No Einstein in your crib? Get a refund

[Purseval]

Not sure if this was the most appropriate forum for this, perhaps the community forum would be just as good. But it does mention money

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/ed...y.html?_r=1&hp

No Einstein in Your Crib? Get a Refund

Parent alert: the Walt Disney Company is now offering refunds for all those “Baby Einstein” videos that did not make children into geniuses.

They may have been a great electronic baby sitter, but the unusual refunds appear to be a tacit admission that they did not increase infant intellect.

“We see it as an acknowledgment by the leading baby video company that baby videos are not educational, and we hope other baby media companies will follow suit by offering refunds,” said Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which has been pushing the issue for years.

Baby Einstein, founded in 1997, was one of the earliest players in what became a huge electronic media market for babies and toddlers. Acquired by Disney in 2001, the company expanded to a full line of books, toys, flashcards and apparel, along with DVDs including “Baby Mozart,” “Baby Shakespeare” and “Baby Galileo.”

The videos — simple productions featuring music, puppets, bright colors, and not many words — became a staple of baby life: According to a 2003 study, a third of all American babies from 6 months to 2 years old had at least one “Baby Einstein” video.

Despite their ubiquity, and the fact that many babies are transfixed by the videos, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time at all for children under 2.

In 2006, Ms. Linn’s group went to the Federal Trade Commission to complain about the educational claims made by Disney and another company, Brainy Baby. As a result, the companies dropped the word “educational” from their marketing. But the group didn’t think that was enough.

“Disney was never held accountable, and parents were never given any compensation. So we shared our information and research with a team of public health lawyers,” Ms. Linn said.

Last year, lawyers threatened a class-action lawsuit for unfair and deceptive practices unless Disney agreed to refund the full purchase price to all who bought the videos since 2004. “The Walt Disney Company’s entire Baby Einstein marketing regime is based on express and implied claims that their videos are educational and beneficial for early childhood development,” a letter from the lawyers said, calling those claims “false because research shows that television viewing is potentially harmful for very young children.”

The letter cited estimates from The Washington Post and Business Week that Baby Einstein controlled 90 percent of the baby media market, and sold $200 million worth of products annually.

The letter also described studies showing that television exposure at ages 1 through 3 is associated with attention problems at age 7.

In response, the Baby Einstein company will refund $15.99 for up to four “Baby Einstein” DVDs per household, bought between June 5, 2004, and Sept. 5, 2009, and returned to the company.

Lawyers in the matter refused to comment on the settlement.

Last month, Baby Einstein announced the new refunds — or “enhanced consumer satisfaction guarantee” — but made no mention of the lawyers’ demands.

"Fostering parent-child interaction always has and always will come first at The Baby Einstein Company, and we know that there is an ongoing discussion about how that interaction is best promoted,” Susan McLain, vice president and general manager, said in the statement. “We remain committed to providing a wide range of options to help parents create the most engaging and enriching experience for themselves and their babies.”

The founder and president of Brainy Baby, Dennis Fedoruk, said in an e-mail message that he was unaware of Baby Einstein’s refund announcement and could not offer further comment.

An outside public relations representative for Baby Einstein said there was nothing new about the refund offer.

“We’ve had a customer satisfaction guarantee for a long time,” she said, referring a reporter to the company Web site. However, Baby Einstein’s general “money-back” guarantee is only valid for 60 days from purchase and requires a receipt.

In contrast, the current offer, allowing parents to exchange their video for a different title, receive a discount coupon, or get $15.99 each for up to four returned DVDs, requires no receipt, and extends until next March 10.

“When attention got focused on this issue a few years ago, a lot of companies became more cautious about what they claimed,” said Vicky Rideout, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “But even if the word ‘education’ isn’t there, there’s a clear implication of educational benefits in a lot of the marketing.”

The Baby Einstein Web site, for example, still describes its videos with phrases like “reinforces number recognition using simple patterns” or “introduces circles, ovals, triangles, squares and rectangles.”

“My impression is that parents really believe these videos are good for their children, or at the very least, not really bad for them,” Ms. Rideout said. “To me, the most important thing is reminding parents that getting down on the floor to play with children is the most educational thing they can do.”

[pyrxtc]

This is stupid !! How mnay times ahs anyone bought somehting that didn't quite wokr the way they wanted it to. Of course people are going to retunr them ! They are going to scout yard sales and thrift stores and buy 4 of them for 4 or 8 dollars and return them for bigger money.

So Stupid !!

[Purseval]

To me what's stupid are the parents who actually believed watching tv would make their kids smarter. Of course a lot of them grew up watching tv so that explains it

[HeyIt'sMe]

These lawsuits are always interesting to me.

Just last month Dannon settled an Activia lawsuit. Activia is the yogurt that is supposed to "regulate your digestive system" in 2 weeks. Those commercials always cracked me up. What are people going to do? - - "Hey Dannon, I ate Activia for 2 weeks straight and I'm still not pooping so send me a refund".

[gillenkl]

I agree with the other posters, these lawsuits are ridiculous!

[Purseval]

In this case the lawsuits weren't about the money it was about deceptive advertising. The main objective wasn't to make some lawyers rich it was to get a company to change their marketing scheme.

[AntePrincess]

Generally, I'm for caveat emptor, and anyone who'd bothered to look into the subject at all already knew that the various edutainment products (Baby Einstein, "high contrast toys," Leapster, etc.) were bunk as far as improving learning or IQ went, but I do appreciate a company taking responsibility for its snake oil. Now can we please just let children's toys, games, storybooks, and clothes be about pleasing a kid rather than dredge up excuses about how it'll improve them somehow? I kind of hope children aren't perceptive enough to catch the undercurrent in all the "we only let Johnny watch Sesame Street, it makes him learn phonics better, not like those Saturday morning cartoons all the kids watch."

If anyone is interested in the subject of marketing to children from a critical perspective, I can vouch for the Center for a Commercial-Free Childhood being a great read, and it's related sites on reducing consumerism are fascinating. I also enjoyed "Born to Buy" and some similar books from the local library, though their titles elude me.

[mom of 3G's]

I'm not going to be looking for a refund on my videos. They served their purpose well in that I got to take a shower while the baby watched puppets and little toys move around the screen. Definitely worth the $15.

[Ava]

Originally Posted by pyrxtc

This is stupid !! How mnay times ahs anyone bought somehting that didn't quite wokr the way they wanted it to. Of course people are going to retunr them ! They are going to scout yard sales and thrift stores and buy 4 of them for 4 or 8 dollars and return them for bigger money.

So Stupid !!

Which is why Disney is limiting the refund to 4 DVDs per household. Sending $64 to whomever cares enough to search thrift stores & yard sales for these DVDs is not going to break Disney's bank.

We are sending back the 2 DVDs we purchased for DD. Not because we think they're harmful, but because we just don't use them. I'd return them to the store except they are opened & I don't have the receipt any more.

[mjkacmom]

Hmm - my kids watched them (they really helped me get the kitchen cleaned up after meals), and like all kids with a parent on the DIS, my kids ARE gifted!

[smidgen21]

Originally Posted by mom of 3G's

I'm not going to be looking for a refund on my videos. They served their purpose well in that I got to take a shower while the baby watched puppets and little toys move around the screen. Definitely worth the $15.

Amen to that!

[dbelmo]

I don't understand how a group of parents REALLY thought a video series would create a genius....

insert sarcasm here ---> Now the infomercials that say your baby can read by 18 months, Are those parents going to turnaround in 17 years and claim that thier lazy teenager failed high school because the "Video" did not teach them how to read as promised...

Babies and toddlers learn best by interaction with a "teacher" a parent, grandparent, sibling.... Both my boys are smart enough for me and I am not blaming Little Einsteins because they can't identify a Monet from a Van Gogh at the museum.

Sorry for the rant......but this is absurd....

dbelmo

[EcbLovesMickey]

Originally Posted by dbelmo

I don't understand how a group of parents REALLY thought a video series would create a genius....

I agree

And TBH this is just a case of abuse of the legal system. The packaging did not say your kid would be a genuis if they watched them.

Under this same theory, can I get a refund on a Magic chef because it didn't turn me into an all powerful cooking Magician?

[luvmy3]

Originally Posted by mom of 3G's

I'm not going to be looking for a refund on my videos. They served their purpose well in that I got to take a shower while the baby watched puppets and little toys move around the screen. Definitely worth the $15.

I can't believe anyone would send them in for a refund, were your kids not entertained by them by watching them? Everyone knows that was really the point of these videos, nothing more nothing less. If you purchased them thinking they really would turn your baby into a little genius, maybe you should have bought them for yourself

[AntePrincess]

This is pretty amusing to read. A major company, which people just happen to like, did in fact advertise that their product would improve IQ (believe me, they weren't subtle either, I worked the holiday season at a Babies 'R' Us when the brainy baby, baby einstein, and so on craze broke out). They marketed it as good for babies in direct contradiction to all research on the subject and the explicit condemnation of the AAP. Now an organization that combats marketing to children legally confronted them on deceptive advertising. It was an open and shut case, Disney is taking its lumps, and people are complaining on its behalf?

You may have gotten your money's worth out of your DVDs, no one is criticizing that (ok, the AAP is and so is the Center for a Commercial-Free Childhood, both of whom are down on screen time for small children, but I was talking about on these forums), but let's be honest: these videos weren't marketed as "a harmless one-eyed babysitter so you can get a shower," were they? People need to be critical, but companies need to be accountable for blatant lying, like the hundred million Baby Mozart items I shelved which touted debunked research claiming listening to their CDs improved math performance.

We think we're clever, but we're average, and the reality on every store shelf is that the average parent does buy into some of the most absurd marketing lies out there. Console games as educational for babies anyone? All those fruit juices and cereals marketed as heart healthy and nutritious because they added an ounce of folate and slapped a "wholesome" licensed character on the box, but their sugar content is still through the roof and diabetes is still pretty awful for your heart? Yes, we all ought to know better, but when the American Heart Association is shilling for General Mills, I think you can forgive the average Joe for not being as skeptical as they ought to be ans we do have laws in this country to protect the suckers from deliberate deception, we simply haven't been enforcing them.

And, really, people are defending the poor beleaguered major corporations over lying in order to sell something known to be subpar for kids and elsewhere complaining that the same company is making it tough to get a discount on a Photopass gidget? Priorities, people.