Dr. Toon: When Reagan Met Optimus Prime
In the world of animated children's programming, free enterprise and Federal regulations were not always the best of friends. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was often called upon to enforce regulations concerning the amount and nature of advertising that could be aired during programs aimed specifically at children. The FCC sometimes partnered with the National Assn. of Broadcasters (NAB) in order to ensure that commercials did not overwhelm television broadcasting.
From 1946, with the publication of its Blue Book(a document limiting commercial airtime) until 1983, the FCC did a fairly good job at it, despite broadcasters who occasionally figured out ways to flaunt the code. In 1963, the FCC lost a key battle against the broadcasters, and with it the ability to make or enforce any rules related to number or length of commercials. It was finally decided in 1974 that the FCC could enforce regulations that kept advertising on any sort of TV program to a maximum of sixteen minutes per hour.
Still, loopholes remained, and the FCC was sometimes called to task by public watchdog groups who pointed out the abuses in the system. Perhaps the most vigilant group was Actions for Children's Television (ACT) founded in 1968 by Evelyn Sarson and Peggy Charen. Boston-based ACT would eventually have 20,000 members and a half-million dollar operating budget, but it was still a grass-roots organization when it took on Romper Room as its first target. This popular preschool program advertised its own branded line of toys, pitched by the show's host. ACT threatened to turn the matter over to the FCC unless local TV station WHDH made the program conform to current regulations. WHDH backed down, and ACT had its first victory.
During the 1970s ACT tried to get advertising banned from children's broadcasting altogether, but reached a compromise with the NAB in 1973 that limited advertising to twelve minutes per hour. ACT then began a campaign to have advertising banned from all programming aimed at preschoolers. The activist group challenged the broadcasters on many other fronts regarding programming content. In short, ACT was a force to be reckoned with whenever the group felt that the FCC was not enforcing regulatory standards. Unfortunately, Sarson and Charren were about to run up against a force far greater than a recalcitrant TV station -- the 40th President of the United States.
Printer-friendly version
Legislation was introducted in 1990 called the Children's Television Act. It established guidelines for children's television programming.
I'm curious to know what happened in 1989? Was regulation reintroduced?
Nice article.
Pac-man isn't owned by Nintendo, though. Pac-man is owned by Namco. Nintendo did license video games for cartoons at the time, though. I remember watching Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. on TV as a kid.
Good read, I really enjoyed it. As a cartoon lover in my early thirties, I grew up on a steady diet of television and still cherish many memories of those shows and their respective products. It's rather sad to grow up and realize that some of the things I once cherished were the product of a calculated sales pitch and although I've come across this topic before, your article explained it far better to me than others.
I often visit sites like Youtube and find a collective of like-minded nostalgia types who love to revisit this era of cartooning. I find a lot of the comments that people post tend to lean toward the "cartoons today suck" and "these poor kids should have been around in the 80's". Although I do miss those times and the sheer volume of programming that was available, in particular the unfortunate demise of Saturday morning cartoons, I find that there has been a sort of re-balancing of quality. For every GI Joe and Transformers that I miss, there is a plethora of fresh ideas like The Misadventures of Flapjack, Chowder, Adventure Time, Mighty B, etc. I suppose since these shows don't hover around the idea of pushing a product, they are less likely to be hindered creatively.
Interesting post. I have to agree that a lot of these shows were advertisements for toys and not much more, and it saddens me to learn about all the toy company regulations imposed on the creators during such a "free and unregulated" time in American history. However, as a viewer of many of them (and another one of those college-aged viewers mentioned in the article), I feel like they all did a decent job of hiding the advertising. I remember being a big fan of the Super Mario shows, as well as The Real Ghostbusters, and although the stories certainly weren't in depth, I don't remember them coming off as product placement in the least.
If anything, I feel the real product placement problem in kids tv has become far worse today. The ultimate example would have to be the Yu-gi-oh series (I believe it was GX?) In the few episodes I've seen, it seems the characters challenge each other to a card duel each time and spend the majority of the last 10 minutes playing the card game, literally speaking out each action, how many cards they have left, how their play gives them points, ect. It could be my lack of interest in today's programs, or my love of the old ones, but it seems to have gotten worse with time.
I'm curious to know what the regulations are today and if they are being circumvented more now or are there less regulations now that there were back then?
One day back in the 80s I was visiting the GI Joe production office & noticed a chart on the wall: down its side was a list of episodes... & across its top the line-up of vehicles made by Hasbro to accompany the action figures. Short and simple, the chart was there to make sure all the GI Joe vehicles got equal exposure in the series. On the other hand, I read a fanzine interview with Steve Gerber (Howard the Duck's creator and GI Joe story editor) years ago who said Hasbro never interfered with the show's scripting.
My personal problem with those series was the simplistic 'good' vs. 'evil' template they all followed. Life is a little more complicated than that and even (or especially) in a cartoon aimed at young kids it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge it.
As one of the "college-aged" people you mention in the bit about these cartoons' legacies, I've got to say that it's important to note that there just wasn't much else on at the time. As far as I can remember, most of the cartoons on TV at that time were an extended advertisement for one thing or another, even Dungeons and Dragons (which young me was rather disappointed to discover was actually a math-heavy board game.)
I have reviewed this article several times (an onerous task since I read it many times during writing and editing it) and can nowhere find any statements implying "Reagan sucks" or "Capitalism is evil." Nor do I consider my readers "knuckle draggers" or "idiots". As for politics being involved in the article, I regularly comment on the intersection between culture and animation, and if politics does not involve our culture, then I must have missed something between Eisenhower and Obama, the presidents and party leaders during my lifetime.
It's interesting that you state "When I saw the title I knew..." you give yourself away as a reactionary and made false assumptions about what you believed it was I wanted to say. Sadly, you mistook cultural commentary for polemic, which is not my forte.
Here's something interesting for both of us, however: I wonder how many of these corporate cartoons would have been successful if pitched to networks or cable channels as original, independent projects?
I'm glad you enjoyed these shows. I think I said something about that in my comments on their legacy, lest you think I'd like to pull a George Orwell and destroy them all retroactively.
3 pages and you could've just said what you really wanted. Reagan sucks, capitalism is evil, blah,blah,blah.
I have fond memories of those shows. God forbid there's clear cut good vs. evil!
The free market should decide. Kids loved those cartoons. PIXAR's characters are toys as well and a plethora of merchandise. Yet no complaints about that.
Kids love cartoons and toys. It's a win/win for kids. Oh the horror!
"deregulation...negated creativity" Are you serious?! LOL
How can one be creative with a bunch of regulations? Unless you want to regulate certain ideals out of cartoons and promote your worldview?
I find it laughable when I see people drone on about "deregulation" are usually the most oppressive of people.
A toy company who creates a toy line and in turn makes into a cartoon has every right to control the content.
Bottom line is perhaps what you consider a great artistic cartoon is for a small niche of Americans. Most kids will be like "Meh".
When I saw the title I knew it was just another progressive expose on the horrors of capitalism and that evil Reagan.
This meme of anything remotely "right wing" is for idiots and knuckle draggers is getting old.
It'd be nice to go a day without politics being injected into every damn issue.
Has anything changed since then? Product promotion/integration is such a large part of all media, not just cartoons, that I'm having a hard time thinking of any examples that live outside of that sphere.
Is marketing a toy, video game, or cereal just a way to expand the bottom line of any creative venture, or are we still watching commercials in between our comercials?
I suppose it's a chicken/egg type of arguement. I'll just go back to listening exclusively to NPR. I already have the tote bag to remind me.
Post new comment