As the traditional school tour season begins, the Irish Greyhound Board are offering students and teachers tours of Greyhound stadia around the country.

Just when it seemed that Tayto Park couldn’t be beaten as an unhealthy, commercially-driven tour destination, the IGB have produced a flyer enticing teachers to introduce children to the world of dog racing, gambling and blood sports.

Greyhound Action Ireland have condemned the promotion saying “Surely the high incidence of both gambling addictions and animal abuse in Ireland should be a red flag to anyone concerned about children’s welfare.” The group have asked Education Minister Ruairí Quinn to “stop the IGB seducing children with ‘goody bags’ in gambling establishments.”

Meanwhile in Dáil Éireann deputy Maureen O’ Sullivan (Independent: Dublin Central) put a question to the Minister asking if he would address the issue of children being introduced to race tracks during school hours. Unsurprisingly, the Minister’s response mirrored that of his predecessors in declining to give any guidance or protection to schools or children from commercial exploitation. As before responsibility for dealing with commercial encroachment into schools was shirked as the Minister said it was up to each school to decide whether this ridiculous and entirely biased sales pitch was a  suitable venue for a school tour.

Read the full Parliamentary Question and the Ministers Response.

However the Minister did note that “the objective of an educational tour should be to provide a significant benefit in the educational, intellectual, cultural and social development of pupils taking part.” Such a tour is unlikely to be of significant benefit to anyone other than the Greyhound Racing industry and bookmakers as young children are given a state-sponsored introduction to racing and gambling. The Campaign for Commercial-Free Education takes some pleasure in Minister Quinn’s statement that “I would share the Deputy’s concern that schools might expose children to gambling and betting as these kind of activities are not appropriate for young children.”

Will this latest audacious attempt to advertise through schools be enough to prompt the Minister to take action and ban commercial promotions aimed at Irish schools?

The new Draft Children’s Commercial Code proposes that ads for High Fat Salt and Sugar food and drink shall not:

1) be permitted in children’s programmes as defined by the code;

2) include celebrities or sports stars;

3) include programme characters;

4) include licensed characters e.g. characters and personalities from cinema releases;

5) contain health or nutrition claims; or

6) include promotional offers.

The new Draft BAI General Commercial Code proposes to limit HFSS advertising so that no more than 25% of sold advertising time and only one in four advertisements for HFSS products will be permitted across the broadcasting day.

Crucially the regulatory approach proposed in respect of commercial communications for HFSS products and services is direct independent statutory regulation. No self- or co-regulatory approach is proposed.

The Campaign for Commercial-Free Education welcomes these Draft Guidelines and will be making a submission to the BAI in support of their undiluted adoption as a means of protecting children from advertising of unhealthy food in mainstream media.

However we note that the Draft Guidelines refer to “ a number of related and interlinked factors that impact on children‟s food
preferences, consumption and behaviour” other than advertising. Included in this list of other factors” is the “school environment” which remains an entirely unregulated  domain where promoters of HFSS foods can and do advertise their products to a captive audience of minors.

A 2007 report on “Critical Media Literacy in Ireland” found the subject to be of low status, frequently overlooked and poorly resourced within Irish schools.

We want to begin to change this and particularly raise awareness of the presence and effect of commercial advertising in the lives of young students.

By focussing attention on  ads, logos, branding, sponsorship, jingles and product placement in our everyday lives we hope to make students aware of the prevalence of commercial marketing. By inviting them to refelect on what ads they feel are most effective we want to make them aware of the techniques and strategies being used by marketers to target young ”consumers” – cartoon characters, collectibles, humour, music and audio effects, creation of desire etc.

This project is still in the planning stage but at present we envisage either a series of lesson plans to be promoted to teachers or a project competition whereby students could research this area and submit their work for adjudication and comment from our judges.

If you are a parent, teacher, student or just a supporter of the idea of Commercial-Free Education and would like to contribute to a positive initiative to prepare kids to better understand the array of advertisement that is beamed towards them, we’d love to hear from you. Send an email to the campaign through the contact us section of the site – if you have ideas, expertise, time or any resources at all your contribution will be most appreciated.

However, the bank persists in recruiting seconday school students to act as unpaid promoters and marketing agents as part of its ”Build a Bank Challenge 2011-2012.

Remarkable for the overt way it demands students promote AIB to their peers, “Build a Bank” encourages the use of special offers, incentives and public appeals for new bank accounts. The advertisements extend school-wide as teams, selected by AIB themselves, vie to generate most new accounts and create the best marketing scheme. The promotion is administered for AIB by Real Event Solutions, a marketing company specialising in in-school promotions and with experience of bringing corporate messages into schools.

A cursory look through some of the online sites used by various school shows just how much free publicity and uncritical promotion AIB receives through the “Build a Bank Challenge” : -

The Patrician Academy School in Co. Cork held many creative and innovative promotional days such as their ‘Bring a Buddy Day’ and ‘Charity Cupcake Day’ as well as bringing sports stars such as Paudie Kissane and Colm Cooper to the school to help advertise the bank. On each of their promotional days they offer their customers different gifts and goodies that were sponsored by a wide variety of local businesses.  They also made available a college information card to their leaving cert students that advised them on how to change over to a third level bank account

John the Baptist Community School in Hospital, Co. Limerick invited in a Limerick Senior Hurler to help them cultivate new accounts for the sponsor.

Coláiste Pobail Osrai, Co. Kilkenny feature of team of ”employees” including a Sales & Marketing Manager who offer advice on the range of services offered by AIB.

The CCFE restates its emphatic objections to this shamless commercialism as follows:

- 2nd level students should not be encouraging and pressurising their peers to open accounts in a commercial bank (especially one which has cost the Irish state €20 billion due to its reckless lending).

- The space and time surrendered to AIB in schools should be redirected for educational and non-commercial purposes.

- AIB are not entitled to promote their products and services to the lucrative “young consumer market” within schools; this is barefaced advertisement and contravenes schools’ educational mission.

- The financial management and business skills AIB claims students learn through this marketing exercise could be just as easily taught through business studies, accounting or business organisation classes. A genuine, non-commercial school bank or credit union would serve the same purpose without the commercial kick-back of promotion and sales which AIB demand.

Contact the CCFE now to add your support for the abolision of this promotion.

The Campaign for Commercial Free Education has spoken out against a promotion by JD’s Gourmet Popcorn which seeks to import the lamentable North American tradition of commercial profit-driven fundraising.

JD’s are seeking schools to distribute order forms and promote a scheme whereby teachers take orders from children and their families for the company’s candy-covered popcorn in return for a share of the sales.

The Sunday Times ran a piece on 1st April highlighting the CCFE’s criticism of this self-serving promotion and how it contravenes the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation’s guidelines  – Popcorn for Pupils in Poor Taste say Critics.

On Tuesday 3rd April RTE’s John Murray show featured a debate between company promoter Joe McGrath and CCFE chairperson Joseph Fogarty. Listen to the interview here: John Murray Show 3rd April 2012

According to JD’s Gourmet Popcorn website (www.jdp.ie) “The number 1 reason to fundraise with JD’s Gourmet Popcorn … you’ll love the profit you can make”.

The top 5 reasons to have nothing to do with this exploitative promotion are:

1.  20% of 9 year olds are overweight according to the Dept of Health. Schools selling them 110g bags of chocolate marshmallow popcorn will not help this situation.

2. Schools are not a commercial base to advertise and sell products. Irish schools do not need to ape the North American example of allowing snack foods be sold through schools – we know exactly the harm this does to students psychologically, educationally and nutritionally.

3. Children surrounded by advertising outside of school do not need yet further pressure to purchase once sitting at their desks. Targeting 4 – 12 year olds with emotive promises of a better school if only they buy the sponsors’ products is to pressurise parents and children. It is unethical and exploitative.

4. Schools haven’t the time to sell candy-covered popcorn or they shouldn’t have. School time is a resource purchased by the taxpayer to benefit children and prepare them for their future. The curriculum includes Gaeilge, English, Maths, History, Geography, Science, Art, Music, Drama, Religion / Ethical Core Curriculum, Physical Education – it does NOT include Popcorn sales.

5. The INTO and IPPN have each devised guidelines for schools to protect vulnerable children from commercial exploitation and ensure the school does not become a commercial flea-market where child consumers are bought and traded for profit.

A scheme which incentivises primary school teachers to sell bags of popcorn to raise money for their school has been criticised by a parent-and-teacher group as a “frivolous-gimmick” that wastes school time and exploits cash-strapped parents.

 JD’s Gourmet Popcorn, a family-run company which manufactures sweet and candy-covered popcorn, issued a flyer to schools inDublinand Meath last month inviting teachers to take orders from children and their families in return for a share of the profits.

 A 110g bag costs €2.50, with the school receiving €1 for each one sold. Four schools have signed up to the scheme so far, including Kevin’sBoysSchoolandSt Joseph’sGirlsSchool, both in Finglas inDublin.

 Joe McGrath, who runs JD’s Gourmet Popcorn with his wife, in Dunshaughlin in Co Meath, said incentivised fundraising has been successfully used for decades by schools and community groups across North America andCanada, where he grew up.

 “When I was in primary school, I used to sell chocolate-covered almonds,” he said. “Everything to do with fundraising in American and Canadian schools is incentive-driven, parents always get something in return for their money. When my own boys started schools, I couldn’t understand why it was different here.”

 Joseph Fogarty, the chairman of the Campaign for Commercial-Free Education, said selling popcorn is not the job of primary school teachers. “JD’s are chancing their arm in the hope cash-strapped schools will flog their wares, and put pressure on parents and kids to buy their products,” he said.

 “It is a total waste of school time. We are not anti-business, but they need to revert to more traditional models of advertising rather than selling through schools.”

Sheila Nunan, the general secretary of the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation said: “Most schools have to fundraise to meet everyday running costs because government funding of less than a euro per day per child is totally inadequate. This is unfair on schools and leaves some vulnerable to exploitation by commercial companies.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education said advertising and fundraising was a governance issue for each school, and it was up to Board of Management to consider the impact of individual schemes.

McGrath said he was not suggesting teachers be taken away from their duties. Order forms could be included with the weekly letters sent to parents, he said. “This is a well-proven, efficient, hassle-free and safe way to raise funds needed in Irish schools. It’s a new concept inIreland, so it will take time to convince people.”

© Sunday Times 2012.

Name:

Sponsor:
TESCO Ireland

Recommendation:
We strongly oppose this scheme which we regard as pressurising and highly commercial. While acknowledging the inadequate government funding for PE equipment, we ask schools to respect the rights of students to a commercially unbiased education and the right of parents to shop where they choose.

Classification:
Incentive Scheme – voucher collection.

Year: 2005 (1st year)

Past Record:
Tesco launched their first incentive scheme (Computers for Schools) in Ireland in 1997. It has been a huge success for the company, winning awards for “Cause Related Marketing” (BITC 1998) and becoming an established part of the school calendar in this country.

Materials:
When registered, schools receive a promotional poster featuring prominent sports stars, a collection box, target chart and order form. A catalogue indicates the equipment on offer and the number of vouchers required – from 23 to 65,511. Vouchers are obtained at Tesco supermarkets nationwide in return for €10 worth of shopping.

Comments:
Like many incentive schemes Tesco’s newest creation is based on the commercial principle that the more you shop the better the educational resources available to your child. At €10 a token it may be wondered whether any of the equipment on offer is truly “free”. For example a “free” captain’s armband (price €3.50 on www.scoilbuy.ie at the time of publishing this review) requires schools to account for €900 worth of parents’ shopping. It is anticipated that Irish schools will collect several millions of these vouchers in a single year, representing huge revenues for the supermarket.

The bright posters, celebrity endorsement, collection boxes and target chart act to raise awareness of the scheme and the brand in the school. Requests for tokens are also commonly made to parents through newsletters and websites. The limited time (10 weeks) which schools have to raise the often tens of thousands of vouchers ensures that the pressure is on to get children collecting. A school publicly appealing for proof of purchase from a particular store contravenes the official directive that parents be put under no pressure to purchase a particular product. (Circular 39/91) The endorsement by teachers, principals and children’s peer group of Tesco may lead children to pester parents to direct their purchases especially for this scheme.

Recommendation:
We strongly oppose this scheme which we regard as pressurising and highly commercial. While acknowledging the inadequate government funding for PE equipment, we ask schools to respect the rights of students to a commercially unbiased education and the right of parents to shop where they choose.

	High	Fair	Low
Curricular Relevance
Logo/Brand Presence
Influence on Spending

The Department of Education discontinued the PE equipment grant in 2002 after only two years. A 2005 report by the ESRI into children’s sports in Ireland concluded that

In general, however, sports facilities in schools, and perhaps especially in primary schools, need to be improved, particularly in regard to facilities needed for indoor activities. (Tony Fahey, Liam Delaney and Brenda Gannon, School Children And Sport In Ireland (Dublin: ESRI, 2005), p90.)

The inception of this new scheme, along with its competitor from SuperValu, shows how gaps in State funding of schools may be exploited for commercial gain. We regard the expansion of the Tesco schemes into the area of sporting equipment to be a worrying indication of the growing commercial presence in schools. It is simply not the job of teacher or school to direct parental shopping, to endorse one supermarket over another or to do the work of commercial marketers.

Sponsor:
TESCO Ireland

Recommendation: [top]
The latest example of Tesco’s insatiable appetite for in-school promotion is unequivocally rejected as exploitative, pressurising and self-serving in the extreme.

Classification:
Incentive Scheme – €10 spent
= 1 voucher.

Year: 2006 (9th Year)

Past Record: [top]
Tesco are one of the “market leaders” in terms of school commercialism in Ireland – Computers for Schools is their 3rd major initiative in the school year 05/06.

Tesco have been running Computers for Schools since 1997 and have won marketing awards (BITC 1998) for a scheme which operates in over 2,500 Irish schools. Tesco are believed to receive 10-15 million Computers for School vouchers each year, each one representing a single-transaction spend of at least €10.

Materials: [top]
Schools receive a promotional poster displaying the voucher “target” and the equipment the school is collecting for; a collection box, a weekly target chart and catalogue. Also included are letters to local newspapers and parents/guardians appealing for vouchers. The latter reads:

“Please ask friends and relatives – in fact anyone you know – to collect the vouchers for us! What about setting up a collection point at your place of work? The children are really excited about the challenge and we know we can reach our target if we try.”

It is salutary to note that, “Collections are not allowed on Tesco premises”.

The company website goes further, offering “top tips” such as

“Have inter-class competitions with a prize for the class who collects the most vouchers.

Why not use vouchers for counting practice in Maths classes or to keep children occupied during wet playtimes.”

The scheme is supported by a generous marketing budget which pays for national television advertisements promoting the scheme. Children are also encouraged to email stories about how Computers for Schools has benefited them – a personal endorsement from the child of the company and its promotion.

Comments: [top]
Schools have just 10 weeks to promote Tesco and get shopping for their vouchers.

A “FREE” Apple 17inch iMac (online retail price = €1,400) requires a school community to spend €261,600 at Tesco.

An entry level PC (online price €818) may be obtained “FREE” by schools who generate €215,000 worth of shopping.

“FREE” boxes of floppy discs (online price €12.50) require a mere €4,100 revenue for Tesco.

Further appeals for Tesco vouchers typically appear in parish newsletters, local papers and school websites as teachers and pupils set about promoting the brand and appealing for purchases in Tesco (in contravention of the DES circular 38/91). The posters, collection boxes and “target” charts all act to stimulate demand for shopping/vouchers and keep children working on the company’s behalf.

	High	Fair	Low
Curricular Relevance
Logo/Brand Presence
Influence on Spending

We challenge Tesco to defend this realities of this commercial scheme: -

• Computers for Schools exploits the goodwill of parents and communities towards schools to gain promotion and sales.
• It excuses and prolongs the underfunding of ICT in Irish schools (NCTE 2002) at time when Ireland is a global leader in computer technology.
• It discriminates against smaller and disadvantaged schools who cannot generate such colossal revenues for Tesco as are required – exacerbating the ICT divide between richer and poorer communities.
• The net contribution to schools from each €10 spent at Tesco is as little as 0.04 cent.
• It pressurises teachers, exploits schools as a closed market and converts parents into company promoters.

In 2004 there was one voucher collection scheme. In 2006 there are three nationwide incentive schemes as the commercial marketing encroaches ever more on Irish schools. The school is not a revolving billboards to promote Tesco in September, Spar in November, SuperValu in January and Tesco again by March. We encourage schools to take a stand in defence of commercial-free space and urge that they resist this wave of corporate interference.

Name:

Sponsor:
SuperValu Supermarkets (Musgrave SuperValu-Centra)

Classification:
Incentive Scheme – voucher collection.

Year: 2005-06 (1st year)

Past Record: [top]
Since 2004, SuperValu have supported Buntús, a non-commercial scheme developed by the Irish Sports Council, which provided schools throughout Ireland with PE equipment, instructional cards and training sessions for teachers. The Sports Council explained the supermarkets interest in the initiative, when it said that “Super Valu will in-turn promote its ‘community positioning’ as well as its nutritious own-brand range with Buntús.”

In 2005, following the launch of Tesco’s Sports for School, SuperValu piloted Kids in Action in 109 primary schools in Co. Meath. Unlike Buntús, this was an incentive scheme with schools having to collect bundles of €10 vouchers to obtain any equipment.

Materials: [top]
In expanding their pilot scheme to a nation wide voucher programme SuperValu undertook a major marketing campaign involving radio and television advertisements with presenter Ray D’Arcy and athlete Sonia O’ Sullivan.

Schools received individually designed letters addressed to the principal by name and asking

“Principal ________, who can give the pupils of St. ______ a sporting chance?”

“You can Principal ________, with the SuperValu Kids in Action Free Sports Equipment for Primary Schools!”

Inside, the letter presents an equation where

“Principal ______, + Teachers + ____ pupils + Parents + Relations = Free Sports Equipment for St. _______”

Schools have 10 weeks to obtain vouchers from SuperValu supermarkets in return for €10 worth of shopping. Double vouchers are issued for sale of fruit and vegetables. The equipment is listed in a catalogue which shows the number of vouchers required ranging from 21 to 37, 125.

Comments: [top]
SuperValu’s incentive scheme is the second high profile, celebrity-endorsed, vouchers for sports equipment scheme to be targeted at the “School market” this educational year. Like its predecessor, Tesco’s Sports for School, this scheme is founded on the principle that the more you spend the be resources your child’s education will be. .

Schools are once more invited to promote a multinational supermarket brand to students, their parents, relatives and neighbours in order to implement the P.E. curriculum which the government no longer provide equipment grants for.

With limited time to amass the vouchers tokens required and a national advertising campaign on the radio and television there is huge pressure on children and parents to direct their purchases especially for this scheme.

A brief example of the parental spend required at SuperValu illustrates plainly what is expected of schools and how “Free” this equipment it.

Gaelic Football = €3,950 worth of shopping / Online retail price €18

Rugby Ball = € 2,690 worth of shopping / Online retail price €13

Tennis Racket = €3,090 worth of shopping / Online retail price €25

Schools seeking a basketball skills coaching bag will have to generate a massive €70,000 spend at SuperValu and a “FREE” Indoor Hurley stick is only available to those who account for €3,800 worth of shopping.

Recommendation: [top]
As the second “FREE” sports scheme this school year seeking to promote a brand and generate sales through schools, we oppose SuperValu’s Kids in Action and urge teachers and parents not to participate.

	High	Fair	Low
Curricular Relevance
Logo/Brand Presence
Influence on Spending

We consider this to be a slick and carefully marketed scheme designed to exploit underfunding of PE equipment in schools and promote SuperValu’s “community positioning”. Children who were told in September to ensure Mammy/Daddy shop in Tesco are now to be reprogrammed to pester for SuperValu vouchers – this is anti-educational and unconscionable.

The Campaign for Commercial-Free Education believes Kids in Action pressurises principals, students and parents though its letters, media advertisements, celebrity endorsements and promises of “FREE” sports equipment.

The guideline that parents should not be “put under undue pressure to purchase a particular commercial product”, is openly flaunted as SuperValu engage in a bidding war for commercial control of schools. It is simply not the job of teacher or school to direct parental shopping, to endorse one supermarket over another or to do the work of commercial marketers. What supermarket will be next?

In opposing Super Valu Kids in Action scheme we encourage people to make their views known to schools and to support direct fundraising appeals from schools who abstain from this commercial initiative. Government must also be made aware that they must back up their professed concern about childhood obesity with proper funding for Irish schools and their PE curricula.

Name:

Sponsor:
National Safety Council and Renault

Classification:
Sponsored Educational Material and competition.

Year: 2005 (2nd year)

Past Record: [top]
This scheme was launched in 2004 involving the same sponsor and similar materials.

Materials: [top]
1st and 2nd classes received (unsolicited) a booklet, poster, certificates featuring the Seatbelt Pledge, stickers and badges. All of these feature the cartoon character Seatbelt Sheriff, the Renault logo and the promotional caption “Renault. The safest car you can drive.”

Comments: [top]
The issue of car safety and seatbelt wearing is an important one and is addressed in the SPHE curriculum (Safety and Protection). It is disappointing and unacceptable that all materials accompanying this scheme aimed at 7 and 8 year olds feature both the logo and current advertising slogan of a single car manufacturer.

Giving children badges, stickers, posters or certificates carrying the blatant assertion that Renault are “The safest cars you can drive” is to bias and commercialise this subject in an inappropriate manner. The placing of a corporate logo on such materials (including the Seatbelt Sheriff’s uniform itself) creates, we feel, an unfair and unproven association in the minds of children. Young children should not be wearing badges with company logos on them in schools – they are not to be “branded” by any cowboy advertiser.

Recommendation: [top]
In keeping with the principle that no logo or advertising bearing material should be placed before students in schools, we reject this scheme as it stands.

	High	Fair	Low
Curricular Relevance
Logo/Brand Presence
Influence on Spending

While teachers may wish to subvert to advertising intent by removing these from the posters and certificates, we recommend the use of other commercial-free material from the National Safety Council (e.g. Be Safe programme, 2000) until such time as the scheme is amended. The issue of road safety pertains equally to all models and makes of car and is far too important to trivialise with commercial slogans. We suggest that parents’ and teachers’ dissatisfaction with this scheme should be expressed to the National Safety Council so that future initiatives may be commercial-free.