Brand Sponsorship of YA Novels?

As a major YA novel fan, this made me want to cry.

A NYT article this week discusses what happened with the innovative and bestselling “Cathy’s Book” and what is in the plans for a new tween series, “Mackenzie Blue.”

After Running Press/Perseus Books, publishers of Cathy’s Book, revealed that they had agreed to have the characters wear particular brands/lines of makeup in the novel, they experienced a big backlash from public advocacy groups and authors alike. The Press has issued a revised paperback edition with the specific product references removed.

The Cathy’s Book fiasco would feel like a victory if there weren’t other attempts – such as Mackenzie Blue – waiting in the wings. Harper Collins has hired not an author, but a marketing executive to write these books. A marketing exec who specializes, of course, in marketing to teens and pre-teens. *shudder* The NYT article quotes this woman explaining how the partnerships will work:

Ms. Wells said she would not change a brand that she felt was at the core of a particular character’s identity merely to cement a marketing partnership. “Mackenzie loves Converse,” she said, referring to the series’s heroine and the popular sneaker brand she favors. “Does Converse want to work with us? I have no clue. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Mackenzie loves Converse.”

However, when asked what she would do if another sneaker company like Nike (one of her clients) wanted to sponsor the books, she said, “Maybe another character could become a Nike girl.”

Oh, well, that’s a relief! For a moment there I was worried that corporate sponsorships might influence content! (<–sarcasm) (…also, does it skeev you out too to hear the phrase “a brand…at the core of a particular character’s identity”? I’m all for realism in teen books, and I understand that some young – or old – people identify strongly with a particular brand, but seriously now, a brand should not be at the core of every character. That is not realism; that is advertising.)

As a a librarian, parent and book reviewer, I have many concerns about product placement in books for youth. Will authors eventually be expected to write in specified products to their stories, in order to get a publishing contract with a major press? How will we know about these sponsorship deals? Presumably all publishers won’t be (haven’t been?) as forthcoming about their “sponsorship” agreements as Running Press.

And what can we do to send a strong message back to publishers that we do NOT approve of such meddling in our YA literature?

When I teach college courses in Women’s/Gender Studies, I always sneak in media literacy stuff. Learning how to read and question health reporting, the sad state of our media “democracy” these days, what is “net neutrality,” etc. Invariably, many students are shocked and appalled after reading an article about product placement in TV shows. What does this say to me? Educated, bright, young Canadians – even those who choose to take elective courses that focus on critical thinking – have no idea about all the marketing that surrounds us.

Like many librarians I am a bit of a bibliophile.  Books are sacred things, and somehow the idea of novels becoming as corrupt and marketing to our youth as much as television upsets me. Can we do something about this? Exclude books from the running for awards if they have paid product placement or some such, perhaps?

And what of book buying for libraries? When the “select for literary quality” philosophy bumps up against the “give them what they want” ideology for collection development, does product placement in books ever cause them to be removed from a list? Should school libraries, who do have some responsibility to act “in loco parentis” eschew sponsored books? Is this different from commercial popular books like those modeled on TV shows, toys, etc.? (It feels different, somehow, because it’s more sneaky.)

Other than the makeup fiasco, Cathy’s Book sounds like an interesting concept…but should I not read it on a moral stance? Fortunately, I checked my local library catalogue and it appears that they have bought the revised, paperback edition. But what if the publisher was brash enough to refuse to offer a non-commercial edition?

Off to tear my hair out now…right after I put a hold request on Cathy’s Book.

-Greyson

Caffeine & Miscarriage News: Health Reporting or Marketing?

You may recall that a week ago there were a gazillion headlines proclaiming that even low levels of caffeine had been confirmed to cause miscarriage. A typical headline was something along the lines of “Caffeine doubles miscarriage risk.”

As a health information professional and a women’s health professor, I was frantic to track down the article from which all this hullabaloo came. Many of the articles mention the name of a study author, and several state that the study was conducted by Kaiser Permanente. It doesn’t take a librarian long to Google Kaiser’s press release, dated January 21, nor to deduce that (as usual) the reporters had just taken the press release at face value without pursuing the actual study.

Knowing that telling women, particularly new mothers, what they should and shouldn’t do is a favourite pastime of US medicine, I was naturally skeptical that the actual study could speak as definitively as the press release/news coverage regarding the risks of caffeine in pregnancy. The press release as well as many of the news articles all stated that the findings had been published in “the current online issue” of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Since my home institution has a subscription to said journal, I expected to be able to pull it immediately.

Ha!

I searched the journal by title, by author, article-by-article in the current issue, in the online exclusives/preprints…nothing. I waited a day and tried again. After fully striking out in my search, I consulted two other librarians, both of whom were equally confounded. This was validating in terms of my search skills but not so helpful in terms of being able to determine whether the headlines were regarding a groundbreaking study or just the usual overblown hooey.

Finally, one of my favourite bloggers, Sandy Szwarc, BSN, RN, CCP, who writes the Junkfood Science blog, wrote about this problem. It turns out this was probably some really nasty marketing on the part of somebody. The press release was sent out ahead of the actual publication of the article (but the language in the PR makes it sounds like it has been published), so no scientists or doctors could critique or refute the study or related over-inflated headlines.

Disgraceful.

I am not aware of this type of thing being common practice – issuing a misleading press release before the actual article is available to subscribers – but I guess it’s good to be aware that it happens. This is the type of headline I would expect to get reference questions about. This is also the kind of fearmongering that sticks with people – and it’s aimed right at people scared of miscarrying or hoping to have some sort of control to avoid a miscarriage.

The typical news consumer has neither the time for nor the access to read most of the medical studies reported upon in their local news outlet. Even if they had access, if the study was published OA for example, most people don’t have the training to identify all the forms of study bias, lousy statistical methods, etc. Denying health consumers any chance at balanced or accurate health reporting by a) issuing a press release ahead of the actual study (Kaiser Permanente) and b) jumping at a chance at an early scoop over an accurate article (media outlets) is unacceptable.

I, for one, am sending an angry email to Kaiser Permanente (copying AJOG) about this.

Here’s Szwarc’s article – containing context for the study and an explanation of common pitfalls in this type of research, as well as analysis of what went down with this particular article (in terms of spin and actual science in the article), “It’s not nice to scare the mothers: the latest miscarriage scare.”

The AJOG article, “Maternal caffeine consumption during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage: a prospective cohort study,” appears to be freely available for the time being, at least, here. AJOG says it is to be published in the March 2008 issue of the journal.

-Greyson