Trivializing Teens

Cynthia Peters

The good news is: It takes a constant bombardment of advertising, articles, and advice to convince teens that they ARE their skin-exfoliators, hair de-frizzers, and lip moisturizers.

The bad news is: There IS a constant bombardment of advertising, articles, and advice to convince teens that they are their skin-exfoliators, hair de-frizzers, and lip moisturizers.

The goal of teen magazines is to provide an advertising platform to marketers. That's how they make their money and keep stockholders happy: They sell advertising. Teen magazines thus compete with each other to provide the most attractive context for advertisers, not, as some might think, to meet the needs of the most readers. They still must address themselves to readers, though, so what they do is publish articles – many of which are virtually indistinguishable from advertising – that find different ways of telling teens about their flaws and pointing out purchasable remedies.

But don't teens have a lot of insecurities about clothes, looks, and sexuality, and aren't these insecurities a factor in teen magazines' choice to publish articles on “getting kissed by midnight,” strategies for being “naughty and nice,” how to “think pink for flirty fun,” and treating “your most kissable feature to a colorful makeover”? It may be true that being on the brink of adulthood is a time of uncertainty for many young people, but my hunch is that teen magazines actually work hard to push teens to feel less confident, more than they play off already existing insecurities. Teen magazines want a readership that will be vulnerable to their advertisers' message, so, in every issue, they pummel readers with the news that they are what they buy.

Over and over again, human agency is portrayed as the power to purchase, self-worth is measured in breast dimensions, and happiness is a direct result of hair volume. One ad in Seventeen Magazine says, “It's who I am,” and then offers check-boxes next to “eyes,” “lips,” and “face.” Articles throughout the magazine back up the advertiser's message by reporting on the beauty regimen required to get ready for a date, the key beauty treatments every girl must carry in her purse, and the latest in belly- and thigh-exposing eveningwear.

Independent attitudes, free thinking, rebelliousness, and just plain intelligence are roped in by advertisers and article-writers alike, and put in service of brand names. An ad for sneakers that change color in daylight tells you to “Get Out for a Change.” “Question Authority!” screams another ad. “Authority,” in this case, is the retailer at the point of purchase. The “question” is: “Do you take plastic?” Articles reinforce the idea that teen agency is best expressed as a series of superficial consumer choices. “Readers' Choice Polls” allow fans to choose their favorite stars. The February 2001 “Teen People” award went to Britney Spears who perfectly sums up the idea that your true inner self is best expressed in attire: “The moment I feel like I'm getting held down or someone is telling me what to wear – not that I'll wear anything crazy, just hot pants and a bra – I'm like, ‘No!' I have to do my own thing.”

In a stunningly cynical marketing ploy, another “Teen People” poll poses as an investigation of materialism in today's society. In fact, the poll collects important information that can be used to construct consumer profiles of Teen People's readership – age, gender, importance of brand name, saving habits, etc. as well as direct questions such as, “How do you and your friends shop?” and “If you had all the money in the world, would you…” (The multiple choice answers to the latter question, by the way, only pertain to shopping. In other words, shopping is the only conceivable thing you can do with money.)

Does it really matter, though, that giant media conglomerates mobilize their massive resources in order to beat teens senseless with the equation: human expression equals consumer choices? Perhaps the U.S.'s greatest crime against young people is that almost one-fifth of them live in poverty. (When considering all races and both genders by age group, the U.S. census bureau (1999) finds that the age groups “under 18” and “18-24” to have the largest percentages of people living in poverty.) Or that almost a million children per year in the U.S. are victims of child “maltreatment” – neglect, abuse or sexual molestation (according to the Federal publication, “Child Maltreatment, 1998”). Or that public schools repeatedly fail the children who need them the most. (On January 10, 2001, a State Supreme Court Justice ruled that children who attend public school in New York City are illegally deprived of a sound education, according to the New York Times.)

Many youth do indeed experience all these hardships, an appalling fact in this resource-rich, wealthy, and powerful country. All the more appalling, then, that the immense power of the mass media aligns itself against teens. As if kids didn't have enough to deal with! Consider the fact that Teen People is owned by Time, Inc., a subsidiary of Time-Warner, which is now (or soon to be) a subsidiary of AOL-Time-Warner – all of which adds up to powerful print, television, and online opportunities to reach young people and move them seamlessly between “news,” advertising, and one-dimensional images of teens as fashion-conscious rule-followers. Seventeen Magazine is owned by Primedia, Inc., publishers of all Murdoch magazines (among many others), elementary and secondary level classroom materials, and Channel One – the news and advertising source piped “free of charge” into numerous U.S. classrooms.

What if teens had a voice? What if corporate ownership and advertising delivery didn't determine the content in teen magazines? You might get something like “Teen Voices,” published by the non-profit Teen Express in Boston, Massachusetts (www.teenvoices.com). Their winter 2000 includes the following:

• A special feature about teens dealing with popularity and identity. It includes first-person stories, poetry, and strategies for “being yourself.” There's not a single mention of make-up; taking a stand against injustice emerges as a positive form of expression; and racism is offered as one of the reasons some girls are ostracized. There's a reading list, word puzzle, and line drawings throughout. All the authors, illustrators, and poets are teens.

• A “Food Corner” with actual recipes!! (No dieting strategies!!)

• An article about how cigarette companies market to teens by playing on ideas that are important to them, like finding “your voice” and getting “connected.”

• And, under the heading, “Your activism does make a difference…” a reprint of a letter to Perry Ellis complaining of sexist advertising and a response from Perry Ellis agreeing, and stating that the ad would be withdrawn.

The bad news: Corporate media monopolies assault teens with a constant barrage of messages that reinforce gender stereotypes, promote unattainable images of beauty, and convince them that shopping is fundamental to human expression.

The good news: Teens are not an easy sell. A quick perusal of teen magazines shows that the media giants understand they have to be relentless in their portrayal of teens as image-obsessed consumers.

The even better news: Teens resist. Given a non-advertising based outlet, they have plenty to say about what is important to them, the complex ways to create identity, and the multiple ways to express agency in the world.