My semi-scathing review of the Science Centre

Today we went to the Science Centre. Now it's not really my thing -- I'm more of a museum gal. But I had heard such amazing things about Kidspark and Baby Girl adored it last weekend when she went with hubby and we now have a membership, so I thought, it's only four bucks to park.  Why not?

We arrived there at 10am. Now the fact that 52 school buses were parked and empty should have been a sign to go back home. But I thought, school kids are over 8 years old. They won't be at Kidspark.

So we got our tickets (they asked for photo id in a non-nice way and told me that next time I needed to go to the membership desk like they were doing me some sort of a favour at the general admission desk). Then when we waited in yet another line while the heavily peroxided ticket taker had a loud a conversation with another staff member about how "members are always the problem." (At this point I feel a need to mainline some chocolate -- I'm that grumpy.)

The we walked and walked and walked and were directed to level D and then found out that we were supposed to be on level C, only to be told that Kidspark is full. That there are over 300 school group kids (many of whom looked over the age of 8) in there. And that we should try back again around 11:30.

Right. Now I don't like to shoot the messenger, so we went back to level D and wandered around the sports section. The stuff was too old for Baby Girl and I was amazed that very little had changed since I went to the science centre as a kid.  Soon, Level D became flooded with school groups and I figured that meant many of them had vacated Kidspark even though it was only 10:30. So back up we went and got in.

It's a nice space for the under 8 set. Baby Girl loved the water play. And the rollercoaster/ball thing. She also loved the supermarket although I found the Weston sponsorship to be waaaay too heavy handed. As am I in my anti-consumer mindset these days, I hated the fact that almost all of the items on the shelves were President's Choice. And I did notice that, in true Loblaws fashion, some of the oat and honey biscuits were mispriced, and they were out of the things that Baby Girl wanted.

Honestly, I wondered why we had to pay for a membership. Shouldn't they be paying us to be subjected to their marketing blitz?

It's interesting to note how the ROM and the Science Centre seem to differ in their approaches to fundraising. The ROM still seems to seek and attract donors acting somewhat philanthopically: new wings and exhibits are named after people. The Science Centre has embraced more of a sports marketing/corporate sponsorship approach. There is so much more of a corporate presence there -- from the giant labelled pop/candy machines everywhere to the company names slapped all over the walls. It's actually really sad. I noticed that P&G wil be having a named section. Known, as they are, for marketing subtlety, I can only imagine the results. The Fun with Tide exhibit. The Let's Swiffer gallery. Yuck.

I understand the need for corporate dollars. First hand. I do. But I don't understand why organizations like the Science Centre approach things so differently than the ROM or the Gardiner. Is it because philanthropists want to be associated with something more high-brow than the science centre?

Or is it because the science centre is geared towards kids and therefore the marketing companies are willing to give so much more in ordered to have unfettered access to impressionable little minds?

Comments

[rebecca]

I have such bad memories of the science centre when I was a child. I hated, just hated, going there on school trips...

But my daughter loves it. I send the nanny with her. Because I really think I'm still traumatized from my visits in grade-school. It was always so hot in there, and do they still have that stupid thing that makes your hand stand up.

I admire you.

[Laura]

How about a review of Leah McLaren's article? Dying to hear what you have to say about that...

[Diana #2]

That was a very interesting post. You've brought up some important issues. I believe we live in a profit-oriented world. As much as I'd like to believe that human beings do good things out of the kindness of their hearts, I fail to believe that this is truly the case where corporate gains are concerned. That they would bombard young children with a marketing trap in an educational arena astonishes me!

[Laura]

"Fun with Tide"

That could actually be a pretty good, scientific exhibit.

Hmmm. New job for Jen perhaps? I can see the title now:

Jen Lawrence
Creator of Weird and Bizarre Exhibits that Incorporate our Sponsors Products
aka FUBAR
MBA

[Jodi]

To me it's rather obvious that this is a poor approach to sponsorship--and it doesn't serve the Science Center OR Loblaws well.

Like Jenn, it totally grossed me out. It is so blatant in its approach that all I could think about was "the deal" that was behind it. Obviously not money well spent.

Also, one important question is: "What the hell does buying groceries have to do with science?' It has no place there at all.

To me the Science Center is still that stinky old place they made us go on a field trip. Like you, I was expecting something different but found it equally boring and dreary.

Word up on the ROM. I think they've done a superb job. I've bought a family membership and think it's a great place to take a 2 year old.

Amazing that their aren't more options than these 2 attractions catering to kids.

A lost opportunity for the AGO, Gardiner Museum, Bata Museum and others.

[Dianne Scott]

Hey Jen
I was at the science centre on Saturday too...and what a mistake(for a variety of reasons). We arrived at 11:30 and got in, but it was so busy, and my two year old and four year old were always going divergent ways, and there were so many other (big) kids to look out for...by the end I was hoping that Guiness had sponsored a section of the Science Centre and had free samples for all parents.
As for the corporate advertising...As a teacher, I feel that we're always trying to keep the companies at bay. Yet we are underfunded, without books and working computers and sometimes the students don't eat breakfast...so our board sometimes make a deal with the devil for breakfast programs, scholarships, computers...
So I don't have a neat answer to this one.

[scarbie doll]

I don't know Diana, so I'm not going to assume that she or her hubby work in the advertising/marketing worlds. But I don't agree with that comment. While I think it's great that companies sponsor initiatives like the Science Centre, I agree with you Jen that the corporate branding of activities there is rather gross.

I am more of the mind that when you give to charity, your right hand doesn't know what your left hand is doing. You give for the sake of giving. These companies are giving for the sake of receiving copious amounts of unregulated marketing. Much like Old Navy and Baby Gap have their logos on onesies, the primary goal of these companies is to get your kids to know their names as early as possible. I just think that's fucked up.

But perhaps Diana has a point. The ads are never going away. So do we just get angry about them, or do we find away to teach our kids to decipher the bullshit messages they give?

[Diana]

Interesting blog entry today. Dh and I were recently discussing the corporate sponsorship presence at the Science Centre and we actually saw it as a good thing. That the companies were supporting a place like the Science Centre and providing some interesting exhibits for the little ones. Maybe we would have felt differently if it were Molson's or Marboro sponsoring the exhibits, but I'm okay with the Loblaws supermarket in Kidspark - it looks like the supermarket we shop at with all the same products so dear Daughter gets to play with "real stuff".

We're one of those "don't ban the commercials, just use them to teach/talk about consumerism issues" families though.

Just a different take on it. :)