced for children's uncritical eyes, might convert them into miniature consumers. It was worth a try, anyway, a try vigorously encouraged by the networks. Under the National Association of Broadcasters Code, prime-time programs could not carry more then 9.5 commercial minutes per hour. Children's programming had no such restraints; it allowed 16 minutes per hour. In fact the disproportion was greater then that, since the main characters frequently acted as pitchmen in the ads, making the commercials and entertainment indistinguishable. So for the rest of the decade and beyond, every fourth minute on Saturday morning was devoted to peddling sugar coated cereal, candied vitamins, and expensive toys-some retailing for as much as $50. Those toys, like the show's they sponsored, expressed the spirit of the age. G I Joe's arsenal included a "ten-inch bazooka that really works" and gas masks "to add real dimension to your play battles." ` (Kanfer)
Advocates for children fought back harshly and cited the fact that the toy companies were taking advantage of impressionable children. In fact most would point to the fact that the cartoons were nothing more then a cheap way to market the toy and create more sales for the company. `"The over commercialization of children's television is worse then that of adult television," charged Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children's Television (ACT) in 1983. " A Show comprised of commercials is insidiously horrible, although that's not to say license products are inherently ghastly-I played with a Shirley Temple doll as a child.
"'The Masters of the Universe'[which was about to debut] is another example of programmers, writers and producers looking to toys for ideas because of their licensing potential," she continued. " When the concept of a program is to sell, it limits its creativity. It's a shame that the people who make their living telling stories no longer care about telling stories." Commissioner Henry M. Rivera added to this idea by stating, "If the commission blesses this practice by inaction, the vast majority of children's programming eventually will be funded this way." (Wikies et al)
Others voiced the same opinion if not as vehemently as Mrs. Charren, "I have a general discomfort with toy-company ownership positions [in these] series," says Squire D. Rushnell, American Broadcasting Cos.' Vice-president for children's programming. " How do you separate the intention of doing a TV show from the intention of selling a product?" (Solomon) Not surprisingly Mrs. Charren's ACT was one of the biggest advocates in this whole battle for children's television. Charren and her group actually took this argument to congress for them to regulate the cartoons and get toy companies to stop creating these animated shows. Yet even so, the toy companies had some words to say back to the child advocate groups.
Dennis Marks, Creative director at Marvel studio, replied: "Wasn't the Disney show a huge promotion for Disneyland? And how is animating G.I. Joe any different from a guest on Johnny Carson plugging a book or a movie? Don't networks plug shows with `guest stars' on other shows? You can't condemn one aspect of it without condemning the entire system. TV is one big promotion." (Wikies et al)
|