The New York Times reports that Disney is trying to capitalize on the massive baby market by infiltrating the hospital immediately after birth:
In this new venture, the company gains access to the maternity hospitals through a company called Our365, a business that sells bedside baby pictures. Our365 pays hospitals for exclusive access, and companies like Disney pay Our365 to promote their own products. Our365 also has Fisher-Price and Procter & Gamble as clients. It is unclear whether mothers know of Our365’s financial ties to these companies.
Certainly hospitals have given new mothers gift bags for decades. In recent years, however, more have banned the practice, citing criticism that free baby formula, for example, discourages breast-feeding. Privacy also is a concern. “This is taking advantage of families at an extremely vulnerable time,” said Jeff McIntyre, director of national policy for the advocacy group Children Now.
Don’t you just love marketing? Disney exec Andy Mooney on infiltrating moms’ minds even before birth:
“To get that mom thinking about her family’s first park experience before her baby is even born is a home run,” Mr. Mooney said, adding that a surprisingly large number of families do not become consumers of Disney products until their children reach preschool age, when they start to watch Disney Channel programs like “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.”
And this is fun (emphasis mine):
The strategy is “frankly overdue, at least given Disney’s strong track record in other childhood niches,” said Philip Kotler, a marketing professor at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University and co-author of “Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit.”
Just in case you were still wondering if anything was still sacred, that’s a no.
— The Center for Public Integrity’s Michael Hudson and David Heath have an excellent investigation of how Indian tribes are helping the skeevy payday-loan industry evade state regulators.
Affiliating with tribes is just one method some payday lenders have used to skirt existing laws and oversight. Others have operated online payday lending sites from offshore headquarters. And still others have claimed that borrowers are actually paying for Internet access with a rebate. In Texas, payday lenders get around state interest-rate limits by calling themselves credit service organizations set up to help consumers repair their credit records.
The states are saying the tribes are letting the companies operate fronts and that they’re really not owned by the tribes.
Colorado authorities contend that Miami Nation Enterprises and SFS weren’t created until the spring of 2005 - as many as two years after they say the lenders had begun doing business. Colorado’s attorney general says that it was only after the state took enforcement actions against the lenders in late 2004 and early 2005 that the tribes incorporated the tribal enterprises and enacted payday loan ordinances.
The California Department of Corporations supported its case with a statement from a whistleblower who had worked for One Click Cash. William James said his former employer was part of a web of companies — as many as 500 in all — that were headquartered in an office complex in Overland Park, Kan., a suburb of Kansas City. Other than mailboxes on Indian land, James said, there was nothing to suggest the companies were owned or run by Native American tribes.
The companies kept their location top secret, barring employees from telling anyone where it was, James said.

First Issue Free!
A strong democracy requires a strong press, and a strong press needs the Columbia Journalism Review. Stay strong and subscribe.
Appealing to the "human spirit" - crass indeed. Or perhaps this post really was a critical part of the battle for a free press, as opposed to just a list of articles whose premises you happened to agree with.
Not that I mind - I usually like the stuff you link to, even if the commentary is a bit over the top at times. And this is one of those times - could you please spare us the laments about how marketing is so unseemly? Is it a problem that Pampers distributes free diapers to new moms? If not, what's wrong with other companies distributing their products, assuming they are not patently harmful (e.g. the formula example)? And what's with the implication that a detailed disclosure of all their affiliations with other companies is necessary?
I imagine it's only necessary to people like this reporter, who find the idea of Disney expanding into any market distasteful on its face. Perhaps they assume that mothers would agree.
C'mon - this article seems to be more about the reporter thinking "no, not another market, not them!" - why else would the issue of their "financial ties" to the company distributing the products even be relevant, or a potential problem?
#1 Posted by Steve, CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 06:57 AM
"Indian tribes are helping the skeevy payday-loan industry evade state regulators."
And good for them. Americans still have somewhere to go for the peaceful, free, voluntary, and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services.
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 01:33 PM
The leftist concept of "protecting the consumer" is only fostering regulation after regulation and growing the government by leaps and bounds. I say let the consumer decide what is a good deal, and that goes for all consumption, including food, medicine, health care, automobiles, appliances, and payday loans for customers with less-than-perfect credit. Get the dumb bureaucrats out of the business of determining what is good for us and what isn't. We can make our own decisions.
#3 Posted by Matt Depp, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 02:41 AM