Mass marketing the President and his family?

As an opportunity for businesses to make a profit, the Obama family image and name has been thrown on anything marketable such as beanie babies, dog jerseys, canvas shoes, bobble head dolls, and even THONGS(and we are not talking about flip flops)!

Some marketers argue that they are portraying the President and his family as role models. Do you think this is true, or are they exploiting the 1st Family for financial gain?

Check out these websites to see some of the items that American consumers are purchasing:

www.zazzle.com/obama+memorabilia+gifts?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/22/obama.dolls/


Our responses:

Jessica Burton: I believe the Obama family is being exploited by the marketing world. President Obama's election will forever be known as a historical feat for America. It will be remembered without bobble head dolls, or beanie babies that mimic the President's daughters. The first family deserves a little respect and privacy. Let's stop trying to make another buck and give the Obamas a little space.


Brittany McBryde: It is a great, historic moment having the first African-American President. It is definitely an occasion to celebrate and remember. However, I feel the marketing world and consumers are going to the exteme. Obama and his family are on anything you can think of from coasters, shoes, aprons, ties, to Ty Beanie Babies that resemble the Obama girls. It is a little ridiculous and out of hand. Every President before simply had stickers, shirts, and buttons. The marketing world and consumers are taking advantage of a historic moment in our country.


Yuen Chun Wong: I don’t think that it is wrong for the marketing world to make a profit from the President and his family. It’s a miracle that President Obama won the election. He became an idol as any of his predecessors -- like Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt. Whether his achievement is greater than theirs or not, the President and his family aren’t the usual public people like some movie stars. They are the people who live in White House. They are the American dream family. President Obama’s image and name belong to the people, belong to the nation and belong to history. This is not the first day that people have worshiped their leader. The market using their name and image to make products is not exploiting them, but it will popularize their family. Besides, in this economic crisis, their products benefit the market and native industry. I think the President and his family are not bothered by the market selling products using their image.


Admatha St Hillaire: In the world of marketing, I believe one man's gain is always at another man's expense. I feel divided on whether the portraying of the Obama family is a positive thing or if it is exploiting their family image. Yes, he is the "first" President of African descent, and his presidency should be commemorated. On the other hand, there should be a limit on how many knick-knacks that can come from this. In my opinion AUTHENTIC t-shirts, hats, even display china are okay, but dolls are redundant. There's always more than one way to make money, but, for the most part, I feel like if it is to have someone's name or face on it, like the Ty beanie babies named Shasha & Malia (president's daughters), when caught in the act, don't lie about it!

Are you willing to sign a parental prenuptial agreement?

When a blended family comes together, should both parents share authority equally? If not, who should, and what are the limitations?

A blended family consists of multiple variations of family members living together (such as step-parents and half-siblings). Blended families have many issues, some of which include biological parent/child siding, "unfair" disciplining, step-parent/child communication problems, differences in showing affection, and situations involving an outside biological parent. All of these concerns can either be magnified or reduced depending upon the actions taken by the parents of the family.

At this point, there is no such thing as a parental prenuptial agreement. If people can protect their assets, why not protect their children’s well-being? The agreement should consist of the boundaries for authoritative conditions that both parents agree on. If the mutual agreement is broken, consequences will be administered. Parenting/Abuse classes will be assigned depending on the conflict.

Our Responses:

Karli and Brittney J: When you get married, you are agreeing to take care of your spouse through sickness and in health. You are not just marrying your spouse; you are also marrying the family. In taking this vow, both parents should be able to sign the parental prenuptial agreement and have full authority and responsibilty over the children.

Summer and Brittney T: We believe that the agreement should be mutual. However, conditions should be made depending upon age and history of non-compliance. There is a underlying difference between biological and step children that should not be able to be seen. Parents should treat all of their kids with equal affection.

We all are willing to sign the parental agreement as long as both parties are agreed on all factors. Agreements would be made based on the ages of the children as well as consideration for the outside parent envolved.



http://www.buzzle.com/articles/step-parenting-problems-sharing-authority.html

A return to the issue of violent video games...

From a recent news story:

After being introduced to a Halo game at a friend’s house, Daniel Petric began playing the game for hours. When his parents banned him from playing the game, he shot both of them in the head, killing his mother:

“A month before the shootings, Daniel, then 16, had sneaked out of his bedroom window to purchase the game against his father's orders. When he arrived back home he was caught and his father took away the game, locking it in a lockbox along with a 9mm handgun.

About a month later, on Oct. 20, 2007, Daniel used his father's key to open the lockbox and remove the gun and the game. The boy shot his parents, killing his mother and gravely wounding his father. As his father lay wounded, Daniel tried to place the gun in his father's hand.

Daniel fled after his sister and her husband arrived at the house, taking only the Halo 3 game with him.”

(“Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game”)



Does Game Violence Make Teens More Aggressive, as shown in the case of Daniel Petric? Or is the aggression already present?



Read the info at the links provided, and then respond:



Does Game Violence Make Teens More Aggressive? -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/


Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game -

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/boy_killed_mom_and_shot_dad_ov.html


Group members' responses:

Jesse: I don’t see this as an act of violence caused by the content of this game. Petric waited nearly a month and then decided to kill his parents, attempting to make it look like a murder/suicide. His aggression goes much deeper than that.

Another article stated that he had suffered a serious accident while skiing, which resulted in a stalf infection and a year of bed rest (refer to “Boy Shoots Parents, Killing Mother, After They Took Away His Halo3 Game”). For this entire period, he was confined to his room to heal, only having video games to fill his schedule. I am not a pro-video game advocate, but I do not blame the video game for this at all.

I think it has more to do with desperation to have “things”. Some people will do anything to aquire more material items, no matter what it takes, or who gets hurt in the process.


Leanne: No, I don't think violent video games make teens more aggressive.. Petric wanted to do something that his parents wouldn't let him do and he took things to the extreme. The game had nothing to do with his actions. Some kids, at one point or another, have wished for their parents to die but they never actually intend on harming them. Daniel, on the other hand, went through with this and should be punished because of HIS actions not the video games.

The Adverse Effects of Violent Video Games?

Do violent video games have aggressive effects on whoever plays them? Is it worse than watching a gory movie?

Halo, Call of Duty, and Mortal Combat are some of the most popular games out right now. All of the people in my group own or have played at least one of them sometime during our life. There has been a lot of research on this topic: laboratory experiments, field experiments, cross-sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. Yet, people still can’t agree on the answer. What do you think?


Zack: I think that violent video games may have an effect on kids, to an extent. It depends on how long you play them and how many hours they play them a week. It also depends on the child's age. There has been some cases in which children tend to be more aggressive and anti-social. Some develop warped perceptions on life and others become psychologically numb to violence, sex, rape, and death, due to crude movies and video games.

I personally think that kids should not start playing or watching this type of material until they are at a mature age. Kids are not psychologically stable enough to handle this sort of content and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. Parents should pay more attention to their children and what they see on TV, and they should monitor what they do on the Internet until a certain age. I believe that the parents are at fault for what their kids see and hear because usually they are the only ones who can control that factor. But that is another arguement...


Kristen: I don’t think video games are responsible for the aggressive behaviors in whoever plays them. My little brother owns all 3 of those games and he’s perfectly normal. I play them every now and then with my friends and have never just had the urge to shoot somebody or hurt them in anyway just for fun. I think it’s mostly pscyhological when people have violent behaviors. I’m undecided on whether or not it’s worse than watching a gory movie. In a way, you're participating in the violent stuff instead of just being exposed to it during a movie. However, it comes down to the person's pscyhological state of mind when it comes to harming a person or even taking a life.


Rony Arnold: Psychological research shows us that people learn by habits and experiences. Today, video games are some of the most common leisure toys for children, even for some adults. Over the past couple of decades, this issue has become particularly problematic. Some commentators think that video games even stimulate today’s violence. I do agree that they have negative effects on today’s lifestyles -- as well as television, the internet and others. I believe the problem is not about playing video games; it is about the individual who plays and how accessible he or she is to the influence of violence? Especially for children, I think parents should attentively control their children’s behavior after playing. Once again, I want to mention that everyone has a different character, which is important when determining a player’s behavior.

So, parents, let’s go to work!


Michael Flores: I think playing violent video games affects kids more than watching gory movies. When kids play video games, they are involved in it. They are the ones making the decisions to kill or steal in a game and follow through with it. Some kids may get so consumed with the games that they may not draw the line between real world and virtual world. I do think gory movies pose a negative effect, just not as considerable as the games.

A fine line drawn for professors?

Take a look at the following article from the Feb.6th issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i22/22a00104.htm

My questions for you are

1. Where do we draw the line between public consumption and privacy?

2. How do you feel about your teachers, professors and administrators having similar online, social-networking means as you?