It seems hardly a month goes by without a study being released showing how society is putting too much pressure on kids to achieve. Whether it’s sports, music, dancing or just good old-fashioned grades – you name the competition, there are bunches of families spending their yearly vacation travelling across the country so their son or daughter can win it.

I know, this is an extreme example, but there’s a vocal group of objectors crying, “Just let kids be kids!” They talk about the dire consequences of putting too much pressure on children at such and young age, and use phrases like “unstructured play time”, which I think is the scientific way of saying, tip the sofa over and pretend to be a pirate or a cowboy or something.

But wait a minute. There’s another group of experts saying parents and teachers have adopted a win-win attitude that frowns on any child facing the trauma of coming in second, third… Heaven forbid, even fourth! Again, there’s a growing concern that we’re leading kids down a path that leaves them unequipped to the reality that for every winner, there’s a loser too.

Hold on, I’m not done yet. Forget whether children are being pushed too hard or not enough, it doesn’t matter, because there’s another faction claiming children are too busy getting overweight in front of their television or computer for it to matter. According to this group, kids are just junk food chompin’ zombies, too unmotivated to do anything anyway.

So which is it? Are children pushed too hard, not hard enough or does it not even matter because they’re all to obese to care?

The only connection I can gather from these contradictory views is that no matter what, today’s children are doomed. This is a tragic assumption. Did people have a similar view twenty or thirty years ago? Is it just natural to be pessimistic about the potential of near-future generations and what kind of message does this negative outlook give to a child?

As I’ve said before, I’m not a parent yet, so I’m going to reserve any judgment until I have my own experience to draw on. However it’s a question that concerns me and I would love to know what any parents out there might think.

Like everyone else on the planet, judging by the amount of people at LAX, I traveled back to the folks for Christmas for some rest and relaxation. It’s the last place I usually expect to put on my curiosity cap. Until, that is, one of my parents’ friends paid a visit, nine-year-old daughter in tow, along with a brand new Webkinz – a platypus to be exact.

“Do you guys have a computer?” Bella, the little girl asked, “I need to register Gabriel here”, waving the fuzzy creature, and confirming my belief that the box of my old toys which gets dragged out when kids come around, just wasn’t cutting it anymore.

So we went to the Webkinz site, and registered Gabriel, and this is where the magic started to happen for me. See, I know a lot about toys, and I thought I knew everything I needed to about Webkinz – you buy one, register it online and there are a bunch of rather basic games you can play with it.

No. There’s way more to it than that.

We started off playing the Webkinz Chef Challenge, a cooking game where you and an opponent must guess the right ingredients to include in such fantastical recipes as Knotty Numnums and Sorcusorbet. I figured it was a random scissors-paper-stone game mechanic, but again, I was to be mistaken.

Narrowly impressing the chef judges more than the other player, we were awarded a bunch of KinzCash to spend on virtual clothes and accessories. Not just any old bits and pieces though, Gabriel has specific needs. According to his bio, he likes skateboarding and painting, so that’s what Bella bought to keep the virtual version of Gabriel happy, along with food, drinks and a range of décor for his new room.

As if this buying frenzy was entertaining enough, it dawned on me that the shopping experience we were enjoying was almost exactly the same as a if you were buying something for real on Amazon or eBay. This kid was confidently clicking away at the same kind of thing I remember nervously doing for the first time myself, only I was twice her age at the time!

We played some more games, earned some more points and went back to the store for more accessories, including some furniture for the fluffy little creatures’ virtual room.

One of the items Bella picked was a television, and this is what blew me away – you can watch the TV and learn the ingredients needed to win in the Chef Challenge game we’d played earlier! The recipes weren’t random, there’s just more of the Webkinz world to explore and discover in one interlocking package.

This sums up my experience in two ways. Firstly I got a real kick out of the seamless experience involved in finding my way around the Webkinz site, it really is a deeply layered world offering a complete content package.

Secondly, and more importantly was a more introspective lesson. As a children’s media professional, there is so much content constantly being released, that in an effort to stay on top of it all, you’re often forced to get by with the basic concept of something really special, without fully appreciating it. I’m very happy to say this is one instance where I got to slow down and enjoy a great concept, and I encourage everyone to do the same thing.

Then I got thinking. Then I got analytical. Then I got realistic. And finally, I got surprised.

Granted, there isn’t much clarification in the study as to how long or how often users watch T.V. on the web, but the survey shows a significant amount of teens across the country were questioned. And no matter how you look at it, online viewing numbers are increasing.

This leaves me considering a different conclusion than the one I had so quickly jumped to at first. Am I so wrapped up in the world of cross-platform content that what I consider to be normal viewing habits aren’t normal at all?

I’ve been involved with countless rounds of user testing and focus groups with online content and television shows, but looking back, I can’t honestly say I’ve ever asked the question, “How much T.V. do you watch online?”

The numbers speak for themselves, no matter how unusual they seem to me, but it’s sobering to compare one content medium over another. I’d love to know if people working in games, publishing, online communities or any other type of media have discovered surprising facts that make them look at their work with a different pair of eyes.

I spent a lot of time in the States in the past, but it’s never quite the same as living in a new place. I don’t yet feel the need to write a Bill Bryson-esque memoir of all the amusing cultural nuances I’ve encountered since living here, but occasionally instances may occur that are relevant in this blog. This explains the odd mix of phrases or terminology I employ – so forgive me if I’m getting in a two and eight here, I’m just covering my bases.

The subject of cultural differences is what brings me to the core of this post, namely ratings of the television kind. I’m going to stick my neck out here and say this – in London I never felt pressured into chasing audience figures for the various shows or websites I worked on. I’m not saying they weren’t important – as part of the bigger picture, they were certainly a major factor, but at that stage of my career I placed most of my focus on delivering content. Combining this with the unique editorial remit of the BBC, namely it being a public service broadcaster, success can’t be judged purely on audience figures, and certainly not on ad revenue.

On the star-spangled side of the pond, however, the situation is completely different. I’m in a world of “prime time” and “syndication” now, and it fascinates me. Not only do I find myself investigating viewing figures more often, but I have begun to think more seriously about the marketability of concepts I plan to pitch. Fear not, I’ve seen Death to Smoochy, and I don’t want to go down the soulless corporate road of no return – I’m purely being realistic, and growing more because of it.

This brings me to the second difference being in the U.S. brings – competition. There’s a lot more of it! Nickelodeon, Disney, and Cartoon Network to name a few, are formidable competition in the U.K. , but they’re center stage here and the numbers involved, both financially and audience-wise are considerably higher.

On this note, Cartoon Network and the newly-launched Disney XD threw their all into capturing young male audiences last week. Both channels announced positive figures. Cartoon Network announced up to a 29% rise in viewing figures compared to the same time last year, but Disney XD had a record rating of 6.5 million viewers on launch day. This was countered by Cartoon Network holding the number one prime time slot for boys aged 6-11, and so it goes on.

There are obviously a lot of numbers being thrown around here, and a great deal to take in, but it’s valuable information that deserves being discussed. I’ll close for now, but my parting question to everyone is, how much awareness do you have of audience figures and how important are they to the project or concept you’re working on?

Last November, USC and Burkeley released results of a three-year study of the constantly evolving relationship children have with technology, significantly social networking sites, online games and gadgets like iPods and mobile phones.

Long story short, it seems the Internet, aka, The Dire Pit of Evil and Eternal Damnation, might be doing kids some good when it comes to things like developing social skills and self-initiated learning experiences. Wow. Technology like the above isn’t new to young users anymore – it’s the norm, and they’re using it in innovative ways.

It’s a big study – the largest undertaken on the subject in the United States to date. I strongly recommend anyone who’s involved in this field to at least take a quick look at the summary.