DISNEY AND THE FOOL

No need to beg your 14-year-old neighbor to babysit little Bobby when you have something that will entertain and teach your child. Introducing “Baby Einstein,” also known as the electronic babysitter.

For eight years, Disney has advertised its “Baby Einstein” DVDs as being a god send. And I believed them. I bought the discs and thought that after letting my daughter watch them, she’ll be just what the titled implied: a Baby Einstein.

Boy was I wrong. I’m not saying that Jaelah isn’t intelligent, but the “Baby Einstein” collection (including “Baby Mozart”, “Baby Shakesphere” and “Baby Galileo”) was not what it claimed to be.

According to the NY Times, Disney finally admitted that the DVDs products are not “educational,” very different from how they were first advertised. In fact, there is no scientic evidence to prove this is true. Oh, the horror. 

Even though the company claimed that the DVD would “combine visual and linguistic experiences that facilitate the development of the brain in infants ages one to 12 months,” this was not true. (via Newsweek)

And the trickery continues.

In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that children under the age of 2 should not watch any television. Welp, there goes the electronic babysitter concept.

To avoid a class-action lawsuit, Disney is now offering full refunds to any DVD bought since 2004. (Click here for details and mail-in certificate.) Refunds must be requested by March 4, 2010.

How’s that for deceptive advertising?

(If you want more, check out the Atlantic Wire to read reactions of parents and industry experts.)

THE EFFECTS OF THE INFANT MEDICINE RECALL

Back in October 2007, when I picked Jonas (my son) up from daycare, I noticed a news article posted on the door. The article, cut from a local newspaper, stated that there was a recall on all infant cold medication.

It went on to say the U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel recommended a ban on over-the-counter cough and cold medicines for children younger than six. (Read a similar article here.)

The article said medications including ingredients such as decongestants, expectorants, and antihistamines, are not effective and are potentially dangerous to children under two.

I was shocked and a little frightened. I owned about four of the medications listed, and had just in a couple days prior to the published article, had given my son one of the products.

My daughter is now almost four and there has never been a time when I was doubted the medicine’s effectiveness or feared for her life after giving her a dosage. Whenever she didn’t feel well, I drove to the local pharmacy and picked up the medicine that best suited her needs. Jonas, 7 months, has been to hell and back trying to fight off every cold he gets.

It is almost impossible to keep your child free from germs, especially when that child goes to daycare or school and are surrounded by children who, although not purposely, willingly share germs more than they do their favorite truck or doll.

After doing more research on the recall, I learned that the medications were voluntarily taken off the shelves as a safety precaution to protect infants and toddlers.

A little confused, I spoke with a few physicians, who informed me the medicines are safe and effective when used as directed, and most parents are using them appropriately, but there have been rare patterns of dosage misuse leading to overdose. Which basically means that they medicines were recalled as a safety precaution, or maybe to prevent lawsuits, which have been rolling in.

The mother of one child is suing the maker of one type of medicine, which she blames for her child’s death.  That story can be seen here.

What is a company to do when you are told that something you made has taken a life? I know that the public relations and law departments of these drug makers have been through a lot to try to defend their companies and the quality of its products, while at the same time, show sympathy for the families who have experienced the loss of an innocent and defenseless child.

What would you do if you were an employee in one of these departments? As a future PR professional and as a parent, I would find it hard to be on one side of the case when I can personally relate to the other.

There are many options a company has to resolve an issue like this. It could:
A.      Test the products’ effectiveness and health hazards.
B.      Recall the products to avoid any additional lawsuit claims and potential deaths.
C.      Ignore the claims.

In this case, all of the drug companies making the medications decided to choose option B. However, I would have chose B as a temporary solution while performing the tasks in option A. After finding out that the medicines are fine, I would put them back on the shelves. There are a lot of issues with this case, and fair opinions that both sides could argue, proving his point.

The key question is: Do the risks of restocking the shelves beat the odds that a child may die because of it?