In “School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues,” Public Citizen found that school advertising programs are providing less than half of one percent of school revenues, and often far less. Public Citizen surveyed the nation’s 25 largest school districts; 10 reported that they maintained in-school advertising programs or were considering such programs. No program reported raising more than $250,000. No program reported raising more than .03 percent of the school system’s overall budget. 

Read the press release here.

Read the full report here.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Senator,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that the Kentucky House of Representatives has recently passed House Bill 30, which would allow Kentucky school boards to sell advertising on school buses. We write to urge you to vote against this Bill when it moves to the Senate. We understand that the financial pressures Kentucky schools currently face make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children and the community to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining the educational and child development mission of Kentucky schools. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

Childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing school bus advertising – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Advertising on school buses conveys market rather than civic values and impedes the ability of the education system to function as an open space where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious students can grow.

Some advocates of school bus advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. House Bill 30 prohibits alcohol, tobacco, and political or campaign advertisements on school buses. While these are certainly important restrictions, they do nothing to prevent advertising for a wide range of items that are potentially harmful to children, including junk foods and sexualized or violent media. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In states across the country that permit bus advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students. By permitting advertising on school buses, the school system is endorsing the products and services advertised.

This Bill has potentially damaging consequences for both the safety of children and the economic health of school districts. National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services opposes advertising on school buses on the grounds that they may distract both bus drivers and other drivers on the road, endangering students. In addition to safety concerns, HB 30’s restrictions around tobacco, alcohol, and political advertising, as well as any other restrictions particular school boards may choose to implement, open it up to potentially costly First Amendment challenges. While the Bill includes a subsection that calls for removal of all advertising should restrictions on advertising content be subject to constitutional challenges, this provision will not protect already cash-strapped schools from incurring legal costs.

Weighted against the harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of school bus advertising are minuscule. School districts that permit bus advertising generate revenues that are a drop in the bucket when compared to their total budgets. In 2011, the Houston Independent School District, which has 203,000 students, generated only $12,250 from bus advertising. With a budget of $1.58 billion, school bus advertising revenues in Houston amount to a tiny fraction of one percent of the total budget. Also in the Houston area, Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District generated $68,987 from bus advertising in 2010-2011, a figure which amounts to 0.01 percent of the district’s total budget. In Colorado Springs, bus advertising brings in $40,000 to the 27,000 students in the School District – 0.01 percent of the Distirct’s total budget of $300,000. Given the relatively insignificant revenues that bus advertising is likely to bring to the state’s school, the risks are certainly not worth it for Kentucky’s families.

We urge you to vote against the Senate Bill that would allow school districts in Kentucky to sell advertising on school buses. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

Public Citizen believes that proper regulation of the marketing and advertising of private student loans is a crucial component of helping students to make informed decisions about which financial services and products are right for them. In an ideal world, federal aid would be sufficient to fully meet all students’ needs. Given that this is not the case, and that some students must rely on private lenders to pursue higher education, students must be protected from exploitative education lenders who fail to offer sufficient information to allow students to make sound financial decisions.

To read the full comments, click here

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Davey,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity, and democracy.

According to recent news reports, the MBTA has hired the firm IMG Worldwide to determine if there is a market for selling naming rights to Boston subway “T” stations. We write to strongly urge you not to move forward with plans to sell naming rights to T stations. Any names we attach to public sites and services should reflect history and honor civic virtue – they should not be vehicles for crass commercialism. While we recognize the financial imperatives that motivate you to seek alternative revenue sources, we strongly believe that this approach undermines the integrity of the city’s public transportation system and harms its citizens.

The sale of corporate naming rights to T stations will force citizens to pronounce the name of corporations in order to describe their destination or location. With each utterance of whatever corporation chooses to pay for this privilege, transit-takers are compelled to promote the brands of products and services. Which corporations will co-opt citizens into their advertising schemes? Will it be ones that contribute to marketing-related diseases like obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and smoking related illnesses? Or will subway riders travel to stations named for corporate felons, big business cheats, or major polluters? When a public service is named for a commercial interest, the city is explicitly endorsing the products or services associated with that name. These long term ethical and social concerns must take precedence over the desire for a quick buck.

T stations ought to have names that are associated with their geographical locations or nearby sites of historical importance. How long will it be before the corporation purchasing naming rights to a station is defunct, bankrupt, or bought out? What will the MBTA do when the name of a T station turns into the name associated with the next big corporate scandal? (Consider, for example, the case of the once-named Enron Field in Houston.)

As you know, attempts to sell naming-rights to T stations have not been successful in the past. Taken together, the lack of interest from corporations and the vehement opposition of citizens to these past plans should be enough to suggest that selling naming rights is still not the right direction for the MBTA. Not only does this plan compromise the public nature of transit services in the Boston area, it is also unlikely to alleviate the financial strain the MBTA is currently facing. In other cities, transit naming rights schemes have not yielded significant revenues. In Philadelphia, the recent deal between Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and AT&T will yield $3 million over five years. In New York, a twenty year deal to rename a Metro Transit Authority station after Barclay’s will yield only $200,000 per year. Were the MBTA able to raise similar revenues from its planned naming rights sales, they would amount to a drop in the bucket when compared to the reported $150 million deficit the MBTA faces for fiscal year 2013. Moreover, private corporations stand to benefit from any revenues the Transit Authority is able raise; consulting firms in the aforementioned examples have taken significant cuts of sales revenues, as they will in Boston.

Americans already face a deluge of advertising everywhere they go. In the historic city of Boston, we urge you to protect citizens from having to face still more advertising for the corporations you propose to name T stations after. We ask that you shield citizens from confronting the names of products and brands that are not only a nuisance and drain on our culture, but often injurious to our health. We hope the MBTA will stand up and avoid going down the (relatively unprofitable) path that neighboring cities on the East Coast have taken. Not everything should be for sale. Please help us to stop the spread of commercialism into more of our public spaces.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. O’Neil,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity, and democracy.

We understand that the Rochester Public School Board has recently approved a measure that allows increased advertising on school sites. We write to urge the board to reconsider this policy and to end any plans to allow commercial advertising within schools. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Rochester Public Schools’ educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing corporate naming rights and in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of in-school commercial advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines can curb potential harms. The recent policy measure (Policy 905, Advertising and Sponsorships) approved by the Rochester Public School Board includes a provision allowing for advertising in District athletic facilities, auditoriums, hallways, or “any other facilities or property where such advertising would not solely be directed at students.” No advertising will be permitted in classrooms. While keeping advertising out of classrooms is certainly a good decision, it does little to protect students from the effects of the advertising you are permitting throughout the rest of the educational environment. Though advertising in hallways and auditoriums may not be solely directed toward students, it will nonetheless primarily target students. The Board has adopted other guidelines prohibiting advertising that promotes alcohol, drugs, and violence. Yet, even such guidelines cannot ensure that students will be protected. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such a scheme are minuscule. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place.

We urge you to reconsider your decision to allow increased advertising on Rochester Public Schools’ properties. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

December 7th, 2011
Sue Dickinson, Chair Person
School Board
Flagler County Public Schools
1769 East Moody Blvd., Bldg. #2
Bunnell, FL 32110

Dear Ms. Dickinson,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that the Flagler County Public Schools School Board has recently changed its policy to allow a significant increase in commercial advertising on school properties and websites. As well, the board is currently considering hiring a consulting firm to assist in the sale of advertising space. We write to urge the Board not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining the Flagler County Public Schools’ educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of school advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. Flagler’s recently revised guidelines restrict advertising that promotes alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs or other products and services that are harmful to minors. While these are certainly important restrictions, they do not offer sufficient guidance to weed out the wide range of potentially harmful items advertisers may pitch to children. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such a scheme are minuscule. The Dayton News-Journal reports that the district hopes to make up for $3.5 million in budget cuts this year, which have led to shortened school days and the elimination of 42 teaching positions. We recognize the devastating effects of such cuts. However, in districts across the country that have embarked on advertising programs, revenues typically amount to a tiny fraction of these cuts. Moreover, private consulting firms like those you are currently seeking typically take anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of advertising revenues.

We urge you to reconsider your decision to allow increased advertising on Flagler’s school properties and to hire a consulting firm to assist with this process. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

Note: The Dec. 8 meeting concerns the dangers of birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin

This morning, less than 48 hours from the beginning of Thursday’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee meeting to discuss the risks of blood clots from the birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin, I was notified in a phone call from FDA’s Office of Advisors and Consultants that I could not participate as a member of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee in that meeting because of what the agency calls my “intellectual conflict of interest.” The instance of intellectual conflict of interest cited is our newsletter Worst Pills, Best Pills News (and WorstPills.org), in which we have categorized both drugs as “do not use,” initially because they can cause dangerous elevations in blood potassium levels and, more recently, because they also significantly increase the risk of blood clots in the legs (venous thromboembolism or VTE) with the subsequent increased risk of blood clots in the lungs (pulmonary embolism). The caller stated that the decision had been agreed upon by Dr. Janet Woodcock, head of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and sent to the commissioner’s office.

I pointed out that it is likely, if not certain, that other members of the committee and of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, both attending the meeting on Thursday, have previously decided to stop prescribing the drugs or to keep prescribing them based on their knowledge of the increasing number of studies documenting this serious risk (some studies do not show the risk). In their personal medical practice, then, they acted on the basis of published information to advise women for or against the drugs. If intellectual conflict of interest means being informed and subsequently having opinions on a drug, many more members of advisory committees, even without a financial conflict of interest, would have to be excluded because they know too much. The resulting committees would be noticeably less well-informed than now is the case, and the FDA and the public would be the losers.

I have served on this committee for more than three and a half years and have devoted an enormous amount of time to preparing for and participating and voting in the meetings concerning the approval or market withdrawal of many drugs. On four previous occasions – in meetings to consider Darvon, Avandia, Meridia and the Ortho Evra Patch (the subject of this Friday’s meeting) – I have voluntarily recused myself from participating on the grounds that – unlike the present situation – Public Citizen had petitions pending to ban these drugs pending before the agency.

To take advantage of my participation, I was told today, I would instead be given time during the public session of the meeting to present my views – an opportunity I was offered and accepted in the four cases cited above. Today, I declined, because I believe that my full participation, including the ability to ask questions and to vote on the issues, would have far greater influence on the matter being discussed than a limited public session presentation.

After discussing my views on this exclusion with Jayne Peterson of the Advisors and Consultants Office, who had made the original call to me this morning, she agreed to take the matter up again with other parts of CDER and get back to me by 11 a.m. today. She did; the new decision was that I could participate in the meeting, with the same limitation accorded to the drug industry representative: speaking but not voting. I declined, stating that this policy of intellectual conflict of interest was irrational and damaging to both the agency and the public.

For members of a scientific and technical advisory committee, possessing information and expert views on matters within the purview of the committee is not a conflict of interest. To the contrary, qualified experts are likely to have developed views on a variety of subjects based on their professional experience, including their own independent research and their review of data compiled by other researchers. The fact that experts have acquired information and reached conclusions in the course of their work should not be a disqualifying factor and, as a legal matter, does not render the advisory committee not “fairly balanced,” under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Disqualifying advisory committee members because they have views on scientific matters threatens the utility of advisory committees in several ways. First, it deprives agencies of advice from the very experts most qualified to give it – those who have actual knowledge and research experience concerning the subjects to be addressed by the committee. Second, it deters qualified scientists from accepting appointment to advisory committees out of concern that their very expertise may become a matter of distracting controversy. And finally, it encourages politicization of scientific matters as interested parties seek to exclude scientists whose views are inconvenient to them.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=3472

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Neely,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that the Lodi Unified School District trustees have recently hired Education Funding Partners to sell advertising on school sites and naming rights to District assets. We write to urge the trustees not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Lodi Unified’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing corporate naming rights and in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of granting corporate naming rights and in-school advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such a scheme are minuscule. Reports indicate that Education Funding Partners (EFP), the company Lodi has partnered with for its advertising program, estimates up to $100,000 in revenues from such a program (Record, 11/16/2011). This amounts to less than 0.05 percent of the District’s total expenditures budget for the 2011-2012 school year. These relatively insignificant revenues generated from commercial advertising in your schools will not make a significant dent in Lodi Unified’s budget woes. Moreover, EFP, a private company, stands to take a 20 percent cut of the revenues generated from this potentially harmful program.
We urge you to reconsider your decision to partner with EFP and ask that you not move forward with the sale of advertising on Lodi Unified School District’s properties and the sale of naming rights to school assets. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Morris,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that the Board of Education of the Douglas County School System is considering permitting commercial advertising on its properties; we write to urge the Board not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Douglas County’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing corporate naming rights and in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of school advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from advertising on school properties.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such schemes are minuscule. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place.
We urge you to stop any plans for commercial advertising within the Douglas County School System. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Superintendent Carvalho,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We write to urge the Miami-Dade County School District not to move forward with plans to allow increased commercial advertising on school properties. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Miami-Dade’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing corporate naming rights and in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of granting corporate naming rights and allowing in-school advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. For example, though Miami-Dade’s Advertising and Commercial Activities Policy (9700.01) does specify that advertising of food products that are prohibited from being sold to students on campuses will not be allowed, this may be insufficient to prevent advertising of unhealthy foods. Though the District’s wellness policy promotes healthier options, it still permits the sale of some “junk food” items. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. The District’s guidelines may not be able to prevent such products from being advertised. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from advertising on school properties.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such schemes are minuscule. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place. The Miami Herald (Oct. 19) reports that the District is currently negotiating with advertising management companies who broker agreements between advertisers and schools. Such companies often take a large cut of advertising revenues for themselves, profiting of the commercialization of our education system while leaving few financial benefits for schools.

We urge you to stop any plans for further advertising within the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and to remove any existing advertisements from school properties. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert