Age ranging on children's books

I'm a bit behind the curve here, but wanted to draw your attention if you hadn't seen it in every blog, paper, and place of news: publishers are pushing on with proposing age banding on kid's books. My view is similar to that of many - it's a foolish, simplistic idea, which will stifle a love of reading and is a symptom of the nanny state. Do take a mo to subscribe to the petition at www.notoagebanding.org.
Vanessa has a good write up of the issues, and some good links. Aside from my common-sense reaction that this is a stupid, limiting idea, one of the aspects I find most disturbing is the market research that underpins this move.
Market research can be so elegant, so sophisticated - and so dangerous if misused. Out of interest, the company who ran the research promise to 'use no business jargon or so called TM processes', although I filled my bingo card in a few minutes' browsing (noteworthy examples include 'inter-dependent strands', 'language leaks'; oh, and they 'give ... consumers... a tangible voice inside organisations... which in turn creates a platform for more effective strategic decision-making.' Catchy.) Anyway, sniping aside, the first rule of market research is that it should never be used as a way to force a decision through. It's a data point - not tablets of stone. Methodologies are *never* foolproof. There is always some degree of leading the witness. I haven't seen the full methodology but if the overwhelming result was that age ranging is a good thing, then there will have been a question on the questionnaire or in the interview raising the subject of age ranging - respondents won't just have magicked the idea up, individually. So once the idea is in people's heads, they just have to say whether it would be a good or a bad thing. If the question is pitched just so - 'If a book was stickered to indicate which age group it was suitable for, would that make your purchase decision easier?' for instance - chances are people will tick the box without stopping to think about whether a 7 year old will be mortified at reading a book marked as suitable for a 5 year old. I have witnessed countless reports being prepared to act as some pseudo-science - often from a statistically insignificant sample size - to support an idea a company's board has already decided upon. I bet this is no different.
Anyway. Go sign up. You'll be amongst excellent company - look at the list of people who've already signed.
Comments: 3
Em, thanks for putting this link on the blog. I hope it will encourage people to sign up. As you know, I feel very strongly about this, that it's just another example of government eroding our entitlement to think for ourselves. And speaking as the mother of two sons, one of whom was reading adult books at 11 and the other of whom hasn't read a book in his life as far as I'm aware, it would have been no use to me whatsoever!
Posted by: Sarah Bower on June 11, 2008 08:35 AM
I have to confess that I don't think this is as black and white as it has been painted. I think that the argument is too much in favour of one sort of reader - the able one from a literate home. I have rambled on to that effect on my own blog.
Posted by: Catherine on June 11, 2008 10:32 AM
I can see both sides of this argument. I don't agree with the age-restriction being legally-bound, but has a "recommendation" I can see how it could help a relative buy, say, their niece or nephew a book. A parent will know immediately if they think a book is acceptable, but a member of the extended family may not know exactly the reading ability of the child.
Also, the age shouldn't be so blatantly implied, but rather has a piece of small-print on the back.
Posted by: Chris on June 11, 2008 07:01 PM