The goal of this project was to develop an educational social media marketing campaigns designed to educate middle school youth on the complex issue of digital literacy and responsible online behavior.

1. !
Praesent!!
congue!sapien!
sit!amet!justo.!
!!
YOUR PRIVACY
ISN’T JUST A
GAME
LEARN MORE
ABOUT
THE PRIVACY
GAME
& HOW TO
SURVIVE THE
SHADOWS AT
WWW.YOUTHPRIVACYPROTECTION.ORG
FOLLOW US ON
YOUTUBE AND
EXPERIENCE
VITUAL
REALITY!
YOUTUBE.COM/YOUTHPRIVACYPROTECTION
CHOOSE YOUR
CHARACTER
Our characters Katie
& Scott are just
like you! They are
trying to survive
the game and
avoid the shadows.
The shadows are
trying to steal their
personal online
information. Their
goal is to keep their
information private!
RULES OF THE GAME
This is your Power Bar and you want to keep
it at 100! The more personal information
you give out, the more you drain your Power
STAY AWAY FROM THE
SHADOWS!
The shadows are third
party companies and
data brokers who want
to collect and use
your information.
The more information
you feed the shadows,
the more you drain
your Power Bar. You
do not want the
shadows to drain your
power or its
GAME OVER!
!
THE
PRIVACY
GAME

2. !
!
HOW TO LEVEL UP!
When you are online you are vulnerable to
unknown threats. Your activity is monitored,
collected, sold, and combined with other
information about you.
Think of how much you share online that tells
everyone about you. Your name, addresses,
birthdays – your past schools and current
employment, the things you like, the pages
you search, the friends you keep, the places
you’ve been – even where you are and what
you’re doing right now.
Educate yourself to stay
safe online and the
shadows cannot take your
information!
SHADOWS FOLLOW
WHEREVER YOU CLICK
Your personal information is not the only
information wanted by the shadows.
Everything & anything you do online can
be tracked and used by companies. Here are
some examples:
• If you like an article on Facebook,
Facebook will place similar articles on your
timeline.
• If you screenshot a friend’s story on
Snapchat, Snapchat will remember that.
• If you pin a picture to your board on
Pinterest, Pinterest will show you similar
posts.
• If you favorite a tweet, your followers will
see that.
• If you Geotag or hashtag your location
on Instagram, anyone can see your post
even if you have a private account.
• If you watch a video on YouTube, YouTube
recommends videos based on what you
have watched.
WHAT ARE THE
SHADOWS DOING
WITH MY
INFORMATION?
THE SHADOWS ARE
ALWAYS FOLLOWING
YOU
Why does this matter?
Shadows will be watching
your every move. Once
you share your personal information online,
they drain your Power Bar of its Privacy
Power. When they have your information, you
will have no control over what happens to
it.
IT’S NEVER GAME
Be cautious of where you
provide your private and
personal information. When
companies
collect information, you no
longer have control over
what happens to the
information. Your personal
information can be used
again you in ways that hurt
you in the future. Then it
could be…
Data Brokers
Data brokers are companies that collect
consumer information and then resell the
data they have compiled to other companies
(Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2015). (Watch
“Data Brokers” on 60 minutes). They gather
your information through sources like social
media sites you have signed up for, contests
you entered where you provided your
personal information, government public
records or by purchasing them from other
data brokers.
Third Party Companies
Data brokers also give access to your
personal information to third party companies.
They analyze your information and add it to
other information they have about you. They
also share and/or sell this information with
advertisers and marketers.
GAME OVER

3. A Youth-Driven Information Privacy Education Campaign (YDIPEC)
Dr. Kristen Walker
MKT 459 | T/TH 12:30pm - 1:45pm
October 7, 2015
A.S.K.D.
Samantha Bernabe
Kimberly Gonzalez
Alejandro Manriquez
David Kano
1

4. Executive Summary
The main issue of the Youth-Driven Information Privacy Education
Campaign (YDIPEC) is Middle School Youth are unaware of the potential
vulnerability and risk involved with their online interactions.
The internal portion focuses on the history and current situation of the
issue. The privacy policies that were implemented have regulations to address the
issue and provide for protection for middle school youth, but in relation to the
current situation, the privacy policies are not really beneficial. We found that
there is use of YouTube in the classroom for education purposes, which is
creating risks for the middle school youth. Also, there is an increased technology
use in middle school youth with is creating a higher risk for online risk. Privacy
policies for social media sites state that the user must be 13 years or older, but
from the focus groups, most had an account from a social media site because they
either made it on their own, had permission from their parents, or were forced by
their parents to make an account. Overall, there were more weaknesses that were
found than strengths.
Our Political and Tech trend analysis found that parents are wary of the
potential risks of data breach and identity theft that may be associated with the use
of this new technology, but there is also an opportunity to further safeguard
children’s online interactions. We also found that Educational Social Networking
sites such as Edmodo create an opportunity for educators to bring awareness
around social issues. Overall, we found that there were many threats that may put
children at risk.
Outside of YDIPEC’s issue around middle school youth being unaware of
the potential vulnerability and risk involved with their online interactions this
issue also affects teachers, sibling and parents of middle school youth and as well
as parents, siblings and teachers of children ages 0-9.
2

5. Table of Contents
A. Internal 4
I. History & Current Situation 4
i. Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights 4
ii. COPPA: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act 5
iii. CIPA: Children’s Internet Protection Act 5
iv. FTC: Federal Trade Commission 6
v. FCC: Federal Communications Commission 7
vi. Current Situation: Where the issue stands now 7
II. Current Target Market & Current Consumers 9
i. Influences & Enablers 11
III. Current Distribution & Promotional Strategies 13
i. Privacy Policies 13
ii. Organizations Addressing the Issue 15
B. External 19
VI. Competitive Analysis 19
VII. Environmental Trends 26
I. Political Analysis 26
II. Technology Trends 27
III. Economic 28
IV. Demographic Trends 28
V. Social Trends 29
3

6. VIII. Potential Prospects 30
S.W.O.T 31
I. Strengths 32
II. Weaknesses 33
III. Opportunities 35
IV. Threats 36
References 37
4

7. A. Internal
I. History & Current Situation
i. Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
“According to the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment is the ‘right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized’” (Walker, 2015, pg.
50). There was a lack of regulation and this became ineffective because there
were data breaches so the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights was created.
The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights “is supposed to protect individuals from
their personal information being released and creating transparency as to how data
is collected and stored by marketers. It will help govern how data brokers use
consumer data as well as the businesses that use targeted advertising from the
data” (Walker, 2015, pg. 50). “Transparency will give consumers a right to
information about privacy and security practices that could be easily understood”
(Walker, 2015, pg.50). It’s a strength to have the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
because users are being educated on how their information is collected in terms
5

8. that is simple to understand. It also encourages the use to be an active user and not
a passive user.
ii. COPPA: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) “protect[s] children
under the age of 12 from having their names, birthdays, and addresses posted for
other to see” (Walker, 2015, pg. 46). Under COPPA, “it prohibits Web sites
targeting young children under the age of 13 from collecting information on them
without parental permission” (Walker, 2015, pg.46).
COPPA has requirements that need to be met under this privacy act. “The
rule required that there would be links to privacy notices and requests for parental
permission on the website” and “COPPA requires that large and legible links to
privacy policies are to be placed on each page that children’s personal information
is collected” (Walker, 2015, pg. 46). This is a strength because it provides
protection for users who are younger than 13 years old. Asking permission gives
knowledge to the parents that their child’s information is going to be shared.
From the first focus group, we can see that 3 out of the 4 kids had their parents
sign them up for a social media platform, but one kid did it on their own (DTF
Focus Group, 2015). This shows that information is still being collected from
children under 13 without parental permission. Although COPPA requires there to
6

9. be “large and legible links” they still have accounts on social media so overall,
COPPA is not so effective.
iii. CIPA: Children’s Internet Protection Act
Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) “address[es] concerns over the
internet” (Walker, 2015, pg. 48). “Instead of imposing criminal penalties, CIPA
‘focuses on the recipients of Internet transmissions’ and requires that Internet
safety policies are implemented to protect minors” (Walker, 2015, pg. 48). This is
a challenge because although they are protecting minors by requiring “internet
safety policies are implemented,” they are not doing anything about the criminal
committing the act of stealing information. If there are no consequences, it can
influence more users to steal personal information.
“CIPA requires that three categories of materials be blocked from the
public computers: obscene materials, child pornography, and any sexual material
harmful to minors” (Walker, 2015, pg. 48). This is strength because filtering
content pertaining to these categories are protecting children from content that is
inappropriate for their age.
The third category of materials blocked from public computers is “any
sexual materials harmful to minors” (Walker, 2015, pg. 48). “The third category
not only refers to nudity or sexual activities, but may also filter out health and
sexual health material” (Walker, 2015, pg. 48). This is also a strength because
content like that should only be taught and shown in an appropriate setting – an
7

10. example would be the classroom or in a health education class – and the filter
provides online protection from inappropriate content.
iv. FTC: Federal Trade Commission
The efforts made on an industry level to protect users online are implemented by
the Federal Trade Commission. “The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a
federal agency that regulates privacy and data security” (Walker, 2015, pg. 45).
“In order to protect consumers, the FTC conducts investigations, sue those that
violate the law, develop rules to create a vibrant marketplace, and educate people
about their rights and responsibilities” (Walker, 2015, pg. 45).
“The education approach focuses on informing consumers and increasing their
understanding of an issue or problem. While education can be successful, it will
not always address issues that consumers already understand may cause them
harm and yet choose to engage in anyway” (Walker, 2015, pg. Glossary,
Education). This is a challenge because users know they have rights and
responsibilities as online users, but middle school youth are not educated about
the risks that can come from online interactions so they engage in online
interactions anyway.
v. FCC: Federal Communications Commission
8

11. The government has made efforts to protect users online through the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). “The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) is an independent U.S. government agency overseen by
Congress that ‘regulates interstate and international communications by radio,
television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and
U.S. territories’” (Walker, 2015, pg. 45). This is a strength because efforts are
being made to protect interactions through more than just online interactions. This
will protect 10-12 year olds from communicating with unknown people.
vi. Current Situation: Where the issue stands now
The issue is Middle School Youth are unaware of the potential vulnerability and
risk involved with their online interactions. “The education approach focuses on
informing consumers and increasing their understanding of an issue or problem.
While education can be successful, it will not always address issues that
consumers already understand may cause them harm and yet choose to engage in
anyway (i.e. smoking, texting while driving)” (Walker, 2015, Glossary) This is a
weakness since Middle School Youth are unaware of the vulnerability and risk,
they need to be educated about the risks that can come from online interactions.
Some Middle School Youth are educated about the risks, but some are still
vulnerable to give up their personal information because a challenge about
education is it sometimes doesn’t address the issue.
9

12. Below are examples of what is currently happening with Middle School Youth in
relation to the history of the issue.
a. YouTube in the Classroom
YouTube is currently being used in the classroom and at home for education
purposes. “Teachers can also use YouTube to post lecture videos for students to
review or find other videos that are relevant to the lesson. They can also use other
YouTube channels such as Khan Academy to help students with extra learning
and/or avoid falling behind. To change the way students learn, some teachers have
used what is referred to as a flipped classroom. A flipped classroom is a concept
that allows students to watch videos outside of class and then apply what they
learn in class with the teacher” (Walker, 2015, pg. 18). This is a challenge
because students are now being more active on the internet for education purposes
and need to be protected while using YouTube. “COPPA requires that large and
legible links to privacy policies are to be placed on each page that children’s
personal information is collected” (Walker, 2015, pg. 46), but YouTube still
tracks the user's video content habits and are collecting information on them if
they have a YouTube Account. (Google, 2015)
b. Increased Technology Use
According to the focus groups, more Middle School Youth are using and
are aware of smartphones, iPads, tablets, etc. “About 75% of teens [aged 13-17
10

13. years old] own or have access to a smartphone, which may allow teens to access
the Internet and go online daily while 30% of teens only have a basic cell phone”
(Walker, 2015, pg. 11), but the student surveys show that 71% of the Middle
School Youth had their own smartphones or had access to a smartphone
(Qualtrics, 2015). COPPA “protect[s] children under the age of 12 from having
their names, birthdays, and addresses posted for other to see” (Walker, 2015, pg.
46). It is a challenge to protect children’s names, birthdays and addresses since
they have access to a smartphone account to purchase apps and they have access
to the internet which include social media.
II. Current Target Market & Current Consumers
Our campaign’s current target market is Middle School Youth aged 10 -12 years
old. The reason they are targeted is because social media privacy policies require
the user to be at least 13 years or older to create an account and access the site.
This group is supposedly a protected group because of COPPA and CIPA, but the
challenge is bringing their awareness about the risks involved with online
interactions. The following are their awareness of the issue.
“A survey has shown that children under 13 years old who are on social
networking services are mostly aware that strangers can access their photos and
personal information, yet there a quarter of children are still unaware of this
access by strangers” (Course Reader, 2015, pg. 31). This is a strength because the
11

14. issue states Middle School Youth are unaware of the potential vulnerability and
risk involved with their online interactions and the survey confirms that there are
children under 13 who are not aware of the access by strangers.
“About 60% of teens ages 12-13 and 40% of teens ages 14-17 find it difficult to
control their privacy using the privacy settings provided” (Course Reader, 2015,
pg. 30). “Clearly these statistics show that educating youth about digital literacy
issues is needed for children as they start using social networking sites and
sharing their information online” (Walker, 2015, pg. 31). Digital literacy is “the
ability to use digital tools to find, access, evaluate resources, create media, and
communicate with others” (Walker, 2015, pg. 2). Since some of their privacy
settings are not controlled correctly, they need to be educated on why it’s
important to control their privacy information. As said in the course reader, “they
need to understand that what they share online can be accessed and used by third
parties, such as advertisers and they should be aware that once that information is
provided, it is stored, packaged, and sold to third parties” (Course Reader, 2015,
pg. 31).
i. Influences & Enablers
a. Parents
12

15. ​“​Parents are important influencers who can protect their children from Internet
threats. Some parents take action and monitor what their children do online and
discuss with them what they should and should not share online, however some
parents are themselves unaware of the dangers of online interactions. Research
has shown that young people ‘whose parents had not discussed Internet safety
with them were far less safety conscious’ because they may have not been aware
of the risks” (Course Reader, 2015, pg. 39). This is a challenge because parents
have the ability to protect their children, but not all parents take action on
explaining the do’s and don’ts of online safety. Parents are also enablers. “In the
digital age, when a person is an enabler, they may take an action to make the use
of a computer program, application, or device possible (e.g. registering a child as
a user of a social media account) (Course Reader, 2015, pg. 38). Griffith from
Focus Group 1 mentioned that his mom made him get a Facebook (DTF Focus
Group, 2015). Parent’s social media habits creates a challenge to protect and
monitor children’s information and social media interactions.
b. Teachers
Teachers are influencers to middle school youth. “When students are unable to go
to their parents for advice, they are able to and often turn to their teachers. 70% of
teens have said that a teacher or an adult from school have given them advice
about Internet safety” (Walker, 2015, pg. 42).
13

16. “Teachers may also be enablers because they encourage young children to
use the Internet for school (assignments, etc.), but do not really teach them about
the risks that may occur when the students access the information online”
(Walker, 2015, pg. 43). This is a challenge because this leads to risks with the
children’s information being shared online. It is also a challenge because schools
may not have the means to add a course to their existing curriculum that teaches
children about the risks associated with online interactions.
c. Friends
Friends are influencers to middle school youth. Information from one of our focus
group suggests that children (who are 10-12 years old) are interacting through
social media sites that require a users to be 13 or older (DTF Focus Group #2,
2015). This goes to show that there is a challenge in protecting the youth from
signing up for social media accounts because if their friends have an account with
the social media site, they are going to be influenced to make an account too to
interact. With this example, all their friends have Instagram and were most likely
influenced to make an account by their friends.
d. Older Siblings
Older siblings also influence their younger siblings social media habits.
After probing with the children in our focus groups, we found that some children
joined social media sites because their older sibling was on it (DTF Focus Group
#2, 2015). This is a challenge to protect middle school youth from the risks
14

17. because older siblings who are 13 years and older have social media accounts
(because they are allowed to according to the privacy policies) and their younger
siblings 13 years and younger follow and imitate what they are seeing.
III. Current Distribution & Promotional Strategies
i. Privacy Policies
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are amongst the most popular social
media sites used by children (Qualtrics, 2015). All social media sites require that
the user is 13 years or older to make an account. Each site has a “Terms of Use”
or “Terms of Service” that the user needs to mark they agree with, or they cannot
sign up to use the social media site.
For example, under Facebook’s registration “people 13 years or older are required
to provide their first and last name, email, password, birthday, and gender. When
the person clicks the Sign Up button, they are agreeing to Facebook’s Statement
of Rights and Responsibilities and Privacy Policy” (Walker, 2015, pg. 9). Also,
“people that are not able to use Facebook are those that are under 13 years old and
those that are a convicted sex offender” (Walker, 2015, pg. 9). We find that
Facebook is trying to protect children under 13 years old from online interactions
risks, but the challenge is parents giving permission to their children under 13
years old an account on Facebook. The parents are giving up their child’s real
information except for their actual birth date.
15

18. From the focus groups of children aged 10-12, at least one child had an
Instagram account. From Summer’s Notes on the first focus group, all the
Instagram accounts were private and monitored by the parents on the computer
(Summer, 2015). This goes to show that Instagram’s policy is ineffective because
children under 13 years old are signing up for accounts.
As discussed earlier, some children from the focus groups have an account
on a social media site that requires the user to be 13 years or older because either
their parent gave them permission or they submitted their age as 13 years or older.
This is a weakness because the child’s information is being collected when they
have signed up for the social media site. This is not protecting them from their
information being shared and some parents are giving permission for them to use
the site, but are unaware that their child’s information is being shared.
Also children are able to have an account on social media and be logged
on if their parent has the same social media site. Parents do this to look at their
posts and usage. From focus group 1, Griffith said, “My mom actually has an
Instagram account so she can spy on me. So what I do, for at least a day or two, I
block her, because it is just like super annoying, but then after I’ll unblock her”
(DTF Focus Group, 2015). This shows there is a challenge that even though
parents are giving permission to their child to have an account if they have one
too, the children have found a loophole on how to hide their usage from their
parents. This led to children not being protected for a certain amount of time.
16

19. Children under 13 years old can create a fake account to use the site that
requires the user to be 13 years or older. Stripes from focus group 2 talked about
playing games on “Road Blocks.” Stripe’s was asked if he had an account on the
game site, and he said, “You can make a fake account or you can just play against
each other” (DTF Focus Group #2, 2015). Children seem to be aware that they
can make a fake account to get access on a site, and this is a challenge to the issue
because sites like these do not have full control over who can and cannot access
their site.
ii. Organizations Addressing the Issue
There are organizations that are addressing the issue at hand about online safety
and protection. These types organization include: Government, Education, News,
Religious, Non-Profit, Profit-Based, and No Info (EXCEL, 2015). They cover a
number of online issues and target various ages and groups.
a. Government
Some Government organizations that are addressing the issue include the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), COPPA, San Diego County District Attorney, North
Carolina Dept. of Justice and United States Computer Emergency Readiness
Team. Their main target markets are parents and educators. As an example, the
FTC targets parents and their primary content includes a variety of topics that
17

20. educate parents about laws that can protect their online interacions(Protect Kids,
2015). This is a strength because parents and educators are influences and
enablers to the issue so the government content is educating them on how to
educate middle school youth.
b. Education
Some Education organizations include Scholastic, Harris County Department of
Education, Hampton Primary School, and Northside Catholic Academy. Their
main target markets are parents, educators, and kids. For example, Hampton
Primary School targets parents and their primary content is a video pertaining to
the “5 tips to keep your child safe online” (5 Tips, 2014). This is a strength
because their content is geared towards protecting online safety to the influences
and enablers (parents and educators), while some education organization are
targeting kids who are unaware of the issue and gearing their content to make
them aware.
c. News
Some News organizations include NBC Universal, Common Sense Media and 41
Action News. Their target market are mostly parents, but some are also targeting
kids. As an example, Common Sense Media targets parents and the article
addresses five main concerns of parents with children under 13 years old -- As an
example it addresses the question “​At What Age Should My Kids Go Online”
18

21. (Parents’, 2015)? These are strong resources for parents and educators to use
since they are influencers and enablers of children. What they learn can be used to
address their concerns with their child's online safety and making themselves
aware of the issue.
d. Religious
One religious organization that addresses the issue is HarperCollins Christian
Publishing. This organization targets parents and their primary content includes
“​8 Tips for How to Protect Teens & Tweens Online” and one of them is ​“use
parental control software” (Wojo, 2013). The organization targets the enablers
and influences of children, and the tips and advice the organizations provide can
be used to educate the public about the issue. Through their posts, religious
organization get parents to actively think about addressing the issue with ther
children.
e. Non-Profit
​Some Non-Profit organizations include Nemours, National Center for missing
and exploited children, and ConncetSafely.Org, They target Parents, Kids, Teens
and/or Educators. As an example, Nemours targets Parents, Kids, and Teens and
some of their primary content includes getting active with their child’s online
activities and educate about the online protections tools (Dowshen, 2015). This is
a strength because these organizations are addressing the issue and targeting the
19

22. enablers and influencers of middle school youth while educating them on online
safety and Nemours does just that.
f. Profit-Based
Some Profit-Based organizations include Covenant Eyes, Norton.Com,
and Parenting.com. Their main target are parents. As an example, Covenant Eyes
targets parents and their primary content includes “7 Dangers of the Internet”
which are ”Pornography, Sexting, Cyberbullying, Predators, Gaming, Social
Networks, YouTube” (Gilkerson, 2012). This is a strength because profit-based
organizations are addressing the issue, targeting the influencers and enablers of
middle school youth, and educating the enablers and influencers about the risks
online that their children might come across.
g. No Info
This section includes more information YouTube videos. Some are Fit for a feast,
Home Security Info and Well Cast. Their main targets are parents and kids. As an
example, Well Cast targets kids and the video talks about the “4 things kids needs
to know about Internet safety” (Safe Web, 2013). This is a challenge in the way
the content is displayed. If they are targeting kids, but talking about internet safety
while the child is on YouTube (which requires the user to be 13 years or older),
then it doesn’t support their content or the issue at hand.
20

23. B. External
VI. Competitive Analysis
There are not many companies or organizations that are creating online
awareness to children that are in the 10-12 year-old range. In fact, we found less
than a handful. There were even companies that created online videos for children
in that demographic — like WellCast and GreatSchools — who have not created
new content for children. WellCast stopped operating without any updates or
content in June 2013, and GreatSchools is now a website designed to share
information about schools.
We did identify three organizations and one company as direct
competitors: KidsHealth, NetSmartz, Fit For a Feast, and Disney. Three out of the
four provided videos that were for children, with each campaign having strengths
and weaknesses. We found that teachers and parents would be indirect
competitors to a children’s online awareness campaign, as they are closest to them
and interact with children much more than a campaign would.
KidsHealth is a non-profit organization created by Nemours (founded in
Florida and involved in pediatric care in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Florida), which has information for parents, kids, and teens in the health,
21

24. behavior, and development sector (Dowshen, 2015). There are many engaging
links for children to click on, with links to an article on pop star Nick Jonas, as
well as games, movies, and quizzes on ‘How The Body Works;’ and other topics
like recipes, cooking, puberty, and staying healthy.
All of these different links to separate pages, and the world they created
online for children are great — but when it came to alerting children of online
dangers, it was clearly not their focus, because their online awareness information
lay deep in their site. Here’s how difficult it was to access:
1. At​ kidshealth.org​ site — click on ‘For Kids’ tab
2. Click on ‘Staying Safe’ link which leads to a page with 3 new tabs
3. Expand the ‘Playing It Safe Around the House’ tab which has 17 new links
4. Click on ‘Your Online Identity’
Finally, ​after following each step precisely, there is an article which
addressed children’s identity and summaries on Who Are You Online?, Websites
and Online Games, Online Bullying, and Rules to Follow.
There were different strengths from KidsHealth’s awareness information.
All the summary information were practical, up-to-date (October 2014) and
reviewed by a Clinical Child Psychologist. There was also a listen feature that
children can click on to have the information read. There was also a few
additional links, including ‘Safe Cyberspace Surfing.’ However, that’s where the
strengths ended.
22

25. First, the links and information on site were ​extremely ​hard to find. It took
about five minutes to find, and if we were not provided the safety link via the
resource Online Safety and Protection Sources, we most likely would not have
found any online awareness by KidsHealth, nor identified them as a competitor.
The difficulty meter for a child trying to navigate and find information would be
extremely difficult to access. Even though there was great information on the site,
the way it was laid out was geared more for an adult. Yes, they were talking to
children when it was written, but it looked more like a college essay. None of the
information was engaging like some of their other links and information. The
good? Great information from an accredited website. Bad? Not engaging and
online awareness campaign was dry and not for 10-12 year-old level.
KidsHealth showed a plethora of opportunities for a different online
awareness campaign. They are limited in that space with a small amount of
information and the lack of ease and difficulty of the information provided. A new
campaign could learn from this to make awareness and vulnerabilities for children
the center of attention. KidsHealth did have great information and an accredited
child psychologist looking over the information, so, if they were able to make
their information more kid friendly and interactive, they could be a threat to a
campaign.
Next we looked at NetSmartz as a competitor. They are a program of the
National Center For Missing & Exploited Children, and have links for
parents/guardians, educators, law enforcement, teens, and kids. It didn’t take long
23

26. to see their online awareness for children. After clicking on KIDS, a new window
opened with a video starting to play. “Clicky” the cartoon robot employed by
NetSmartz, comes on and says he hopes kids have learned not to give out their
information online and also says he hopes they watched his video “Netsmartz
Generation.”
There was no direct link to Clicky’s music video from the KIDS
homepage, but after looking through the different links on the page, there was a
videos link where the “Netsmartz Generation” music video was at. The three
minute video was well produced, had a catchy hook: “No we won’t give you, any
of our information. No we don’t owe you, any explanation” (NetSmartz, 2015).
That wasn’t the only video available for children and online interactions.
There were 14 other videos including, “It’s OK to Tell,” “Bad Netiquette Stinks,”
“Ready, Set, Internet! Tell A Trusted Adult,” and more. All of the videos are
strengths for NetSmartz and their attempt to create an online awareness for
children, but only the “Netsmartz Generation” keyed in on online identity,
information, and the potential risk of some people pretending to be someone else.
Outside of the videos, a weakness was the lack of engagement with children in the
awareness arena. There was a contact form for kids to send the NetSmartz an
email, but no quizzes or games that helped further the awareness cause.
The NetSmartz website showed the potential for opportunity by their focus
not being solely on online interaction for kids. Their goal was overall safety for
children, which showed them not being specific for online awareness. However,
24

27. the production of the “Clicky” videos could pose as a threat — they were put
together well with graphics, colors, sounds, editing and catching hooks. If they
were able to identify with children, parents, and teachers: this could take away
from a new campaign.
Fit For a Feast is an online website that is for kids and tweens, and
emphasizes dance, gymnastics, and cooking. The website does look outdated,
however there is a link near the bottom of their homepage on Online Safety Tips.
That link brings up their 10 Online Safety Rules, along with a video from 2009
that has tips for kids regarding Internet safety (​10​ Online, 2015). The production
and quality of the video is not a high grade, and it is six years old, but they do
have some good tips.
1. Passwords (keep them private)
2. Personal Information (don’t give it out)
3. Be careful what you post (think about what you write online)
4. Online only (do not agree to meet with an ‘online’ individual)
5. Photos (don’t share photos with people you do not know)
6. Bullying (tell your parents if you’re being bullied)
7. Protect your computer (check with parents before downloading)
8. Using a cell phone (be aware of GPS/other technologies associate with it)
9. Surfing (visit areas on web that are appropriate)
10. Exit (limit your time online)
25

28. The fact that there was good information and the link was accessible is a
strength for serving children (Kotler, Armstrong, pg. 224), but because of the lack
of interaction, and no recent updates shows a major weakness in the site.
Taking first glance at the website showed an immediate opportunity — an
old website. Nowadays children are keen to production value; that is, they are
able to identify if something looks “old” and looking at this site might leave
children, parents, and teachers to move on to a different site. A campaign see Fit
For a Feast as an opportunity to keep a site or up-to-date. They do have a ​major
threat. Their YouTube subscribers numbered almost 165,000, which is a big
number for any YouTube channel, and if they were to update their online
awareness video or create a campaign for children, they have a large audience to
get their message out to.
The last direct competitor we identified was Disney, who used ​The Lion
King​ characters Timon and Pumbaa in a 12-minute short film called ​Wild About
Safety with Timon and Pumbaa: Safety Smart Online!​. The short was the winner
of the Parents’ Choice Gold Award in 2013, and the two trailers of the film have
almost 140,000 views on YouTube. The animated production is professional and
top quality, not a surprise coming from Disney, and the video addresses the online
dangers for children.
The video is available in 17 languages, but at a price tag of $14.99, it is
not realistic for every parent or teacher to use. And a major weakness for Disney
is the half-hearted attempt at an awareness campaign for kids. Disney ​is ​a
26

29. for-profit company, so it’s understandable they didn’t put more money into a
campaign (Kotler, Armstrong, pg. 210), ​but​, with a net worth of $5 billion,
Disney didn’t make an attempt to create a safety site for children that could be
more conducive for them, with an actual online awareness campaign.
Disney showed an opportunity for a new campaign, simply by the lack of
material for children and online awareness. A one-time video on awareness is
quantifiable, yet not sustainable for children, which shows a new campaign
should be qualitative as well. But, it ​is ​still Disney, and the potential threat from
them would be ​if ​they did want to put together a grandiose online awareness
campaign, they could potentially reach millions quickly and be instantly
recognized by their characters.
Parents are (for the most part), the biggest influencers for children, and the
reader Digital Literacy and Consumer Information says, “Some parents take
action and monitor what their children do online and discuss with them what they
should and should not share online” (Walker, 2015, pg. 39). Parents themselves
could be the ultimate strength for online safety, and even though the parents are
not a “campaign,” they could be a greater influence than any online awareness
campaign. At the same time, parents can also be considered the “enablers” of their
kids delving into the online sphere of Facebook, Instagram and other applications
(Walker, 2015, pg. 40).
However, a major weakness by leaving awareness strictly up to
parents/guardians, are the percentage of parents who are unaware of the dangers
27

30. of online interactions (Walker, 2015, pg. 39) and their children were far less
safety conscious (Weeden, Cooke, &McVey, 2013). This could be a fatal flaw for
a child — a campaign shouldn’t be left alone for their parents or guardians to
employ, but could be stronger with their parents involved in a campaign.
This shows an opportunity for an awareness campaign to include parents
with the children which could be more conducive for the information to be
comprehended and reinforced. Parents and guardians are usually the first and last
people children see, and an impactful campaign could use them as an ally. A
threat to a campaign by the parents? Since they are so influential, parents have the
ability to end any interaction with a campaign geared towards them and their
children, which would minimize the effect a campaign could have.
Teachers could also be indirect competition to an online awareness
campaign. Teachers can teach children to develop digital literacy and incorporate
online behavior with lessons that improve their critical thinking (Walker, 2015,
pg. 42), and they are the ultimate authoritarian while at school, and can be the one
responsible for teaching a certain campaign to children or not.
This gives the teacher a lot of power for an online awareness campaign
which could be an opportunity for a campaign. If a teacher believes in a
campaign, and can relate to it and see the impact it could have on children; then
they are more likely to use it in their classroom even if it is not mandated by
school officials. On the contrary, teachers can be a threat by putting aside a
program designed to create awareness for children — even if a campaign ​is
28

31. mandated — if a teacher is not passionate about that campaign for kids, or feels it
is not beneficial to the children or classroom.
VII. Environmental Trends
I. Political Analysis
Under the current Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) rule, online
sites and services directed at children must obtain permission from a child’s
parents before collecting personal information from that child (Walker, 2015, pg.
46). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently seeking public comment
on a proposal from Riyo (Jest8 Limited Trading’s application) that seeks to add
an additional method of verifiable parental consent under the COPPA rule (FTC,
2015). Riyo’s proposal intends to further protect children’s privacy by using Face
Match To Verified Photo Identification (FMVPI), which uses vision technology,
algorithms, image forensics, and multifactor authentication to verify that it is a
parent providing consent (Strange, 2015).
The possible change in regulation is an opportunity for the FTC to strengthen
their existing COPPA rule, but it has caused uncertainty among families. Here are
a few concerns that one commenter expressed through the FTC’s Public
Comments page: (Alman, 2015)
● The driver's license and biometric identifiers are ​stand-alone sensitive Personally
Identifiable Information (PII)
29

32. ● There’s an ​increased risk to an individual​ if sensitive PII are compromised
● Jumio's technology (FMVPI) uploads sensitive PII - something I am loath to
support regardless of this company's promise of security and privacy.
● FTC should do all it can to mitigate the furtherance--especially by Silicone Valley
billionaires who ​mine our identity, privatizing profits and socializing risks.
The consumer also included examples where she and her family were personally
affected by data breach and identity theft through a variety of online interactions.
Research from the ‘Exchanging Information on Social Media: The Devil in the
Details’ lecture has shown, “Since uncertainty exists in online exchanges of
information – consumers are not exhibiting trust in the exchange” (Walker, 2015).
Although Riyo’s vision of protecting children’s personal information comes with
good intention, this new proposal poses a threat to individual’s sensitive
information. This new proposal may also risk COPPA’s credibility if any
sensitive information were to be compromised.
II. Technology Trends
As mentioned in our political analysis, there is concern around the exchange of
sensitive personal information through the use of FMVPI technology. Tom
Strange, Director of Jest8Limited Trading (the company behind the Riyo
proposal), addresses the issue of privacy risks in the section ‘Efficacy of FMVPI
in Highly Regulated and Sensitive Markets’ with the following points: (Strange,
2015)
30

33. ● There is no transmission of personal information to third party databases of such
information
● A parent's photo identification and any data relating to it is promptly deleted after
completing the verification process
● Institutions such as Bank of America, credit bureaus such as Experian and airlines
such as United Airlines, have used FMVPI to verify identity for a number of years
with millions of verifications processed.
Riyo’s application of FMVPI technology into COPPA rule seeks to create a safer
platform for parents looking to further increase their children’s online security
and steering individuals to trust online information exchanges and develop active
protection habits (Walker, 2015). Adding FMVPI tech into COPPA rule opens
future opportunities for tech companies to introduce innovative Parental
Verification Consent methods that could further safeguard a consumer’s online
experience.
After looking over the data, our team found that children are very involved
with computer games such as Roblox. Roblox provides an online community with
a variety of games, and their data shows that children 10-12 years old enjoy
playing games in the murder mystery, shooter, and Life Role Playing Game
genres (Roblox, Online). Research also suggests that it is easier to target children
through a language that they can relate to whether its entertainment, pop culture,
or social trends. Roblox creates a sense of community for children where they can
31

34. all communicate and bond around the same game, creating an opportunity to
target children around the issue of online awareness.
III. Economic
While federally regulated organizations like COPPA are seeking ways to protect
consumer’s private information, our team identified an issue with local
governments cutting public school funding due to the slower than expected
economic growth. Research shows that the struggling economy dampened state
funding for education between 2010 and 2015, and the decrease in funding is
expected to continue through 2019 (IBIS World, 2015). The decreasing funds
threaten public school’s offerings and their ability to add newer educational
opportunities that focus on digital literacy and privacy protection.
IV. Demographic Trends
With the economy continuing to threaten public school funding, there are
opportunities for parents to enable their children to develop safer online habits.
Although parents have an opportunity to teach their children about privacy
protection, research suggest that parents may have a low level of concern about
their child’s behavior and online privacy. A study from 2015 shows that only ​one
in three​ parents have had concerns or questions about their child’s technology use
32

35. in the last year (Walker, 2015, pg. 40). Parent’s lack of concern for their
children’s online security could be due to their digital illiteracy, and their
unawareness of potential risks that come from using the internet (Walker, 2015,
pg. 39). This creates an opportunity for other organizations to bring parents and
children awareness around the risks and vulnerabilities of online interactions.
V. Social Trends
Educational social networking sites such as Edmodo are available for educators to
connect students from grades K-12 with resources to grow and learn (Walker,
2015, pg.17). The use of this social networking site has the potential to build
awareness in the classroom on a variety of social issues that exist amongst
children as young as five years of age. Recently, our studies have found that
students are unaware of data brokers (DTF Focus Group # 2, 2015), which are
companies that collect and resell individual’s information to third party
companies (Walker, 2015, pg. 21). The fact that students are not aware of the
potential vulnerabilities and risks involved with the sharing of their information
must mean that educators are not discussing the potential risks and vulnerabilities
associated with online interactions. Educational social networking sites like
Edmodo create opportunities for public schools to build awareness on these types
of social issues.
Our team has also found that parents are giving up their child’s information
through social networking sites like Facebook. A study done in 2012 shows that
nearly two-thirds of parents reported posting pictures of their children, and
33

36. slightly half shared news of their child’s accomplishments (Sultan, 2012). As
influencers, parents are expressing a usage behavior that their children will begin
to develop as they adopt the use of social media (Walker, 2015, pg.38). Both
children and parents could face consequences in the future if they continue to
carelessly give out of information over social media sites. This habit threatens
family's’ privacy as well as children’s outlook on privacy protection, but it also
presents an opportunity to teach parents about better online security habits.
VIII. Potential Prospects
Our group further analyzed prospects that may also be unaware of the potential
vulnerability and risk involved with their online interactions. We will further examine the
concept flipped classroom to analyze whether teachers, parents, siblings of children
between the ages of 0- 9 are also prospects that may also be unaware of the potential
vulnerability and risk involved with their online interactions.
The concept of Flipped classroom allows students to watch videos outside of the class
and then apply what they learn in class with the teacher (Walker, 2015, pg. 18). Students,
parents, and teachers can use Edmodo, which is a social networking site that was founded
in 2008 for the k-12 learning community that connects students with resources to grow
and learn (Walker, 2015, pg. 17). This means that YDEPIC’s issue also has the potential
to focus on teachers and parents of students ages 5-9. Teachers are assigning students
homework online without discussing the potential vulnerability and risk involved with
their online interactions because the focus groups tell us that students are unaware of
34

37. cookies and data brokers (DTF Focus Group #2, 2015). Social media can be used in
education to improve communication skill, encourage participation and collaborative
learning and empower support among classmates (Walker, 17). It is very clear that not
just middle school youth are unaware of the potential vulnerability and risk involved with
their online interactions. Parents, teachers and students as young as 5 years old are
exposing themselves to the potential vulnerability and risk involved with their online
interactions.
This issue also affects kids whose parents are also giving up their child’s information
when they post about them on their personal account (Sultan, 2012). 66%) reported
posting pictures of their children online, and slightly more than half (56%) shared news
of a child's accomplishment (Sultan, 2012). This issue does not only affect middle school
youth. Parents are giving up their children’s information before children are 10-12 years
old.
Teachers, parents of k-8 are aware of online predators, but they are either not aware or
not concerned about Facebook, Twitter or YouTube tracking their behaviors and interests
online. According to the “Social Networking Privacy: How to be Safe, Secure and
Social” even if your social media accounts are private, social media platforms can still
track your behaviors and interests (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse). Based on focus groups
that were done most children were aware of privacy settings and had their accounts
private. Therefore, parents and teachers should also be considered a major prospect in this
issue.
35

38. S.W.O.T
Strengths
● Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights COPPA
● CIPA
● FCC
● Influencers & Enablers: Teachers
● Organization Addressing the issue:
Government, Education, News, Religious,
Non-Profit, Profit-Based and No Info.
Weaknesses
● Bill of Rights
● COPPA
● CIPA
● FTC
● Education on the issue
● YouTube in the
classroom
● Increased Technology
Use
● Awareness of the issue
is not addressed
● Influencers & Enablers:
Parents, Teachers,
Friends and Older
Siblings
Opportunities
● parents teachers and sibling of 0-9
● FMVPI tech.
● Edmodo
Threats
● Riyo Proposal
● FMVPI Tech.
● Local Governments
● Parent’s lack of concern
● Parents giving up their
information
I. Strengths
● Privacy Bill Of Rights: It was created because the lack of regulation on the Bill of
Rights. Users are being educated on how their information is collected in terms
that is simple to understand so they are not a passive user, but an active user.
36

39. ● COPPA: COPPA has clear and simple requirements for these websites to follow
for parents to be able to simply know that they are requested to give their
permission for their child to use the site. Also, the links are not hidden and
secretive and are laid out clear for the parents to know what they are about to give
permission to.
● CIPA: Filtering content pertaining to these categories are protecting children from
content that is inappropriate for their age group to see. Also, this this gives
reassurance to for parents because they know their child will not see inappropriate
content.
● CIPA: Sexual health material should only be taught and shown in an appropriate
setting – an example would be the classroom or in a health education class – and
not be looked up and searched in a public computer.
● FCC: Efforts are being made to protect interactions through more than just online
interactions. This will protect 10-12 year olds from communicating with unknown
people.
● Influencers & Enablers - Teachers: They are looked up to as positive role models
in their life and a large percentage of teens listen to what they have to say.
● Organization Addressing the issue - Government, Education, News, Religious,
Non-Profit, Profit-Based and No Info: They are all targeting a certain segment
influenced by the issue and provide great information addressing the issue.
● Good information and content provided by competitors
● KidsHealth info approved by accredited child psychologist
37

40. ● NetSmartz and Disney produced professional video content
● Parents/Guardians/Teachers can be good source for children
II. Weaknesses
● Bill of Rights: There was a lack of regulation so there were data breaches.
● COPPA: Although COPPA requires there to be “large and legible links” they still
have accounts on social media.
● CIPA: This is a challenge because although they are protecting minors by
requiring “internet safety policies are implemented,” they are not doing anything
about the criminal committing the act of stealing information. If there are no
consequences, it can influence more users to steal personal information.
● FTC: Users know they have rights and responsibilities as online users, but middle
school youth are not educated or know about the risks that can come from online
interactions so they engage in online interactions anyway.
● Education: Sometimes does not address the issue.
● YouTube in the classroom: YouTube still tracks the user's video content habits
and are collecting information on them if they have a YouTube Account.
● Increased Technology Use: it is a challenge to protect their names, birthdays and
addresses since they have access to a smartphone app account to purchase apps
and access to the internet which include social media.
38

41. ● Awareness of the issue: This has not been addressed with the middle school youth
so they are unaware.
● None of the organizations/companies have an ongoing campaign
● Influencers & Enablers
○ Parents: Parents have the ability to protect their children, but not all
parents take action on how the do’s and don’ts of online safety. If parents
are not positively influences online safety, more middle school youth will
be unaware of the risks. Also, parents are enabling their children under 13
years old to make social media accounts. This leads to challenges in
monitoring their online interactions and risks can arise from their online
interactions.
○ Teachers: The teacher is basically forcing the middle school youth to use
the internet and the resources it can provide for their assignments.
○ Friends: If their friends have an account with the social media site, they
are going to be influenced to make an account too.
○ Older Siblings: Older siblings who are 13 years are older have social
medias (because they are allowed to according to the privacy policies) and
their younger siblings 13 years and younger follow and imitate what they
are seeing.
● Fit For a Feast website is outdated
● There was no more than one video for each site addressing online awareness
● Online awareness for children was not a major focus
39

42. ● Disney did not provide anything else for children other than a video
III. Opportunities
● Face Match to Verified Photo Identification (FMVPI) technology may strengthen
COPPA rule by adding a new secure method of verifiable parental consent.
● New technologies may be introduced if the Riyo Proposal were to pass.
● Digital illiteracy among parents create opportunities for organizations to teach
families about active online protection
● Parent’s lack of concern for their children’s online usage creates an opportunity to
build awareness around the risks associated with online interactions.
● Edmodo creates opportunities for public schools to build awareness around social
issues
● A new campaign could be face of online awareness for children
● Parents/Guardians/Teachers could be used as a tool for a campaign
● A campaign that was solely focused on online awareness for children could
standalone
● Some of the information provided could be used and expanded upon
● A campaign could draw on what sites did well and surmise if children would be
drawn to something similar
40

43. IV. Threats
● Riyo’s proposal to add Face Match to Verified Photo Identification tech to
COPPA rule raises concerns from parents about data breach and identity theft.
● Slower than expected economic growth is causing cuts in public school funding,
thus threatening public school’s offerings.
● Parents are expressing low concern for their child’s online usage.
● Parents are surrendering their personal information to social media, which puts
their privacy and information at risk.
● A major company (like Disney) could be industry go-to if they wanted to, and a
campaign will need help from potential competitors (parents, teachers)
● If a company like Disney wanted to build a campaign based on online awareness,
other campaigns may not be given a chance
● Parents/Guardians/Teachers would be able to ignore a campaign and put it on the
shelf if they perceived it to be not helpful
● Fit For a Feast could draw attention with a large amount of subscribers (165,000)
if they wanted to do full online awareness campaign
● NetSmartz was most active when it came to safety for children and had a catchy
cartoon robot “Clicky” — if they produced a campaign strictly for online
awareness — they could be a major threat to a new campaign
41

44. References
5 Tips to Keep Your Child Safe On The Internet. (2014, August 3). Retrieved
October
27, 2015, from​ ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqlTOOY9CIo
10 Online Safety Rules. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2015, from
http://www.fitforafeast.com/online_safety_tips.htm
Andres & Summer (2015). ​DTF Focus Group.​ Retrieved from
file:///Users/bernabesamantha/Downloads/FirstFocusGroup_transcript%20(3).pdf
Andres & Summer (2015). ​DTF Focus Group #2.​ Retrieved from
file:///Users/bernabesamantha/Downloads/Focus%20Group%20%232_transcript
%20(2).pdf
Dowshen, S. (2015). Internet Safety. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/family/net_safety.html
Gilkerson, L. (2012, January 3). 7 Dangers of the Internet for Kids. Retrieved
October 24,
Google. (2015, August 15). ​Privacy Poilicy​. Retrieved from Google:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/
2015, from​ ​http://www.covenanteyes.com/2012/01/03/7-dangers-of-
the-internet-for-kids/
42

45. Kotler, Philip and Armstrong, Gary. Principles of Marketing. 2010. Prentice Hall.
Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey.
NetSmartz Generation. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2015, from
http://www.netsmartzkids.org/LearnWithClicky/NetSmartzGeneration
Parents' Top 5 Questions to Keep Kids Safe Online. (2015, June 10). Retrieved
October
27, 2015, from​ ​http://www.huffingtonpost.com/common-sense-media/
parents-top-5-questions-to-keep-kids-safe-online_b_7548160.html
Protect Kids Online. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2015, from
https://www.onguardonline.gov/topics/protect-kids-online
Safe Web Surfing: Top Tips for Kids and Teens Online. (2013, May 2). Retrieved
October 24, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrln8nyVBLU
Summer (2015). ​Observation Notes: 9-23-15 Focus Group #1- Summer.
Retrieved from
file:///Users/bernabesamantha/Downloads/FirstFocusGroup_observationnotes%20
(3).pdf
Wojo, R. (2013, November 8). How to Protect Teens and Tweens Online.
Retrieved
October 25, 2015, from​ ​http://www.faithgateway.com/how-to-protect-teens
-tweens-online/#.VeYgw_lViko
43