Oh my god. As a father of two small kids (4 y.o. and ~1.75 y.o), I've been watching this happen in front of me every day for years, yet somehow the implications never registered. Thank you for writing this - and yes, I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree.
Even though we're way below what seems to be average in terms of exposing kids to digital content, at this point my wife's digital activity on Spotify, YouTube, Netflix and Storytel is actually between ~30% (YouTube) to 95% (Spotify) the activity of our kids. Spotify only plays music they like to sing or dance to. Storytel is pretty much only ever playing kids' stories (to the point that even with kids asleep, we sometimes let those stories play as background noise). YouTube much less, plus I tend to yt-dlp any music/show we intend to play to kids often (which probably generates its own interesting telemetry stream, as we play those files from my wife's previous phone). Netflix... Netflix has Paw Patrol.
I bet that her advertising profile is in half really an advertising profile of our kids. And I imagine the effect is much, much stronger with moms that hand their phones to their toddlers (we don't).
On that note, I remember "learning" more than a decade ago that apparently casual games are a huge market, very popular with adult women. I kind of accepted it as fact, even though it went entirely against my life experience ("they must be right and I must be wrong, after all they've measured it, they're doing Data Science!" - thought the naive me, not yet aware just how much bullshit this "data science" is). But now I'm reconsidering - it would make much, much more sense if those results were actually coming from kids (up to teenage years) playing those games on their parents' computers / phones, logged in to their accounts.
EDIT: interesting corollary - IIRC, the thing about causal games and adult women came up around the time Zynga became a big deal, and was quoted to explain and justify investing in/developing these kinds of games. But if it's really just a misclassification - i.e. the market is real, but it's not the women after 30 that play those games, but their kids, then Zynga and all the follow-up companies were effectively targeting kids, while thinking (or pretending) they're targeting adults.
Right, the vast invisible army of 30-something suburban female gamers playing Roblox and Minecraft on weekdays between 3-5pm.
It's worth noting adult advertising fetches a higher rate than child advertising and ad networks will fill at a much greater rate, especially in RTB systems.
So even if they do realize it, it's um, better to stay quiet and pretend.
> Right, the vast invisible army of 30-something suburban female gamers playing Roblox and Minecraft on weekdays between 3-5pm.
Yeah, when you put it that way... I really feel ashamed now, because as I said, I actually believed that, back when it was not Minecraft and Roblox, but a some random mind-dumbingly stupid casual games. I explained it to myself as those women using those games to relax or wind down after a hard day of work (at home, at dayjob, or most likely both). It was almost believable with simple causal games - ones that you can pick up at any moment and play 5 or 15 minutes at a time.
Good point about advertising rates. This seems like a good explanation why this isn't talked about more.
Even though we're way below what seems to be average in terms of exposing kids to digital content, at this point my wife's digital activity on Spotify, YouTube, Netflix and Storytel is actually between ~30% (YouTube) to 95% (Spotify) the activity of our kids. Spotify only plays music they like to sing or dance to. Storytel is pretty much only ever playing kids' stories (to the point that even with kids asleep, we sometimes let those stories play as background noise). YouTube much less, plus I tend to yt-dlp any music/show we intend to play to kids often (which probably generates its own interesting telemetry stream, as we play those files from my wife's previous phone). Netflix... Netflix has Paw Patrol.
I bet that her advertising profile is in half really an advertising profile of our kids. And I imagine the effect is much, much stronger with moms that hand their phones to their toddlers (we don't).
On that note, I remember "learning" more than a decade ago that apparently casual games are a huge market, very popular with adult women. I kind of accepted it as fact, even though it went entirely against my life experience ("they must be right and I must be wrong, after all they've measured it, they're doing Data Science!" - thought the naive me, not yet aware just how much bullshit this "data science" is). But now I'm reconsidering - it would make much, much more sense if those results were actually coming from kids (up to teenage years) playing those games on their parents' computers / phones, logged in to their accounts.
EDIT: interesting corollary - IIRC, the thing about causal games and adult women came up around the time Zynga became a big deal, and was quoted to explain and justify investing in/developing these kinds of games. But if it's really just a misclassification - i.e. the market is real, but it's not the women after 30 that play those games, but their kids, then Zynga and all the follow-up companies were effectively targeting kids, while thinking (or pretending) they're targeting adults.