PC Sales Off, Games Buoy Microsoft

While Microsoft reported Thursday that its fiscal third-quarter profits were up 31 percent, revenue from the division that includes the Windows operating system fell 4 percent, to $4.45 billion.

The fall was due in part to an overall decline in PC sales worldwide of about 3.2 percent. Analysts have blamed the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a big market for computers, for part of that decline.

But the sales of tablet computers, like the iPad, were another major factor and that could become a persistent problem for Microsoft. The category of the tablet computer created by Apple and its iPad is expanding quickly. Apple has sold 19.5 million iPads, and all the big PC makers and cellphone makers are making tablets.

Most of the tablets on the market run either Apple’s operating system software or Google’s Android software. Manufacturers have shown little interest in using Microsoft Windows software to run a tablet.

Canalys, a technology market research firm, noted that when tablet computers are grouped with PCs, Apple becomes the fourth largest PC manufacturer in the world with almost 10 percent of the market. The three biggest PC makers, Hewlett-Packard, Acer and Dell, are all making tablets that don’t use Microsoft software.

One other indication of Microsoft’s changing stature: for the first time, Apple’s quarterly profits exceeded Microsoft’s — $5.99 billion compared with $5.23 billion. Last year, Apple surpassed Microsoft in market capitalization and in revenue.

“It’s a huge testament to Apple,” said Colin Gillis, an analyst with BGC Financial. “There is clearly some disruption in the PCs.” However, Mr. Gillis noted that Microsoft Windows 7 is the fastest-selling operating system in history. He thinks Microsoft will probably make a move into tablets later this year with its expected release of Windows 8. In any case, Mr. Gillis said, “PCs aren’t going to disappear.”

Microsoft also has found itself left behind in software for cellphones. It recently acted to ramp up its presence on mobile phones through an agreement with Nokia, the Finnish handset maker that is troubled, but still the largest makers of cellphones in the world. The two companies are working together on new mobile phones that would use Microsoft’s Windows Phone operating system.

Microsoft has seen declines in its operating software before, as recently as last year’s first fiscal quarter when it fell 4 percent.

To be sure, other parts of the company’s business remain strong and helped Microsoft report Thursday that net income in its third quarter rose 31 percent to $5.23 billion, or 61 cents a share, from $4 billion, or 45 cents a share, in the quarter a year ago. Revenue climbed 13 percent, to $16.43 billion, from $14.5 billion.

The company’s Office software, where it has no significant competition, grew 21 percent, to $5.25 billion. Office 2010 is the fastest-selling version of Office ever, Microsoft said, with businesses deploying the software at five times the rate of its predecessor.

However, revenue from Microsoft’s entertainment and devices, which includes the Xbox 360 video game console and the innovative Kinect game controller that interprets gestures and voice commands, gained 60 percent, to $1.94 billion. Kinect, a sensor that lets players interact with video games without having to hold a controller, did particularly well, selling 2.4 million units in the quarter. Customers bought 2.7 million Xbox 360s.

Microsoft blamed the economy for the lower revenue from Windows. Consumers are saving their money rather than buying new computers, said Peter Klein, Microsoft’s chief financial officer. Asked in an interview about the impact of tablets on computer sales, he acknowledged that “it’s part of the story.”

“There are a whole host of consumer purchases vying for the consumer wallet,” Mr. Klein said.

Sales of Windows for consumers PCs fell 8 percent in the quarter, Microsoft said. Windows for netbooks, the small laptops that had been big sellers until tablets came along, declined 40 percent, highlighting the rapid shift in computer buying habits.

Revenue from Microsoft’s online properties like the MSN portal and Bing search engine rose 14 percent, to $648 million. The unit lost $726 million in operating income, continuing a pattern of losses.

Two years ago, Microsoft signed an agreement to take over Yahoo’s search business to create a more formidable rival to Google. However, Yahoo’s chief executive, Carol A. Bartz, said last week that the partnership had not yielded the expected financial results for Yahoo and that technical glitches by Microsoft were to blame.

Downbeat reports about personal computer shipments in early 2011 had raised questions about Microsoft’s future dominance. Microsoft has developed an operating system for smartphones, but it is on relatively few phones. It does not have software that makers of tablet computers want. In after-hours trading, Microsoft’s shares lost 1.4 percent. They had ended regular trading at $26.71, up 33 cents, or 1.25 percent.

 

PC Sales Off, Games Buoy Microsoft

While Microsoft reported Thursday that its fiscal third-quarter profits were up 31 percent, revenue from the division that includes the Windows operating system fell 4 percent, to $4.45 billion.

The fall was due in part to an overall decline in PC sales worldwide of about 3.2 percent. Analysts have blamed the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a big market for computers, for part of that decline.

But the sales of tablet computers, like the iPad, were another major factor and that could become a persistent problem for Microsoft. The category of the tablet computer created by Apple and its iPad is expanding quickly. Apple has sold 19.5 million iPads, and all the big PC makers and cellphone makers are making tablets.

Most of the tablets on the market run either Apple’s operating system software or Google’s Android software. Manufacturers have shown little interest in using Microsoft Windows software to run a tablet.

Canalys, a technology market research firm, noted that when tablet computers are grouped with PCs, Apple becomes the fourth largest PC manufacturer in the world with almost 10 percent of the market. The three biggest PC makers, Hewlett-Packard, Acer and Dell, are all making tablets that don’t use Microsoft software.

One other indication of Microsoft’s changing stature: for the first time, Apple’s quarterly profits exceeded Microsoft’s — $5.99 billion compared with $5.23 billion. Last year, Apple surpassed Microsoft in market capitalization and in revenue.

“It’s a huge testament to Apple,” said Colin Gillis, an analyst with BGC Financial. “There is clearly some disruption in the PCs.” However, Mr. Gillis noted that Microsoft Windows 7 is the fastest-selling operating system in history. He thinks Microsoft will probably make a move into tablets later this year with its expected release of Windows 8. In any case, Mr. Gillis said, “PCs aren’t going to disappear.”

Microsoft also has found itself left behind in software for cellphones. It recently acted to ramp up its presence on mobile phones through an agreement with Nokia, the Finnish handset maker that is troubled, but still the largest makers of cellphones in the world. The two companies are working together on new mobile phones that would use Microsoft’s Windows Phone operating system.

Microsoft has seen declines in its operating software before, as recently as last year’s first fiscal quarter when it fell 4 percent.

To be sure, other parts of the company’s business remain strong and helped Microsoft report Thursday that net income in its third quarter rose 31 percent to $5.23 billion, or 61 cents a share, from $4 billion, or 45 cents a share, in the quarter a year ago. Revenue climbed 13 percent, to $16.43 billion, from $14.5 billion.

The company’s Office software, where it has no significant competition, grew 21 percent, to $5.25 billion. Office 2010 is the fastest-selling version of Office ever, Microsoft said, with businesses deploying the software at five times the rate of its predecessor.

However, revenue from Microsoft’s entertainment and devices, which includes the Xbox 360 video game console and the innovative Kinect game controller that interprets gestures and voice commands, gained 60 percent, to $1.94 billion. Kinect, a sensor that lets players interact with video games without having to hold a controller, did particularly well, selling 2.4 million units in the quarter. Customers bought 2.7 million Xbox 360s.

Microsoft blamed the economy for the lower revenue from Windows. Consumers are saving their money rather than buying new computers, said Peter Klein, Microsoft’s chief financial officer. Asked in an interview about the impact of tablets on computer sales, he acknowledged that “it’s part of the story.”

“There are a whole host of consumer purchases vying for the consumer wallet,” Mr. Klein said.

Sales of Windows for consumers PCs fell 8 percent in the quarter, Microsoft said. Windows for netbooks, the small laptops that had been big sellers until tablets came along, declined 40 percent, highlighting the rapid shift in computer buying habits.

Revenue from Microsoft’s online properties like the MSN portal and Bing search engine rose 14 percent, to $648 million. The unit lost $726 million in operating income, continuing a pattern of losses.

Two years ago, Microsoft signed an agreement to take over Yahoo’s search business to create a more formidable rival to Google. However, Yahoo’s chief executive, Carol A. Bartz, said last week that the partnership had not yielded the expected financial results for Yahoo and that technical glitches by Microsoft were to blame.

Downbeat reports about personal computer shipments in early 2011 had raised questions about Microsoft’s future dominance. Microsoft has developed an operating system for smartphones, but it is on relatively few phones. It does not have software that makers of tablet computers want. In after-hours trading, Microsoft’s shares lost 1.4 percent. They had ended regular trading at $26.71, up 33 cents, or 1.25 percent.

 

Gender Games: College Teams, Relying on Deception, Undermine Gender Equity

At the University of South Florida, more than half of the 71 women on the cross-country roster failed to run a race in 2009. Asked about it, a few laughed and said they did not know they were on the team.

At Marshall University, the women’s tennis coach recently invited three freshmen onto the team even though he knew they were not good enough to practice against his scholarship athletes, let alone compete. They could come to practice whenever they liked, he told them, and would not have to travel with the team.

At Cornell, only when the 34 fencers on the women’s team take off their protective masks at practice does it become clear that 15 of them are men. Texas A&M and Duke are among the elite women’s basketball teams that also take advantage of a federal loophole that allows them to report male practice players as female participants.

Title IX, passed in 1972 at the height of the women’s rights movement, banned sex discrimination in any federally financed education program. It threw into sharp relief the unequal treatment of male and female athletes on college campuses.

Over the next 40 years, the law spawned a cultural transformation: the number of women competing in college sports has soared by more than 500 percent — to 186,000 a year from fewer than 30,000 in 1972.

But as women have grown to 57 percent of American colleges’ enrollment, athletic programs have increasingly struggled to field a proportional number of female athletes. And instead of pouring money into new women’s teams or trimming the rosters of prized football teams, many colleges are turning to a sleight of hand known as roster management. According to a review of public records from more than 20 colleges and universities by The New York Times, and an analysis of federal participation statistics from all 345 institutions in N.C.A.A. Division I — the highest level of college sports — many are padding women’s team rosters with underqualified, even unwitting, athletes. They are counting male practice players as women. And they are trimming the rosters of men’s teams.

“Those of us in the business know that universities have been end-running Title IX for a long time, and they do it until they get caught,” said Donna E. Shalala, the president of the University of Miami.

Each year, institutions must report their male and female participation numbers to the Department of Education. And even though the numbers would not be used in a formal investigation, many colleges manipulate them to avoid bringing about one. The embarrassment that comes with a public inquiry or a lawsuit can motivate them to do what it takes to stay under the radar.

Shrinking budgets also spur universities to use these tactics, said Jake Crouthamel, a former Syracuse athletic director. “It’s easier to add more people on a roster than it is to start a new sport,” he said.

Yet football, the pride of many universities and a draw for alumni, rarely faces cuts. The average Division I football team went from 95 players 30 years ago to 111 players in 2009-10.

“Football is the elephant in the whole thing,” Mr. Crouthamel said. “That’s the monster.”

Advocates for men’s teams say roster management hurts their cause as well, because colleges tend to eliminate men’s sports rather than increase women’s sports to reach parity. Officials have also cut the size of men’s teams, compromising their competitiveness.

“I think roster management is almost a cuss word,” said Tommy Bell, the athletic director at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. He wants to restore a men’s track team, he said, but to do so, he must trim men’s spots elsewhere. “I hate doing it,” he said.

According to the most current federal numbers, women make up 53 percent of the student body at Division I institutions yet only 46 percent of all athletes. And that discrepancy does not take into account all the tactics used to boost the numbers artificially.

Roster management came under scrutiny last year when a federal judge ruled that Quinnipiac University in Connecticut had violated Title IX by engaging in several questionable practices, including requiring that women cross-country runners join the indoor and outdoor track teams so they could be counted three times. The judge found earlier that Quinnipiac had been padding women’s rosters by counting players, then cutting them a few weeks later. Quinnipiac athletic officials declined to comment, but in its appeal, the university said the judge’s conclusion that women were required to be on all three teams was not supported by evidence.

Russlynn H. Ali, the assistant education secretary who heads the Office for Civil Rights, which is charged with enforcing Title IX, said the Quinnipiac case was “a check on what some were doing, either knowingly or unwittingly.”

Karen Crouse, Griffin Palmer and Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.

 

In Online Games, a Path to Young Consumers

Lesly likes this online game so much that she plays twice a week, often e-mailing her creations to friends. “I always send them to my cousin in Los Angeles,” she said.

But this is not just a game — it is also advertising. Create a Comic, as it is called, was created by General Mills to help it sell Honey Nut Cheerios to children.

Like many marketers, General Mills and other food companies are rewriting the rules for reaching children in the Internet age. These companies, often selling sugar cereals and junk food, are using multimedia games, online quizzes and cellphone apps to build deep ties with young consumers. And children like Lesly are sharing their messages through e-mail and social networks, effectively acting as marketers.

When these tactics revolve around food, and blur the line between advertising and entertainment, they are a source of intensifying concern for nutrition experts and children’s advocates — and are attracting scrutiny from regulators. The Federal Trade Commission has undertaken a study of food marketing to children, due out this summer, while the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity has said one reason so many children are overweight is the way junk food is marketed.

Critics say the ads, from major companies like Unilever and Post Foods, let marketers engage children in a way they cannot on television, where rules limit commercial time during children’s programming. With hundreds of thousands of visits monthly to many of these sites, the ads are becoming part of children’s daily digital journeys, often flying under the radar of parents and policy makers, the critics argue.

“Food marketers have tried to reach children since the age of the carnival barker, but they’ve never had so much access to them and never been able to bypass parents so successfully,” said Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an advocacy coalition. Ms. Linn and others point to many studies that show the link between junk-food marketing and poor diets, which are implicated in childhood obesity.

Food industry representatives call the criticism unfair and say they have become less aggressive in marketing to children in the Internet era, not more so.

Since 2006, 17 major corporations — including General Mills, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Burger King — have taken a voluntary pledge to reduce marketing of their least nutritious brands to children, an effort they updated last year to include marketing on mobile devices.

The pledge says the companies, if they choose to market to children, will only advertise food choices that are “better for you,” said Elaine D. Kolish, director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an arm of the Better Business Bureau that oversees the pledge.

“Compliance is excellent,” she said of the pledge. She noted that in recent months, companies had shut down several child-centric sites, including General Mills’s popular virtual world Millsberry, while other sites have been changed to focus on adults, like those of Kellogg’s Pop Tarts and Pepsi’s Cap’n Crunch. And she said General Mills and Post Foods had cut or pledged to cut the amount of sugar in some cereals.

Only rarely do these major companies violate their pledges, she said: “It’s pretty darn infrequent and it’s not willful.”

Nutrition experts say that the voluntary pledges are fraught with loopholes, and that “better for you” is a relative term that allows companies to keep marketing unhealthful options.

Whatever criticism they may invite, the companies have good financial reason to pitch to children. James McNeal, a former marketing professor at Texas A&M University, estimates conservatively that children influence more than $100 billion in food and beverage purchases each year, and well over half of all cold cereal purchases.

Children “have power over spending in the household, they have power over the grandparents, they have power over the babysitters, and on and on and on,” said Professor McNeal, who has researched family behavior for decades and consulted for major companies on marketing to children. “All of that is finally being recognized and acknowledged.”

Some parents, like Lesly Lopez’s mother, Toribia Huerta, 26, say the online marketing is subverting their efforts to improve their children’s diets. Ms. Huerta said Lesly and her younger siblings pester her for sugary cereals they see in the games and for snacks like Baby Bottle Pops, a candy with a game site that the girl also visits often.

“They ask me for it constantly. They’re hard to resist when they whine,” Ms. Huerta said, speaking in Spanish through a translator. She blames her daughter’s love of sugar for her dental problems, including many cavities.

But Ms. Huerta also said the food sites seemed fun and safe: “They look like good games for her age.”

Games for Goods

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting from New York.

 

In Online Games, a Path to Young Consumers

 

Lesly likes this online game so much that she plays twice a week, often e-mailing her creations to friends. “I always send them to my cousin in Los Angeles,” she said.

But this is not just a game — it is also advertising. Create a Comic, as it is called, was created by General Mills to help it sell Honey Nut Cheerios to children.

Like many marketers, General Mills and other food companies are rewriting the rules for reaching children in the Internet age. These companies, often selling sugar cereals and junk food, are using multimedia games, online quizzes and cellphone apps to build deep ties with young consumers. And children like Lesly are sharing their messages through e-mail and social networks, effectively acting as marketers.

When these tactics revolve around food, and blur the line between advertising and entertainment, they are a source of intensifying concern for nutrition experts and children’s advocates — and are attracting scrutiny from regulators. The Federal Trade Commission has undertaken a study of food marketing to children, due out this summer, while the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity has said one reason so many children are overweight is the way junk food is marketed.

Critics say the ads, from major companies like Unilever and Post Foods, let marketers engage children in a way they cannot on television, where rules limit commercial time during children’s programming. With hundreds of thousands of visits monthly to many of these sites, the ads are becoming part of children’s daily digital journeys, often flying under the radar of parents and policy makers, the critics argue.

“Food marketers have tried to reach children since the age of the carnival barker, but they’ve never had so much access to them and never been able to bypass parents so successfully,” said Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an advocacy coalition. Ms. Linn and others point to many studies that show the link between junk-food marketing and poor diets, which are implicated in childhood obesity.

Food industry representatives call the criticism unfair and say they have become less aggressive in marketing to children in the Internet era, not more so.

Since 2006, 17 major corporations — including General Mills, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Burger King — have taken a voluntary pledge to reduce marketing of their least nutritious brands to children, an effort they updated last year to include marketing on mobile devices.

The pledge says the companies, if they choose to market to children, will only advertise food choices that are “better for you,” said Elaine D. Kolish, director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an arm of the Better Business Bureau that oversees the pledge.

“Compliance is excellent,” she said of the pledge. She noted that in recent months, companies had shut down several child-centric sites, including General Mills’s popular virtual world Millsberry, while other sites have been changed to focus on adults, like those of Kellogg’s Pop Tarts and Pepsi’s Cap’n Crunch. And she said General Mills and Post Foods had cut or pledged to cut the amount of sugar in some cereals.

Only rarely do these major companies violate their pledges, she said: “It’s pretty darn infrequent and it’s not willful.”

Nutrition experts say that the voluntary pledges are fraught with loopholes, and that “better for you” is a relative term that allows companies to keep marketing unhealthful options.

Whatever criticism they may invite, the companies have good financial reason to pitch to children. James McNeal, a former marketing professor at Texas A&M University, estimates conservatively that children influence more than $100 billion in food and beverage purchases each year, and well over half of all cold cereal purchases.

Children “have power over spending in the household, they have power over the grandparents, they have power over the babysitters, and on and on and on,” said Professor McNeal, who has researched family behavior for decades and consulted for major companies on marketing to children. “All of that is finally being recognized and acknowledged.”

Some parents, like Lesly Lopez’s mother, Toribia Huerta, 26, say the online marketing is subverting their efforts to improve their children’s diets. Ms. Huerta said Lesly and her younger siblings pester her for sugary cereals they see in the games and for snacks like Baby Bottle Pops, a candy with a game site that the girl also visits often.

“They ask me for it constantly. They’re hard to resist when they whine,” Ms. Huerta said, speaking in Spanish through a translator. She blames her daughter’s love of sugar for her dental problems, including many cavities.

But Ms. Huerta also said the food sites seemed fun and safe: “They look like good games for her age.”

Games for Goods

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting from New York.

 

In Online Games, a Path to Young Consumers

 

Lesly likes this online game so much that she plays twice a week, often e-mailing her creations to friends. “I always send them to my cousin in Los Angeles,” she said.

But this is not just a game — it is also advertising. Create a Comic, as it is called, was created by General Mills to help it sell Honey Nut Cheerios to children.

Like many marketers, General Mills and other food companies are rewriting the rules for reaching children in the Internet age. These companies, often selling sugar cereals and junk food, are using multimedia games, online quizzes and cellphone apps to build deep ties with young consumers. And children like Lesly are sharing their messages through e-mail and social networks, effectively acting as marketers.

When these tactics revolve around food, and blur the line between advertising and entertainment, they are a source of intensifying concern for nutrition experts and children’s advocates — and are attracting scrutiny from regulators. The Federal Trade Commission has undertaken a study of food marketing to children, due out this summer, while the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity has said one reason so many children are overweight is the way junk food is marketed.

Critics say the ads, from major companies like Unilever and Post Foods, let marketers engage children in a way they cannot on television, where rules limit commercial time during children’s programming. With hundreds of thousands of visits monthly to many of these sites, the ads are becoming part of children’s daily digital journeys, often flying under the radar of parents and policy makers, the critics argue.

“Food marketers have tried to reach children since the age of the carnival barker, but they’ve never had so much access to them and never been able to bypass parents so successfully,” said Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an advocacy coalition. Ms. Linn and others point to many studies that show the link between junk-food marketing and poor diets, which are implicated in childhood obesity.

Food industry representatives call the criticism unfair and say they have become less aggressive in marketing to children in the Internet era, not more so.

Since 2006, 17 major corporations — including General Mills, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Burger King — have taken a voluntary pledge to reduce marketing of their least nutritious brands to children, an effort they updated last year to include marketing on mobile devices.

The pledge says the companies, if they choose to market to children, will only advertise food choices that are “better for you,” said Elaine D. Kolish, director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an arm of the Better Business Bureau that oversees the pledge.

“Compliance is excellent,” she said of the pledge. She noted that in recent months, companies had shut down several child-centric sites, including General Mills’s popular virtual world Millsberry, while other sites have been changed to focus on adults, like those of Kellogg’s Pop Tarts and Pepsi’s Cap’n Crunch. And she said General Mills and Post Foods had cut or pledged to cut the amount of sugar in some cereals.

Only rarely do these major companies violate their pledges, she said: “It’s pretty darn infrequent and it’s not willful.”

Nutrition experts say that the voluntary pledges are fraught with loopholes, and that “better for you” is a relative term that allows companies to keep marketing unhealthful options.

Whatever criticism they may invite, the companies have good financial reason to pitch to children. James McNeal, a former marketing professor at Texas A&M University, estimates conservatively that children influence more than $100 billion in food and beverage purchases each year, and well over half of all cold cereal purchases.

Children “have power over spending in the household, they have power over the grandparents, they have power over the babysitters, and on and on and on,” said Professor McNeal, who has researched family behavior for decades and consulted for major companies on marketing to children. “All of that is finally being recognized and acknowledged.”

Some parents, like Lesly Lopez’s mother, Toribia Huerta, 26, say the online marketing is subverting their efforts to improve their children’s diets. Ms. Huerta said Lesly and her younger siblings pester her for sugary cereals they see in the games and for snacks like Baby Bottle Pops, a candy with a game site that the girl also visits often.

“They ask me for it constantly. They’re hard to resist when they whine,” Ms. Huerta said, speaking in Spanish through a translator. She blames her daughter’s love of sugar for her dental problems, including many cavities.

But Ms. Huerta also said the food sites seemed fun and safe: “They look like good games for her age.”

Games for Goods

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting from New York.

 

In Online Games, a Path to Young Consumers

Lesly likes this online game so much that she plays twice a week, often e-mailing her creations to friends. “I always send them to my cousin in Los Angeles,” she said.

But this is not just a game — it is also advertising. Create a Comic, as it is called, was created by General Mills to help it sell Honey Nut Cheerios to children.

Like many marketers, General Mills and other food companies are rewriting the rules for reaching children in the Internet age. These companies, often selling sugar cereals and junk food, are using multimedia games, online quizzes and cellphone apps to build deep ties with young consumers. And children like Lesly are sharing their messages through e-mail and social networks, effectively acting as marketers.

When these tactics revolve around food, and blur the line between advertising and entertainment, they are a source of intensifying concern for nutrition experts and children’s advocates — and are attracting scrutiny from regulators. The Federal Trade Commission has undertaken a study of food marketing to children, due out this summer, while the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity has said one reason so many children are overweight is the way junk food is marketed.

Critics say the ads, from major companies like Unilever and Post Foods, let marketers engage children in a way they cannot on television, where rules limit commercial time during children’s programming. With hundreds of thousands of visits monthly to many of these sites, the ads are becoming part of children’s daily digital journeys, often flying under the radar of parents and policy makers, the critics argue.

“Food marketers have tried to reach children since the age of the carnival barker, but they’ve never had so much access to them and never been able to bypass parents so successfully,” said Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an advocacy coalition. Ms. Linn and others point to many studies that show the link between junk-food marketing and poor diets, which are implicated in childhood obesity.

Food industry representatives call the criticism unfair and say they have become less aggressive in marketing to children in the Internet era, not more so.

Since 2006, 17 major corporations — including General Mills, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Burger King — have taken a voluntary pledge to reduce marketing of their least nutritious brands to children, an effort they updated last year to include marketing on mobile devices.

The pledge says the companies, if they choose to market to children, will only advertise food choices that are “better for you,” said Elaine D. Kolish, director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an arm of the Better Business Bureau that oversees the pledge.

“Compliance is excellent,” she said of the pledge. She noted that in recent months, companies had shut down several child-centric sites, including General Mills’s popular virtual world Millsberry, while other sites have been changed to focus on adults, like those of Kellogg’s Pop Tarts and Pepsi’s Cap’n Crunch. And she said General Mills and Post Foods had cut or pledged to cut the amount of sugar in some cereals.

Only rarely do these major companies violate their pledges, she said: “It’s pretty darn infrequent and it’s not willful.”

Nutrition experts say that the voluntary pledges are fraught with loopholes, and that “better for you” is a relative term that allows companies to keep marketing unhealthful options.

Whatever criticism they may invite, the companies have good financial reason to pitch to children. James McNeal, a former marketing professor at Texas A&M University, estimates conservatively that children influence more than $100 billion in food and beverage purchases each year, and well over half of all cold cereal purchases.

Children “have power over spending in the household, they have power over the grandparents, they have power over the babysitters, and on and on and on,” said Professor McNeal, who has researched family behavior for decades and consulted for major companies on marketing to children. “All of that is finally being recognized and acknowledged.”

Some parents, like Lesly Lopez’s mother, Toribia Huerta, 26, say the online marketing is subverting their efforts to improve their children’s diets. Ms. Huerta said Lesly and her younger siblings pester her for sugary cereals they see in the games and for snacks like Baby Bottle Pops, a candy with a game site that the girl also visits often.

“They ask me for it constantly. They’re hard to resist when they whine,” Ms. Huerta said, speaking in Spanish through a translator. She blames her daughter’s love of sugar for her dental problems, including many cavities.

But Ms. Huerta also said the food sites seemed fun and safe: “They look like good games for her age.”

Games for Goods

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting from New York.

 

In Online Games, a Path to Young Consumers

Lesly likes this online game so much that she plays twice a week, often e-mailing her creations to friends. “I always send them to my cousin in Los Angeles,” she said.

But this is not just a game — it is also advertising. Create a Comic, as it is called, was created by General Mills to help it sell Honey Nut Cheerios to children.

Like many marketers, General Mills and other food companies are rewriting the rules for reaching children in the Internet age. These companies, often selling sugar cereals and junk food, are using multimedia games, online quizzes and cellphone apps to build deep ties with young consumers. And children like Lesly are sharing their messages through e-mail and social networks, effectively acting as marketers.

When these tactics revolve around food, and blur the line between advertising and entertainment, they are a source of intensifying concern for nutrition experts and children’s advocates — and are attracting scrutiny from regulators. The Federal Trade Commission has undertaken a study of food marketing to children, due out this summer, while the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity has said one reason so many children are overweight is the way junk food is marketed.

Critics say the ads, from major companies like Unilever and Post Foods, let marketers engage children in a way they cannot on television, where rules limit commercial time during children’s programming. With hundreds of thousands of visits monthly to many of these sites, the ads are becoming part of children’s daily digital journeys, often flying under the radar of parents and policy makers, the critics argue.

“Food marketers have tried to reach children since the age of the carnival barker, but they’ve never had so much access to them and never been able to bypass parents so successfully,” said Susan Linn, a psychiatry instructor at Harvard Medical School and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, an advocacy coalition. Ms. Linn and others point to many studies that show the link between junk-food marketing and poor diets, which are implicated in childhood obesity.

Food industry representatives call the criticism unfair and say they have become less aggressive in marketing to children in the Internet era, not more so.

Since 2006, 17 major corporations — including General Mills, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Burger King — have taken a voluntary pledge to reduce marketing of their least nutritious brands to children, an effort they updated last year to include marketing on mobile devices.

The pledge says the companies, if they choose to market to children, will only advertise food choices that are “better for you,” said Elaine D. Kolish, director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, an arm of the Better Business Bureau that oversees the pledge.

“Compliance is excellent,” she said of the pledge. She noted that in recent months, companies had shut down several child-centric sites, including General Mills’s popular virtual world Millsberry, while other sites have been changed to focus on adults, like those of Kellogg’s Pop Tarts and Pepsi’s Cap’n Crunch. And she said General Mills and Post Foods had cut or pledged to cut the amount of sugar in some cereals.

Only rarely do these major companies violate their pledges, she said: “It’s pretty darn infrequent and it’s not willful.”

Nutrition experts say that the voluntary pledges are fraught with loopholes, and that “better for you” is a relative term that allows companies to keep marketing unhealthful options.

Whatever criticism they may invite, the companies have good financial reason to pitch to children. James McNeal, a former marketing professor at Texas A&M University, estimates conservatively that children influence more than $100 billion in food and beverage purchases each year, and well over half of all cold cereal purchases.

Children “have power over spending in the household, they have power over the grandparents, they have power over the babysitters, and on and on and on,” said Professor McNeal, who has researched family behavior for decades and consulted for major companies on marketing to children. “All of that is finally being recognized and acknowledged.”

Some parents, like Lesly Lopez’s mother, Toribia Huerta, 26, say the online marketing is subverting their efforts to improve their children’s diets. Ms. Huerta said Lesly and her younger siblings pester her for sugary cereals they see in the games and for snacks like Baby Bottle Pops, a candy with a game site that the girl also visits often.

“They ask me for it constantly. They’re hard to resist when they whine,” Ms. Huerta said, speaking in Spanish through a translator. She blames her daughter’s love of sugar for her dental problems, including many cavities.

But Ms. Huerta also said the food sites seemed fun and safe: “They look like good games for her age.”

Games for Goods

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting from New York.

 

Braves 4, Mets 0; Braves 4, Mets 2: Stay in Atlanta Costs Mets Two Games and a Pitcher

“Ideally, in a perfect world, yeah,” Collins said of Bay. “Which you know, now it’s not really perfect.”

?If by that he meant that things could not get much worse, then yes, the world is not perfect for the Mets right now. With their pitching staff in a state of near disarray because of heavy use and Chris Young’s shoulder injury, they were forced to play a doubleheader they wanted no part of, and not surprisingly, they were swept by the Atlanta Braves.

?In games that are starting to have an air of ominous inevitability, the Mets lost twice, 4-2 in the first game and 4-0 in the second, a game in which they were held to two hits and made one costly base-running mistake.

?They have dropped seven games in a row, 10 of 11, and their 4-11 record is the worst in the National League.

From ownership to the front office to the players, the Mets desperately wanted to get off to a fast start this season. Instead, the losses are coming in bunches, with four in three miserable days. The seven-game slide is their longest losing streak since the end of the 2004 season, and it is the first time since 1982 that the Mets endured four losses in consecutive doubleheaders.

? “Hopefully this is kind of an eye-opening little streak for us — that we need to get better, we need to improve, and there’s a lot of things we need to work on,” David Wright said.

?But it may also be an eye-opening streak for the fans, who are increasingly being turned off. That, obviously, is not good news for the Mets’ organization, which needs to generate more revenue through tickets sales and sponsorships to help stabilize their murky financial situation.

? The player the Mets will turn to now to stabilize matters on the field is coming from Class AAA Buffalo. Dillon Gee will be called up to pitch Sunday in place of the right-handed Young, who was placed on the 15-day disabled list with biceps tendinitis in his right shoulder, making Saturday even worse.

?Young, who had been impressive in his first two starts, going 1-0 with a 1.46 earned run average, developed soreness in his shoulder, which is worrisome even if he and the Mets have played down the severity.

?Young had arthroscopic shoulder surgery in 2009 and made only four starts in 2010 because of lingering soreness. He said this injury was not related to the old one, and that it should not prevent him from coming off the disabled list when he is eligible April 26.

?“The irritation of the biceps tendon is just lingering, and the best thing for it is rest,” he said.

?Young said he had not had a magnetic resonance imaging test on the shoulder, in part because he did not think it would be helpful, even though M.R.I.’s are often standard with any injury involving the shoulder or elbow.

Young had been scheduled to pitch Friday, but when the shoulder pain flared, his start was pushed to Sunday and the relief pitcher D. J. Carrasco was called upon to replace him. Then Friday’s game was rained out, and the Braves rescheduled it as part of a doubleheader Saturday, which irritated the Mets because of their vulnerable pitching. Instead of being able to skip Carrasco, they then had to start him and Gee in two divisional games.

The Mets protested to Major League Baseball, but the rescheduling decision was upheld. Collins was asked if he understood why the Braves would choose to press their competitive advantage.

“Do I understand?” he responded. “I don’t really care to comment on it at all. They told me I’ve got to play. I’ve got to play.”

Once they did, it did not go so well. In the first game, the Braves hit four solo home runs, including one from Chipper Jones — the 45th homer of his career against the Mets — two from Alex Gonzalez and one from the rookie Freddie Freeman.

In the second game, Braves starter Jair Jurrjens pitched so well that Collins did not even feel the need to yell at his team after the game.

? Jurrjens allowed only two hits through seven innings, one of them a leadoff double by Daniel Murphy in the sixth inning with the Mets trailing, 3-0. Inexplicably, Murphy tried to steal third base and was thrown out, which earned him a lecture from Collins in the dugout runway.

?“It was an awful play,” Murphy said. “There was nothing that could have been going through my mind that could have justified that.”

?After the first game, Collins, who held a team meeting Wednesday that has been followed by four straight losses, said he remained confident that the Mets would rebound.

“I can tell you, we’re going to break out, and when we do we’re going to win a lot of baseball games,” he said.

?But for now, the Mets are tied with the Seattle Mariners with the most losses in baseball. For a team that needed a fast start, it is a perfectly awful way to begin.

 

World Bank report finds selling virtual goods in games more profitable than 'real' economy

 A report commissioned by the World Bank's infoDev unit has cast fresh light on one of the more fascinating aspects of our brave new interconnected world: the virtual economy. The "third-party gaming services industry" -- where wealthy but impatient players have someone else grind away at online games for them in exchange for monetary reward -- is one of the focal points of the study, chiefly owing to it having generated revenues in the region of $3 billion in 2009 and now serving as the primary source of income for an estimated 100,000 young folks, primarily in countries like China and Vietnam. What's encouraging about these findings is that most of the revenue from such transactions ends up in the country where the virtual value is produced, which contrasts starkly with some of the more traditional international markets, such as that for coffee beans, where the study estimates only $5.5 billion of the $70 billion annual market value ever makes it back to the producing country. The research also takes an intriguing look at the emerging phenomenon of microwork, which consists of having unskilled workers doing the web's version of menial work -- checking images, transcribing bits of text, bumping up Facebook Likes (naughty!), etc. -- and could also lead to more employment opportunities for people in poorer nations. To get better acquainted with the details, check the links below or click past the break.