Covert Advertising on IoToys

  • Esther Martínez PastorEmail author
  • Patricia Núñez
Part of the Studies in Childhood and Youth book series (SCY)


The objective of this study is to analyse how child YouTubers present the IoToy “Hello Barbie Dream House” on their channels and the legal implications of that advertising. All advertising content must be clearly identified as such and differentiated from other content. Children should not be tricked into thinking that their favourite YouTuber enjoys their new toy, when it was simply given to the YouTuber to mention in their videos, or because they have an advertising contract with a brand which has demanded it appears as entertainment content. For this reason, this study focuses on content creators, the platform itself, its own advertising communication and the legal problems generated by IoToy marketing strategies.


Native advertising YouTuber Vloggers Influencers IoToys 


  1. Asociación Para La Investigación De Medios De Comunicación. (2017). 2nd round: EGM: aumenta el consumo de Internet entre los menores de 14 años. Retrieved from
  2. (2018). Hello dreamhouse FAQs. Retrieved from
  3. Blades, M., Oates, C., & Li, S. (2013). Children’s recognition of advertisements on television and on web pages. Appetite, 62, 190–191. Scholar
  4. Brown, D., & Hayes, N. (2008). Influencers marketing: Who really influences your customers? Elsevier, Butterwork-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, J. (2012). YouTube and the formalisation of amateur media. In D. Hunter, R. Lobato, M. Richardson, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Amateur media: Social, cultural and legal perspectives (pp. 53–58). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. (2015). Hell no Barbie: 8 reasons to leave Hello Barbie on the shelf. Retrieved from
  7. Campbell, A. (2016). Rethinking children’s advertising policies for the digital age. Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works 1945. Retrieved from
  8. Chaudhuri, A. (2016). Internet of things data protection and privacy in the era of the general data protection regulation. Journal of Data Protection & Privacy, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  9. Chaudron, S., Di Gioia, R., Gemo, M., Holloway, D., Marsh, J., Mascheroni, G., … Yamada-Rice, D. (2016). Kaleidoscope on the internet of toys—Safety, security, privacy and societal insights. EUR 28397 EN.
  10. Chester, J. (2015). How YouTube, big data and big brands mean trouble for kids and parents. Retrieved from
  11. Christensen, P., & Proud, A. (2002). Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood, 9, 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  13. Craig, D., & Cunningham, S. (2017). Toy unboxing: Living in a (n unregulated) material world. Media International Australia, 163(1), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Defy Media. (2016). Acumen report youth video diet. Retrieved from
  15. Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), & Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI). (2016). Kids & the connected home: Privacy in the age of connected dolls, talking dinosaurs, and battling robots. Retrieved from
  16. Garcia N., Campbell A., & Null E. (2015). Request for investigation into Google’s unfair and deceptive practices in connection with its YouTube Kids app. Retrieved from
  17. Georgetown Law Institute for Public Representation. (2015). Request for investigation into Google’s unfair and deceptive practices in connection with its YouTube Kids app. Retrieved from
  18. Google. (2017a). Creator Academy. Retrieved from
  19. Google. (2017b). Paid product placements and endorsements. Retrieved from
  20. Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight: Young children and their internet use. EU Kids Online. London: LSE. Retrieved from
  21. IAB. (2015). Guía legal: menores y publicidad. Retrieved from
  22. IAB. (2018). Estudio anual de redes sociales. Retrieved from
  23. IAB Spain. (2017). Guía legal: Marketing de influencers. Retrieved from
  24. ICC. (2016). Statement on code interpretation—ICC reference guide on advertising to children. Retrieved from
  25. Ipsos/Google. (2012). Teens & twenty-somethings research study.Google Scholar
  26. Lievens, E. (2010). Protecting children in the digital era: The use of alternative regulatory instruments. Leiden and Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lievens, E., Dumortier, J., & Ryan, P. (2006). The co-protection of minors in new media: A European approach to co-regulation. Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, 10, 97.Google Scholar
  28. (2017). The state of influencer marketing 2017. Retrieved from
  29. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2015). Developing a framework for researching children’s online risks and opportunities in Europe. EU Kids Online. London. Retrieved from
  30. Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (Eds.). (2017). The internet of toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and Io Toys. DigiLitEY.Google Scholar
  31. Mclaughlin, S. (2013). Regulation and legislation. In B. O’Neill, E. Staksrud, & S. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a better internet for children? Policy pillars, players and paradoxes (pp. 77–91). Gothenburg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  32. McReynolds, E., Hubbard, S., Lau, T., Saraf, A., Cakmak, M., & Roesner, F. (2017). Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5197–5207).
  33. Mcroberts, S., Bonsignore, E., Peyton, T., & Yarosh, S. (2016). Do it for the viewers!: Audience engagement behaviors of young YouTubers [Conference Paper]. The 15th International Conference.
  34. Montgomery, K. (2011). Safeguards for youth in the digital marketing ecosystem. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 631–633). Washington, DC: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. OFCOM. (2016). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report. Retrieved from
  36. Ramos Serrano, M., & Herrero-Díaz, P. (2016). Unboxing and brand: YouTubers phenomenon through the case study of Evantubehd. Prisma Social, 1, 90–120.Google Scholar
  37. Ruíz, M., Fernández-Aller, C., Portillo, E., Malagón, J., & Del Barrio, C. (2017). Developing a system for processing health data of children using digitalized toys: Ethical and privacy concerns for the internet of things paradigm. Science and Engineering Ethics. Scholar
  38. Staksrud, E. (2013). Children in the online world: Risk, regulation, rights. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  39. Verdoodt, V., Lambrecht, I., & Lievens, E. (2016). Mapping and analysis of the current self- and coregulatory framework of commercial communication aimed at minors. Retrieved from
  40. Verdoodt, V., Lievens, E., Lambrecht, I., Valcke, P., & Hellemans, L. (2016). Minors’ advertising literacy in relation to new advertising formats. Retrieved from
  41. Wu, K. (2016): YouTube marketing: Legality of sponsorship and endorsements. Journal of Law, Business, and Ethics, 22, 59–91. Retrieved from
  42. Yarosh, S., Bonsignore, E., Mcroberts, S., & Peyton, T. (2016). YouthTube: Youth video authorship on YouTube and Vine. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Rey Juan Carlos de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Complutense UniversityMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations