On May 9th, the first ever Joan Ganz Cooney Center Symposium was kicked off at the McGraw-Hill offices located in New York City. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center is the newest addition to the Sesame Workshop enterprise. Its mission is to offer guidance, research and insight into how children can learn through emerging media. The symposium itself was an amazing event. A stellar list of speakers and influential attendees from diverse areas of education, broadcast, gaming and the toy world came together to discuss the future of learning and technology for children in the 21st century. This jam-packed event included presentations from over 34 different industry insiders. Over 150 invited guests filled the room. Included on the guest list was Congressman George Miller (D-CA) who is the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

All of the presentations offered many important perspectives and voices that are shaping the learning and technology conversation today. A number of speakers served up new research and valuable insights to chew on long after the event concluded. While there was significant take-away from all of the speakers, I would like to call out two specific presentations. These include the presentations of Connie Yowell of the MacArthur Foundation and Jennifer Kotler of Sesame Workshop.

First and foremost, Connie Yowell’s presentation on new learning paradigms was simply amazing, passionately delivered, and has given many folks the most food for thought about the future of new media and learning. Connie expressed the importance of seeking out the right questions to ask at the beginning of our journey, stating that in order for us to realize the opportunity in front of us, we must be ready for a significant paradigm shift in the existing learning conversation. I heard many attendees echo the importance of Connie’s words at the conclusion of the event. In the matrix below, I have included an audio recording of Connie’s presentation. A transcription of her comments can also be found in my next blog article.

During this part of the symposium, both Ellen Wartella (of UC Riverside) and Connie Yowell’s words were offered in succession and both speakers expressed a great need for more research and a significant rethinking of our current approach to education and learning. Their comments were vital ones to be heard by policy makers, and while Representative George Miller attended the event for most of the day, sadly he left just before Ellen and Connie took the stage.

The next presentation I’d like to call attention to was that delivered by Jennifer Kotler. Jennifer presented two reports, but one in particular has an important story to be told. This report gathered information from interviews conducted with children ages 6 to 9. It asked them about their favorite games and websites. Included within this report was a very clever validity check that, when its findings were presented, calls into question any other self-reported findings from other organizations asking similar questions about kids and online preferences.

In the study, kids were asked about their technology preferences. Included within the interview question sets were six non-existent website and game names. That’s right, online products that were completely fictitious and do not exist. What this report revealed was that 56% of those surveyed claimed to have played these non-existent games and websites. How could this be?

What the research suggests is that kids may be more likely to exaggerate their actual use of technology because of the apparent “cool factor” and/or the aspirational aspect of these technologies. How does this cool/aspirational factor play out within the data? Here are just a couple of examples: When kids were asked if they have ever visited a MySpace page, the “clean” data suggests that only 19% of those surveyed have visited the popular online destination whereas the non-valid data states the number is 54%. When asked about posting video on YouTube, the numbers are 7% (valid data) vs 42% (non-valid data).

These findings suggest that similar studies conducted by other organizations would benefit greatly by the inclusion of a validity test in their research. If not, the numbers reported could be significantly skewed from what they should be. Now that we’re all armed with this information, go back and look at all the claims regarding other popular children’s destinations, like Club Penguin, Webkinz, and the like. Hmmmmm.

I would also like to call out presentations made by Bernie Trilling of Oracle Education Foundation about 21st Century Learning Skills, Allison Druin for her work with the International Children’s Digital Library project, Krista Marks of Kerpoof, James Paul Gee and his report on Getting Over the Slump, and Jim Styer of Common Sense Media for his report on how parents and educators view the educational potential of new media.

The matrix below offers audio recordings, papers, and related websites collected from the event. Friends and colleagues who know me well will tell you that I’m rarely without a camera or recording device at such events. I believe it’s important to capture and share such information with everyone so that industries can move forward together. The list below includes audio recordings from most of the speakers. However, my apologies go out to the last 8 or so speakers, mostly from Warren Buckleitner’s Dust or Magic panel, for by the end of the day my recording device lost power.

All of the audio clips can be downloaded as a single zipped file here.

Last year I wrote about a tech toy product called Hyper Dash developed by the toy company Wild Planet. Hyper Dash is an electronic game that allows one user to hide up to five hockey puck sized targets, indoors or out, and another person can search for these targets with the help of a talking controller. I thought this was a brilliant use of RFID, a technology that relies on small paper thin microchips that can be detected within short distances via the radio frequencies they emit. (So when will this technology become standard in all car keys? Imagine the time we could all save each morning trying to find them!)

This coming fall Wild Planet will release a new iteration of this technology enhanced play pattern specifically for preschoolers. The product will be called Animal Scramble and it relies uses the same technology, but will support a hide-and-seek learning play pattern using plastic animal characters. The talking controller is a giraffe and the small targets include a monkey, a parrot, an elephant and a tiger. The giraffe calls out different challenges for one or many different players to accomplish, like tag the animal that has stripes, or find the animal that begins with the letter “M”. The animals can be spread out across a living room, backyard, or even a larger space for more exercise.

While Animal Scramble and Hyper Dash are great uses of RFID technology, it feels like RFID is inching along when it comes to being used in new and original ways. I keep waiting to see breakthrough applications that rely on the technology but am surprised at how few new products take advantage of its possibilities.

The only other child-focused RFID product I’ve seen so far this year includes a child alarm system developed by Smart Target called Kiddo. This product sounds an alarm when a child or even a pet you’re watching (or maybe not watching) equipped with an RFID tag moves outside of a designated play area.

Immediately I see how this technology can be used in all the clothes I drop off at the dry cleaner, important books I wish to keep on a designated bookshelf, picking up luggage at the airport, and did I mention the part about car keys?

So today I’d like to congratulate Wild Planet for pushing the RFID envelope. Many more play patterns are yet to be discovered. I look forward to this space heating up. Thank you for leading the charge!

In 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics announced that all screen-based viewing for children ages two or under should be avoided completely. At the same time dozens of “brain boosting” DVDs, videos, and interactive products hit the marketplace with claims of being beneficial to child’s cognitive development. Many parents are torn. What is the right thing to do for their child?

In Lisa Guernsey’s book, Into the Minds of Babes – How Screen Time Affects Children From Birth to Age Five, she explores many of the media claims about screen time and young children. She digs deep into the world of child research and not only investigates which research is credible and which is not, but she also makes the material accessible for the everyday parent along the way.

After reading her book I’ve had the opportunity to see Lisa speak a couple of times at conferences that focus on children. At a recent conference I spoke with Lisa about her book.

Scott Traylor: Lisa, let me start by asking you a little bit about yourself – who you are and how you came to writing your book.

Lisa Guernsey: I’m an education technology reporter. I was writing for the New York Times Circuits section about online media and other technologies, then I had kids. The story I tell in the book is that I had a colicky baby and I couldn’t get her to stop crying or fussing. I was completely lost. My eyes were opened to the trying routine of having and caring for a baby. Friends suggested trying the Baby Mozart videos to calm her. They referred to these videos as baby crack. I wasn’t fully considering what I was doing; I was still a bit overwhelmed by being a new parent. I was trying to figure it all out. It wasn’t until later, when I had my second child who was not colicky, that I was able to start seeing how babies respond to different types of stimuli, screen-based or not. I started to ask myself: Which videos do my children understand and which ones do they not understand? Are they able to remember what they see? Do some parts make sense to them because it’s part of their world? I had so many questions about how they respond to media that it led me to search for related research on the subject.

It was in April of 2004 when the American Academy of Pediatrics released a report in its journal by Dimitri Christakis and other researchers that had linked attention deficit problems (not ADHD) to television viewing at early ages. I remember being struck by this article, asking myself, What do we know about the brain and how it’s wired? As a parent, I should really know this information.

A few months after the release of this report, I wrote a piece for The Washington Post which took a deeper look into this issue through the eyes of a parent. Screen media is all around us, and to be told your babys brain is going to be rewired as a result of watching something on-screen is a very scary thing to a lot of parents.

After my article was published I received a lot of response from parents who wanted to know more about the papers findings. I also heard from a publisher who was interested in having me write a longer treatment on the topic. I started contacting more researchers who have been part of studies about children and their ability to learn from watching videos. It was a real eye opener because theres so much information that parents arent being told about media and kids. What they hear tends to be two polar opposite messages: The first message says screen time is really bad for your child and parents should do everything they can to eliminate it. The second message says cognitive stimulation is good for your baby and that these baby videos can help in achieving that stimulation. Parents arent hearing any answers to basic questions like What is good for a 2 year old? Is it possible my child really did learn the word backpack at 16 months from watching Dora the Explorer? While what I saw as a parent led to me think that it is possible that learning can occur through watching screen media, some researchers were saying it’s just not possible to get anything from screen media.

ST: So after writing The Washington Post article, you found a publisher interested in having you write your book.

LG: Yes, a publisher contacted me. I went through the process of writing a proposal and doing all the research. But ultimately they decided not to run with my proposal. It was disappointing. Even though this publisher wasn’t interested in my idea, I was finding so much interesting information I thought someone would find it compelling. My husband encouraged me to continue shopping it around. Some time later I found an agent who was interested in taking on my project and my agent found the right publisher interested in the idea.

ST: How did you prepare for writing your book? Theres a lot of research out there, especially related to television viewing and children. I imagine it was hard to know just where to begin.

LG: I wanted to make sure that I hit all the big journals and looked at what was peer reviewed research. I wanted the information I was reading to be based in the scientific method. I didnt want to focus only on surveys of how children spend their time. The material I was looking for had to be peer-reviewed research on how children are learning and when theyre learning. I also wanted this research to include randomized controls when possible. First I looked at the medical establishment journals like Pediatrics and JAMA. The American Behavioral Scientist (ABS) journal led me to a lot of great information. Also, Dan Anderson of the University of Massachusetts had assembled a lot of interesting research from psychologists looking into how children learn and how they remember things at very young ages. The ABS released a special journal in January 2005 on the topic. I read through the journals looking for articles from the educational research community that dealt with developmental psychology. I also looked for related information in the neuropsychology field and ADHD research, but didnt find much. I went from footnote to footnote to footnote. Then I would call the researchers who wrote the papers.

ST: To check out the researchers methodologies and conclusions?

LG: To get their story. There are so many great research experiments going on out there and so many smart people doing them. The researchers I spoke with have fascinating insights and I would ask them about their “aha” moment. They shared insights into what occurred early on in their experiments and discussed how experiments would change to explore new questions they encountered during their research. By hearing the stories of psychologists I was able to get a good handle on how to write the narrative of how these researchers began to understand these things.

ST: One of the things that really struck me about your book was the volume of interviews you conducted. It seemed with every page I turned there were an additional three or four new interviews. Then I thought each interview must have been a two-hour conversation, not including the prep time needed to read multiple studies before your call. You must have had hundreds, if not more, interviews.

LG: Well certainly hundreds. What made it possible was the openness of a lot of these researchers. They usually dont get calls from folks interested in their research. They were very happy to share what theyve found. Many researchers know one another within their community of developmental psychologists and educational researchers and communicate this research in short hand with one another. It’s not common to have someone call to ask for the laymans point of view of it all. Everyone I spoke with was just so responsive and incredibly helpful.

ST: While I read a lot of research, I’m not a researcher myself. I find it can be challenging sometimes to read some studies and fully understand the nuances.

LG: Me too. I still feel like I need to take a class in statistics. Theres so much more I could learn by reading these journal articles again. Speaking with the researchers over the phone was a great way to come to a deeper understanding of the research. Id say Im looking at this chart in your study, am I interpreting your findings correctly? Does this finding correlate to that finding? It was a great help.

ST: While you were writing your book, what surprised you the most?

LG: There were so many things. The biggest surprise for me was with the studies of background television noise and the fact that were not talking enough about foreground and background noise with television, with computers, with media devices. Were also not talking enough about screen content that is created specifically for children under the age of five, and yet media is all around them.

ST: You mean like with a television being left on all day in the home with the news playing?

LG: Exactly. Many homes have the news on straight through the morning hours. There are 53% of families out there with children under the age of six who report that they have the TV on almost half the time, most of the time, or all of the time. The majority of kids are growing up in houses where the television is on more than half the time. And yet, we keep hearing about studies that say TV is bad. I think it would be fascinating to look at the context of TV time.

So I started finding reports on background noise and children, particularly infants, and the impact background noise can have on learning language. I was blown away by the findings and thought, “How come were not hearing about this?” After reading this body of research, Im surprised that more attention isnt paid to it. I was interested in giving this topic a lot more attention in my book.

ST: Tell me about the three C’s you describe in your book.

LG: The concept of the three C’s didnt come to me right away. I was going through journal article after journal article looking for a way to give an umbrella name to all of this. At first I was looking at studies on time and screen use and thought, “Should I be telling parents that one hour of screen time a day is okay? Or an hour and a half? Or less than an hour for certain ages?” But all of the research wasn’t pointing me to length of time being the most important item. What studies were pointing me to was the content and the context of the media being viewed along with consideration of the uniqueness of the individual child.

I interviewed many families and each would describe how their child would respond to using media. I was hearing how different each child would respond. One child loves it and another child doesn’t. One is captivated by a program and another is not. One gets energized, and another is hyperactive watching TV, while another falls asleep after watching. So it was a happy day when I discovered it’s all about the three C’s Content, context, and the individual child. After I had this concept in my head I started seeing it everywhere. Every research report I came across would point to the three C’s in one way or another.

ST: So while the three C’s werent specifically called out in the research you were reading, it was a reoccurring theme in every report.

LG: Exactly.

ST: Did you come across any research that you wanted to include in your book but didnt?

LG: Theres some research out there about how media can have an impact on childrens sleep patterns. I didnt include much of that in my book. It’s worth looking at because there may be something connected to having a television in the bedroom or watching particular types of content before falling asleep that may make it hard to fall asleep. It’s an area that we should be looking at more.

Theres also a lot more to write about when it comes to the topic of a “social partner.” There are some great questions to address — like how important is it in screen media that toddlers at 24 months have a social partner to introduce them to language? How important is that social partner on screen helping a toddler understand language? Theres a lot of fascinating research on social partners that doesnt have anything to do with media that could be really helpful to parents.

ST: At the time when Mr. Roger’s passed away, I remember there being a lot of conversation about the possible benefits of having a social partner on TV that was a person as opposed to a cartoon character. Since hearing those discussions, I’ve been very aware of number of shows available to children that do not have a person speaking to the child, but see many more animated characters as social partners. When it comes to young children and social partners, what research are you coming across? Can you expand a little more on social partners in childrens media?

LG: I think it’s a great area for more research. Theres a lot of research that came out of Vanderbilt University related to the topic. In those studies, there was always a human being on screen communicating with children as if they were standing next to them, and the children who talked back to those on-screen faces were the same ones who demonstrated that they learned something from what they saw. Along the same vein, I think characters like Dora the Explorer and Elmo are completely captivating to young children in a way thats very surprising. Children display an affinity for those characters and sometimes see them as their peers. So these characters are not real people, but they are friends in a kind of imaginary, fantasy world. Sandra Calvert at Georgetown University is researching how important these relationships can be to kids. I dont think we should discount non-human characters if children really relate to these characters. If characters help with modeling, help solve a problem, assist in good eating choices, whatever the topic, there can be an incredibly powerful connection for the child.

ST: What research are you watching that wasn’t published at the time you were writing your book?

LG: The University of Massachusetts is on top of some wonderful stuff in many ways. Theyre currently underway with eye tracking studies with babies. This research should be really interesting in terms of the great baby video debate. At the University of Washington where Dimitri Christakis and Frederick Zimmerman are working, theyre still doing a lot of correlation work to slice data from pre-existing studies in more fine-grained ways. For example, in a recent issue of Pediatrics, they came out with a report that looks at certain kinds of television content as either educational, noneducational, or violent. Once they sliced media up in this way, they discovered that attention deficit problems actually dropped out of the picture with children who were watching educational TV. But, they did find a continued association between attention deficit problems and violent content. In a related study, they also discovered anti-social behavior exhibited with younger children after viewing violent content. I think it’s very promising that researchers are starting to look at content in this way. I think looking at content brings up much harder questions, as do issues of context, like how television is being used in the home, how is a computer being used, who is there with the child, what are those people saying, how is time valued, are kids modeling how parents use media. These questions are all missing from research.

ST: Your book provides a great overview of some important studies parents should be aware of. Were you finding any holes in the research world which need to be filled?

LG: There are holes, particularly with scary media. I have a chapter titled “Whats too scary for my child?” and that was a much harder chapter to write. It was hard to find any solid answers in this area. Parents would ask me really detailed questions related to nightmares their children would have. They would want to know, was it something they watched on TV yesterday? Was it a movie we watched? What is the research saying? What upsets young children and are there any long-term effects from these upsetting experiences?

ST: What did you discover in terms of research related to interactive technologies?

LG: There’s a huge difference between interactive technologies for babies versus that for preschoolers. Only recently have we started to see interactive screen-based technologies that are targeting babies. Theres very little research using the scientific method that looks at the messages babies are receiving from interactive media. It’s also unclear just how many families are using interactive products with babies or with toddlers. In many cases, there are too many hurdles to get over with just setting up the interactive media products themselves. Do parents have the time to deal with this?

Then theres a huge question of fine motor control and the ability to manipulate things happening on the screen with a remote control or a joystick or a mouse. There is research out that has led me to believe that joysticks are incredibly difficult for children under the age of six. Theres also the question of when children are even ready to start using a mouse. How can digital information be presented to young children on-screen who are non-readers in a way that would allow them to feel that they are in control? I think it’s important if children are going to use interactive technologies that its done in an empowering way for them. I’ve seen a range of different experiences with my own children and those of the families I’ve interviewed, but again, all of this is based on observations and very little of it is based on scientific research.

The research I’ve found is pretty sparse. Most of what I’ve found is looking at the question of control over their experience and how frustrated theyre being directed by a family member watching over their shoulder and how frustrated they can get when they have to wait for something onscreen. Warren Buckleitner has done some research in this area.

Theres also the question of story — the difference between stories that are played in a linear format on video as opposed to those that can be manipulated in an interactive format. Theres a study out of Georgetown that looks at different types of Dora the Explorer content, comparing both linear and interactive media, and found that the interactive experience can lead children to recall just as much as, but no more than, the linear experience.

These are all important issues for designers of interactive media to keep in mind and understand as they create new content for young children. All of that said, theres still a lot of opportunity with interactive content for preschoolers, with the right features in place to give them an experience where they are in control and can create something unique that they can share with others. Something like Scratch or Kerpoof. Creating a feeling of mastery for the child, that they can see their own progress. To achieve this it’s all about interface.

ST: Whats your next project?

LG: Theres a couple of avenues I’d like to take. Im interested in a similar approach to reviewing research and talking to researchers while also watching families to see how it relates to children at home. I’m interested in exploring how children learn to read and the science of reading. Partly because I’m following my own kids but also because I’m really interested in the learning that takes place. My oldest child is learning to read and it’s fascinating to see when it clicks for her and when it doesn’t, when it’s easy and when it’s frustrating. I’m interested in seeing how the science of reading is being applied to real world household settings.

ST: As it relates to media?

LG: As it relates to media. How can media be harnessed to help children who are learning how to read.

Im also interested in the creativity question How can we help children be more open in their thinking and not feel boxed in. These are two areas that I’m going to focus on in the next year and see if anything comes out of them.

ST: I’m excited to hear that. Your book is a great road map to important issues with screened media for parents and caregivers. Youve made the content really accessible to them without having to be a clinical psychologist.

LG: I certainly was aware the whole time while writing this book that I don’t have a masters or doctorate in child developmental but theres nothing out there for parents. I really resisted ending each chapter with a “to do” list or a bullet point list of items that were important to remember. I thought that if I could just tell these stories parents could figure it out based on their own experiences with their kids at home. Let’s hope that the narrative comes out.

ST: It does indeed. Lisa, thank you for writing this great book. It’s an important piece of work on many different levels. I wish you continued success with all your future projects.

Video links:
To see video of Lisa Guernsey presenting at a special event sponsored by the American Center for Children and Media click below for video segment 1 of 2:

Click here for video 2 of 2.

I’ve just made it back from the 2008 New York Toy Fair. In the last five years I’ve been attending the show, this was definitely one of the best. One of the big reasons I attend is to see how technology is being applied to toys, both for fun and for learning. Year after year the Youth Electronics supercategory, a description within the toy industry to measure tech toy sales, grows by leaps and bounds. This year’s use of technology in toys was, for the most part, outstanding. Every year a number of themes present themselves at the show. Here’s are the themes I’ve seen at this years event:

• Social Networking, Virtual Worlds, and Web Connected Devices – I counted at least twelve new or relaunched social networking / virtual world destinations for children. Some had an offline product like a stuffed toy complete with a code to unlock an online destination. Others had a device that would connect to your computer via the USB port.
  
  
• Robots and Animatronic Devices – Many more robots this year. Mattel/Fisher-Price and Hasbro had some of the biggest announcements with robotic life-like dolls and animals. Also many more robot making kits were on display.
  
  
• Motion-based Products – The Nintendo Wii has definitely had its influence on the toy industry. New motion-based devices for children were on display. However, a number of these tech toy products can only detect motion on an XY plane.
  
  
• Green Products – A surprising number of companies were eager to tell you just how environmentally friendly their products were. From the materials used in their toys to the clever solutions discovered to power toys without batteries to the biodegradable packaging the product ships in. I was overwhelmed by the number of companies that were trying to do the right thing for the environment.
  
  
• High School Musical – The licensing groups at Disney must be working overtime. Many booths had products using the High School Musical brand to promote their new crop of toys.
  
  
• Dinosaurs – Last year I blogged that it would be the year of the guitar. This year it was noted that many dinosaur products will be coming out later this year. Some simply model kits, some stuffed toys, many robotic.

In the coming days I’ll be posting more information on a few of the products I think will become tech toy sensations later this year. Stay tuned!

This year at the 2008 NY Toy Fair the buzz is strong with all things digital. Toys that connect to the web, toys that have a virtual worlds component, and robotic toys in many flavors. But none sum up the overall digital spirit of this year’s Toy Fair better than the latest Elmo doll announcement called Elmo Live. You have to see this product to believe it. Now I know what you’re thinking… “Tickle me Elmo was neat at first, and yes, the Elmo TMX (Tickle Me Extreme) doll released last year was also surprising, but I’m hard pressed to think how Fisher-Price could wow me with any future Elmo robotic doll.” Believe it or not, this new Elmo doll is pushing robotics in a way that will amaze you still!

Elmo can stand, wave its arms, move it’s mouth while talking, tell jokes and stories, and I imagine by the time the product ships on October 14th, will include a few additional surprises. To see video of the Elmo Live animatronic product, click below.

As I was preparing my presentation for the Dust or Magic conference mentioned in my previous post, I couldn’t help but notice how much new activity there is in the kids’ social networking world. As the researcher Peter Grunwald shared with me last month, social networking as a concept has always been available on the Internet. Even so, it seems to have some newer meaning in the context of an activity kids express interest in. Last year at this time, I was only familiar with maybe four sites for kids. Fast forward a year, and I am amazed at how many more companies are playing in this space, some of which have been around for years but are only now gaining visibility. Not all of these sites are of equal quality and, right or wrong in their approach, each has a different set of assumptions about how to engage children. Below is a list of the social networking websites I am aware of today. It is not a complete list. My definition of social networking sites is a little broad, but there’s no denying the growth in this space.

By graphing these sites by the year in which they launched, one begins to see the growth trend of social networking websites for kids.



Since March of this year, my company, 360KID, has received a number of requests to build new social networking websites. More calls started coming in after the Club Penguin acquisition by Disney. Some people who call are driven by one thing- to create a Club Penguin-like website that’s better than Club Penguin. While Club Penguin has many great things going on within its service, there are certainly other avenues within the social networking world to explore. After comparing different sites currently available for kids, I see many unique opportunities to take advantage of, especially ones that touch on different areas of learning. Below is a matrix showing different content segments and age groups that are covered (or not) within the social networking world.

The blue shading indicates age groups that are less motivated by social features but are interested in community-based activities. Companies listed in italics offer activities that are much more community than socially driven.

While reviewing all of these sites and speaking with many different people interested in building social networking sites for kids, I have put together a short list of do’s and don’ts that put the interests of the child first and will ultimately create more successes with your intended audience:

• Don’t design by committee – Keep the integrity and the strength of your design strong by defining with small teams. Have anywhere from one to three strong visionaries of equal voice define the broad strokes of your product.
• Be open ended in your design – If you can avoid it, don’t force children to play in a specific way. Think how you can allow for multiple ways for children to interact and play within your environment.
• Think emotional connection – Offer activities or avatar characteristics that will create a sense of empathy with your user.
• Design for a very specific audience – Pick a specific age range, like 3 to 5 or 7 to 9. Then learn as much as you can about that audience, like its developmental strengths, play patterns, interests. Don’t design a product with the intent of appealing to a large age range, like 3 to 300. Designing for a broad audience tends to have the outcome of appealing to no single group.
• Competing against a community vs. competing against yourself – I’m asked a lot about my thoughts related to leader boards, which are areas of gaming sites in which the top score places high on a list of other members of a community. While I understand the motivation of leader boards for certain audience segments as a motivator, a game mechanic like a leader board, can also turn away other audience types. There are some instances where leader boards can be used effectively, like in classroom vs. classroom competitions, but generally, I am opposed to using such features, especially when a desired outcome is informal learning.
• Text – I am continually surprised as to how often a web product designed for very young children doesn’t take into consideration that their audience may consist of prereaders or emerging readers. Be thoughtful with your use of text and instructions. Consider visual, iconic, or audio instructions as opposed to text with younger audience members.

Is this race to develop social networking sites for kids a boom or a bubble? If you asked me a couple of months ago, I would have said a bust is on the horizon in this space. But the more I think about it, the more I’m seeing a new play pattern emerging which kids will really enjoy when developed correctly. That doesn’t mean that everyone will succeed. There will be many failures and few successes, but I believe the future successes will keep this sector of interactive products for children growing strong for many years to come.

These are a few thoughts I shared in my recent presentation at the Dust or Magic conference. To see the full presentation I delivered, you can view a video of my presentation below.

Harris Interactive, a marketing firm that researches issues affecting today’s youth, recently released findings from a new survey examining when parents introduce their young children to the Internet.

Findings for children six or younger:

• 41% of adults ages 18 and older introduced at least one child to the Internet at the age of six or younger
• 53% of females ages 18 – 34 introduced at least one child to the Internet at the age of six or younger

Findings for children three or younger:

• 20% of adults ages 18 and older introduced at least one child to the Internet at the age of three or younger
• 25% of females ages 18 and older introduced at least one child to the Internet at the age of three or younger
• 15% of males ages 18 and older introduced at least one child to the Internet at the age of three or younger
• 28% of females ages 18 – 34 and older introduced at least one child to the Internet at the age of three or younger

This survey was conducted in June 2007. 2,246 adults aged 18 and older were surveyed online. From that number, 549 adults responded that they had children under the age of 18 living in their household. It was from these 549 respondents that these survey results were compiled.

Whether you agree with this survey�s findings or not, you can�t ignore the fact that children are indeed being introduced to computers and the Internet at a very young age. The number of young computer users is growing. However, be aware that even content that claims to be specifically developed for any young audience may not be what�s right for your child. Here are a few tips for parents:

• Be an informed media consumer for your child. Find reviews about the sites your child wishes to visit. Spend time checking out these sites on your own. Get familiar with the content you�re putting in front of your child.
• Set some time limits for your child. Computer use in moderation for young users is the best approach.
• Visiting sites that use internal links tend to be better than those that don�t. What does this mean? Sometimes children�s websites include links to other websites, usually through ads. When clicked, these ads can take your child away from the site you wish them to stay on. In a research report conducted in 2002, it was discovered that young children can�t tell the difference between a site�s content areas and an ad, so be mindful of sites that include advertisements.
• Spend time with your child while they explore online. Many teachable moments will present themselves and it provides a much more rewarding experience for both parent and child together!

The long awaited debut of Yo Gabba Gabba on Nick Jr., the new preschool television show with a wonderfully fresh approach to learning, has finally arrived! An early pilot for the show first appeared online in mid-2006, made a viral splash, and caught the attention of a number of executives in the broadcast world. Nick Jr. made it official at the start of 2007 with an announcement that the show would start airing late this summer. A number of preview clips have been available on YouTube and OnDemand cable services. As of this week the show can be seen about mid-morning each weekday throughout the country!

Yo Gabba Gabba is like a Saturday Night Live variety show for preschoolers. Each episode is punctuated with interesting musical guest stars, clever animation “mini-shows” and fun and quirky shorts of retro video games and dancing kid clips. Dance and movement are the underlying theme to almost every aspect of the show. Many performers slated to appear on the show include: Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo fame and critically acclaimed music aeficianado of film and television, The Aquabats, The Aggrolites, Biz Markie, The Shins, Sugarland, The Salteens, Smoosh, Mya, Sean Kingston, Nikki Flores, Rahzel, Cornelius and Shiny Toy Guns. The show also promises other surprise appearances from guests like Tony Hawk, actor Hector Jimenez, Elijah Wood, Laila Ali, and others.

The first season of Yo Gabba Gabba will include 20 episodes. Much like any new show, it takes some time to hit your stride and find that natural beat. The first few shows are good; some parts are stronger than others in their appeal, but an improvement in show quality can be seen from episode to episode. The second show, themed “Summer”, is very entertaining. The performance by the band The Aquabats with their song “Pool Party” has made me an instant fan of the group. A segment called “Cool Tricks” where kids (and sometimes adults) show off a unique skill they have learned, and a re-occuring animation segment called “Super Martian Robot Girl” are also very entertaining. I thought this show was good, and then I saw the fourth episode called “Dance”. It was just plain rockin’ with great rap music, a “red-light, green-light” approach to dancing for youngsters, and striking video effects that made me feel like going out to a the dance club! I’ve seen a wonderful progression in the quality of music over this short span of shows and am eagerly awaiting more of the same with shows yet to air.

Whether intentional or not, you can see many other influences on the show. The main sets and some of the characters found in Yo Gabba Gabba have a Kure Kure Takora flavor, a popular Japanese program that aired in the early 70’s. While the Kure Kure Takora show was originally aired as a children’s show, it’s storylines and themes might not have been the best content for younger audiences. It does, however, have a significant adult following. The characters themselves share a creative quality from artists like Tim Biskup and Paul Frank. The main human character, DJ Lance Rock, appears to share a similar fashion sense from Lady Miss Kier of the band Deee Lite. (Maybe an excellent future guest for the show!)

So, as a Gen-X’er, I’m hooked. I’ve been waiting for this show ever since Pee-Wee’s Playhouse stopped producing new shows. But will young children like it? You bet! Strong rythmic music and encouraging movement is an excellent way to grab the youngest of viewers. The visuals are fun and appealing. There are many parts of the show young children can relate to directly and others that will create an aspirational desire to try something new. It encourages children to feel good about moving and not to worry about “doing it the wrong way.” Make sure your living room floor is clear, because these future young hipsters will get up off the couch and start moving and grooving soon after the show begins. You just might find yourself dancing around to the show as well.

In my mind, children’s television shows can be grouped into two camps. There are shows that children and adults can watch, love, and learn from together. Then there are shows that children will watch and adults can’t stand. Yo Gabba Gabba is one for young and old alike with plenty to please both groups. The show is very entertaining in a fresh whimsical style wrapped in cool pop culture, animation, music and dance. Get ready to hear lots more from this clever, unique, and inspiring show!

BONUS INFO:
Check out these other sites about the show:
Yo Bloga Bloga
Archive of the early Yo Gabba Gabba website
Yo Gabba Gabba LiveJournal
Photos of World Premiere of Yo Gabba Gabba, July 8, 2006

I’ve been wondering when RFID would begin to take a hold in the toy market. RFID is a technology that takes advantage of small wireless computer chips that have the ability to talk to one another. One way of thinking about the technology is that if a shirt had an RFID tag in it, whenever you dropped off the shirt at a dry cleaner, the radio frequencies emitted by the tag would alert some other computer in the store; it would know instantly who you are and how you would like your shirt laundered without ever saying a word to anyone. RFID allows any two (or more) items embedded with the technology to know about each other, and know how far away they are from each other. RFID used within toy products has the wonderful ability to work with the way children naturally play, and also offers new and imaginative enhanced play opportunities. Imagine a toy house complete with furniture, different dolls of family members, pets and vehicles that all could be electronically aware of each other. As the dog approaches the boy doll, the boy could speak the dog’s name. As a car drives up to the house, its headlights could turn on. As the mommy doll enters the front door, it could speak “Kids, I’m home!”

Earlier this year I posted an article about the technology toy product called Hyper Dash by Wild Planet. This technology toy product was also reviewed in the New York Times this past month. Hyper Dash takes advantage of RFID to put a new twist on outdoor games like Hide-and-Seek. A new entrant to the “aware” toy category (though I’ve learned that it does not use RFID technology) is called “Hide & Seek Blue and Sprinkles” developed by Fisher-Price. The concept is that one child hides the smaller plush toy named Sprinkles while another child uses the larger Blue to to help find where Sprinkles is hidden. Both characters deliver audio clues as to how well the seeking child is doing during the Hide-and-Seek game. Though the product is not yet officially being sold at stores, it looks like Target will have an exclusive in the early weeks the toy is available. This toy is also popping up for sale on eBay.

Stay tuned for more noteworthy smart toys with and without RFID enabled technology making their way to store shelves!

In my last few posts, I took a look at what new learning and technology toys you’ll be hearing about throughout 2007. But February isn’t just a time for new toys, its also a time when new reports come out about kids, and its a time when this industry looks to The NPD Group for the latest and greatest. While NPD reports on marketing and consumer trends across many different and varied industries, many stats and financial news that make headlines in the toy or video game industry come from this one organization.

One industry expert from NPD to watch for is Anita Frazier. Most quotes in the press about video game sales or the noteworthy toy trends come from her and her colleagues. One recent report by NPD, called the Kids’ Leisure Time II (a follow up to a similar report released in 2006), was presented by Ms. Frazier recently. While this presentation was very data rich, a number of noteworthy points about kids and their leisure time rose to the surface. These broader findings include:

• On average, kids ages 5 – 12 have about 58 hours of leisure time a week, with almost difference in time noted between genders. As kids get older within this demographic the amount of free time available tends to increase slightly.
• Kids ages 5 – 12 have about 14 hours of leisure time a day on weekends as opposed to about 6 hours of leisure time a day during the week.
• Of all the leisure time activities that kids participate in, kids generally spend more time doing those activities on the weekends than during the week, in all activities except for reading. The amount of time kids spend reading remains roughly the same through weekdays and the weekend.
• The number one leisure activity for kids 5 – 12 is watching TV or movies, followed by doing homework, then playing with toys and games, household chores, and finally using a computer for non-homework related purposes.
• Kids in the 2 – 4 age range have the greatest amount of free time, that being a little more than 94 hours a week.
• The number one leisure activity for kids 2 – 4 is playing with toys, followed by watching TV or movies.
• In terms of the kinds of activities kids participate in during leisure time, gender differences appear with kids 5 – 12, whereas these differences typically so not appear with kids 2 – 4.

The amount of information presented in this short overview was pretty extensive, and I know it was just the tip of the iceberg when compared to the full report. These few points alone hint to the rapidly changing nature of the toy industry. Kids have a growing interest in technology and consumer electronics as playthings. And as this report describes TV viewing as the number one leisure time activities kids engage in, its no wonder why we see more and more products for kids that hook up to a TV, have their own screen, or work in some combination with a DVD player, plug and play device or computer.

In my next post, I’ll take a look at the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative spearheaded by MIT and technology evangelist Nicholas Negroponte. Make no bones about it, this initiative is picking up speed quickly. The $100 laptops will be rolling off of the assembly line shortly in very large numbers, to be distributed to children in early adopter countries around the globe!