• by February 24, 2004

FOOD FOR THOUGHT -- It may just be coincidence, but some potentially alarming research on the future of children's television advertising is coming out just as the 2004-05 kids upfront TV season begins in earnest. The study, from the influential and well-regarded American Psychological Association, concludes that children under the age of eight are unable to critically comprehend TV advertising messages and are prone to accept an advertiser's message as truthful, accurate and unbiased. Aside from making grown-up marketers green with envy, the findings could lead to a new wave of regulatory or legislative actions that could have a profound impact on the estimated $12 billion spent each year on kids-oriented media buys - especially on TV. The report is especially damning for food advertising aimed at kids, a category that is expected to emerge as the No. 1 ad category aimed at kids 2-11. "The most common products marketed to children are sugared cereals, candies, sweets, sodas and snack foods," noted Brian Wilcox, a professor of psychology and director of the Center on Children, Families and the Law at the University of Nebraska and chair of the APA's children's advertising task force that created the report. The study asserts that a disproportionate share of the 40,000 TV commercials it estimates the average child sees each year push such products and are directly contributing to unhealthy eating habits and childhood obesity. Based on its findings, the task force has recommended that policymakers "restrict advertising primarily directed to young children eight years and under," as well as other steps to add advertising disclaimers, conduct additional research on the effects of advertising on kids and an investigation of ads directed at children in their schools.

A TALE OF TWO CABLE TV MAGNATES -- With John J. Rigas and his sons poised to stand trial for allegedly bilking Adelphia Communications shareholders out of billions of dollars, one of the pioneers of the cable business, H.F. "Gerry" Lenfest, who by all accounts ran his cable operations in a squeaky clean fashion before he sold them to Comcast for $1.2 billion in 2000 to Comcast Corp., is in the process of giving all of his fortune away to charities. To date, Lenfest has donated or pledged about $325 million, and he says he'll do the same with the rest before he dies. It could be that Lenfest was inspired by his former mentor, Walter Annenberg, whom he worked for before borrowing $2.3 million to buy a small cable system in Lebanon, Pa. And while that is a sizeable return on a media investment, Lenfest's post-corporate altruism is bound to provide an even greater return on his spiritual investment: guaranteed karma. As for the Rigas', depending on the outcome of their trial, they may soon have plenty of time on their hands to atone for any transgressions, spiritual or otherwise.

INSTANT KARMA -- John Lennon got in some hot holy water when he once proclaimed that his one-time garage band had grown "bigger than Jesus." Now, nearly 40 years after Lennon's infamous sound bite, it seems that Jesus-to- recording-industry-icon comparisons have devalued greatly. Failed "American Idol" contestant William Hung has parlayed what should have been only 15- minutes of out-of-tune fame into instant celebrity status that put him in the No. 26 spot - with a bullet - on the Lycos 50 for the week ending Feb. 20. While that does not make Hung "bigger" than a major Jesus-related story circulating among the searchers last week - the debate surrounding Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" - it does put Hung within striking distance. Searches related to the film ranked No. 10 for the week, up from No. 37 the previous week. Still, that put the Jesus film behind such search perennials as (in this order from No. 1) Paris Hilton, Janet Jackson, Anna Kournikova, Britney Spears, KaZaA, Neopets, Pamela Anderson and Brooke Burke. Despite all the hype surrounding Gibson's film, it's clear what online searchers are really passionate about. And it doesn't seem to be religion, or music either.

SPEAKING OF SEARCH ENGINE SMUT -- Booble.com, the racy parody of Google, says while Google's legal team is challenging its right to use the Booble trademark, it's simply not going to play tit-for-tort, er, make that tit-for- tat. "We stand by our response to Google's demands three weeks ago," said Booble's first-name-only founder Bob. "The law recognizes that intelligent people can disagree on what's funny." Apparently, the naughty search engine believes parody is the best defense against trademark parity, and has taken the joust one step further by launching TauntedByTatas.com, a Web site devoted to Google's legal challenge of Booble's trademark. "Goliath wants to bind our boobs," proclaims the page, which asks users to vote whether they are "amused" by Booble's allusion, or "confused" by its likeness to Google. The site also posts a sub-link that should help raise Booble's legal defense fund. Users are encouraged to show their support by purchasing Booble trademarked t-shirts, coffee mugs and thongs.

SPACKLE THE WALLS, MOVE AHEAD TWO SPACES -- One can never say that HGTV isn't creative when sending out press releases. To promote its latest show "Designed to Sell," launching March 28, what did the Riff get in the mail but a board game. A board game resembling the Riff's favorite game growing up, "Clue." In the series, homeowners are given advice by real estate experts and interior designers on how simple, inexpensive changes can boost their home's economic value. The game is no different. Complete with game pieces and cards, the players either choose to be the host or the designer featured in the TV show. The object is to reach the end of the game first, along with making minimal repairs along the way. "Replace that '70's wallpaper with a fresh, neutral color coat of paint."

WAS THAT ADMIRABLE, OR 'MOST MIRE-ABLE?' -- The Riff always considered the research conducted as part of Fortune magazine's annual rankings of corporate America to be unassailable, but we have to question their methodology after hearing word of the magazine's "Most Admired" entertainment company of 2003: Walt Disney Co. "Most coveted" - surely. "Most maligned" - possibly. But most "admired" doesn't seem to jive with the sentiment of some disgruntled shareholders and erstwhile suitors. Nonetheless, Fortune maintains that its findings are based on a survey of top entertainment industry executives, directors and securities analysts. The Riff can think of at least two that they must have missed.