Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Parents of YouTube's highest-earner Ryan Kaji, 7, who has made $22MILLION testing toys, face...
daily mail ^ | 9/9/2019 | By EMILY KENT SMITH FOR DAILY MAIL and JENNIFER SMITH FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

Posted on 09/09/2019 4:13:42 PM PDT by RummyChick

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: Political Junkie Too

That’s about how ridiculous this sounds to me.


21 posted on 09/09/2019 5:14:41 PM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Truth in advertising violations?!

Start with fast food commercials.

22 posted on 09/09/2019 5:15:58 PM PDT by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

They have another new show featuring their twin daughters who are toddlers.


23 posted on 09/09/2019 5:21:19 PM PDT by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

It’s my understanding that the toys featured on the show are donated after they are used in the videos they make.

I’ve watched this show with small children.


24 posted on 09/09/2019 5:22:58 PM PDT by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Thank You Rush

I think the mom is really hyper on the show. Gets on my nerves. The kids I have watched this with don’t ask for the toys they see. They just watch to see how the toys work.


25 posted on 09/09/2019 5:25:36 PM PDT by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
Putting your young child on the internet for your own personal gain? You know a good chunk of the audience are pedo pervs.

Should children be hidden away indoors and under burkas because there's pedo pervs out there?

26 posted on 09/09/2019 5:29:01 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

This isn’t the government’s business and they should butt out.


27 posted on 09/09/2019 5:29:29 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Send the 7 year old to leavenworth. /s


28 posted on 09/09/2019 5:44:30 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Very good point. Paid for endorsements.


29 posted on 09/09/2019 5:57:00 PM PDT by wgmalabama (Mittens is the new Juan. Go away mittens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I guess RL will have to start mentioning his ‘brand’ inre the T shirts, and whatever he is hawking then taking up a good portion of the show ‘discussing’ it.

I REALLY like the ‘idea’ that the POLs should take a hint from NASCAR and wear a patch from all their ‘sponsors’ ESPECIALLY when voting on ‘favoring’ one company or another.

The press sees absolutely NO PROBLEM with a grifter from Arkansas whose only jobs he or his family had were a result of politics and people currying for favor.
Can’t ‘blame’ Walmart etal if the Govs wife is on the board BUT should be a mostly volunteer/honorary position not a 7 figure ‘make rain’ job.

The vagabond from IL who also NEVER had a ‘job’ has more homes than the average bear while lecturing about abusive personal wealth....
I personally think that once a person hits the #1 spot, doors maybe should open, after all there have only been 45 of them.

OTOH, don’t continually crucify a person who actually has WORKED and made a VERY GOOD living during his adult life while letting the ‘grifters & vagabonds’ skate.


30 posted on 09/09/2019 5:58:25 PM PDT by xrmusn (6/98"HRC is cast as the Grandmother that lures Hansel & Gretel to the pot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

No, and nice strawman. Ryan’s videos started when he was 4 years old and I don’t see the point of posting what started as family videos on the internet for all to see. In his bio it is stated that his mother has quit her job and is now his full time manager and channel moderator. It also states a new video is released every day. This kid is basically having a good chunk of his waking hours devoted to making his parents rich.


31 posted on 09/09/2019 6:38:11 PM PDT by LukeL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

They didn’t pay off the Deep state visa political donations. A rookie mistake.


32 posted on 09/09/2019 6:50:35 PM PDT by for-q-clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

The kid makes me feel like an utter failure.


33 posted on 09/09/2019 6:52:44 PM PDT by mumblypeg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

“This kid is basically having a good chunk of his waking hours devoted to making his parents rich.”

>>>>>>>

I bet most of that goes to the kid once he turns 18. There are laws in place that limit parental use of a minor child’s money.


34 posted on 09/09/2019 9:15:20 PM PDT by Ken H (2019 => The House of Representin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

It’s a little weird but for the most part I do believe that the parents are doing this for the kid’s future (plus they laid a golden egg for themselves too).


35 posted on 09/09/2019 9:17:35 PM PDT by one4perl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
For the sake of argument, suppose he played with toys from Hasbro. Does this mean that Milton Bradley can complain that he's not playing with their toys?

Not the same. If Hasbro gave him free toys to review, or paid him to review their stuff, then he goes and presents a supposedly unbiased review saying their toys are better, that's the issue. If someone is paying you (giving you free review samples) to advertise their product (which is what these reviews are), then per 'truth in advertising' laws, you have to have a disclaimer that you are paid for your endorsement.
36 posted on 09/09/2019 9:40:04 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: one4perl

They could stop right now and put that money into a trust. Let’s say there is 10 million left after taxes and fees. Even at a weak 1.5% interest the kid could take home $150,000.00 per year and never touch the principle. I also hope the parents know that his views could drop to almost 0 at any time when the next cute tot comes along.


37 posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:36 PM PDT by LukeL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

“They could stop right now and put that money into a trust. Let’s say there is 10 million left after taxes and fees. Even at a weak 1.5% interest the kid could take home $150,000.00 per year and never touch the principle. I also hope the parents know that his views could drop to almost 0 at any time when the next cute tot comes along.”

That’s an incredible amount for a kid that age, all thanks to YouTube views. The Internet has enabled some amazing things technologically , but this I never expected...


38 posted on 09/09/2019 9:45:40 PM PDT by one4perl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
I agree with your post.

That said, we're talking about a 7-year-old. The kid was just playing with toys. Whatever business arrangements were in place were done by the parents.

It' not even a case of parents being responsible for the actions of minors. Usually, "minors" in this case refer to teens who get in trouble. This is a 7-year-old. It's like the stories of kindergarten kids kissing, and the boy being charged with sexual harassment.

Still, the full article never mentions brands, only Walmart, Toys R Us, Chuck E. Cheese (restaurant), Colgate (toys?) and Nickelodeon. Mostly distributors Who is the harmed party?

-PJ

39 posted on 09/09/2019 9:53:12 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
That said, we're talking about a 7-year-old. The kid was just playing with toys. Whatever business arrangements were in place were done by the parents.

Yes, and those business arrangements should be including fine print that tells the viewer that these toys are provided by the companies that the kid supposedly likes the best. It doesn't matter that the minor kid doesn't even know this, the parents, who are the actual ones benefiting from the free samples (not having to buy their kid any toys), are the same ones promoting his opinions and thereby promoting those companies.
40 posted on 09/20/2019 5:49:17 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson