Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

Families Will Spend More Than a Third of Summer Staring At Screens (betanews.com) 103

Posted by msmash from the growing-habits dept.
Reader BrianFagioli writes: A new survey reveals that families will spend more than a third of the 2017 summer season with their eyes glued to some sort of screen. To make matters worse, parents say that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive. A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328. Sadly, the overuse of "screens" are negatively impacting the health and behavior of children too. "With warmer weather finally arriving in most parts of the country and the school year winding down to a close, Groupon asked 1,000 U.S. parents how much time their families plan to spend on their electronic devices this summer -- and the results were staggering. The average American family will spend an average of 35 days of their summer, which is the equivalent of more than one-third, using their electronic devices. The survey, which was conducted for Groupon's Funtacular Fun Fest, found that the average child will watch an estimated 60 movies and play 150 hours of video games over the summer months," says Groupon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Families Will Spend More Than a Third of Summer Staring At Screens More

Families Will Spend More Than a Third of Summer Staring At Screens

Comments Filter:

  • Many green spaces cost nothing to visit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @01:43PM (#54443353)
    I don't buy the cost thing. It's most likely more convenient for the parents and the kids prefer their screens to the outdoors.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      It's the power of habit and humans amazing power to adapt to whatever is usual to them. If you go outside all the time, the effort and discomfort are scarcely noticeable. If you take a couch potato and drag him on your weekend hike and it'll feel to him like a crime against humanity.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )

      I don't buy the cost thing. It's most likely more convenient for the parents and the kids prefer their screens to the outdoors.

      Do you have a family to support and take on vacation? I admit, it could be a little bit high, but I took my family of four to Universal Studios Orlando for a three night (two days in the parks) trip last month. We stayed on site, which boosted the cost quite a bit - more than the estimate in TFS just for the hotel and park tickets. We didn't have to, but you get a lot of perks and conveniences staying on site that you would have to pay for otherwise anyway, like express pass and not having to pay for parkin

      • Re:Many green spaces cost nothing to visit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ravenshrike ( 808508 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @02:33PM (#54443809)

        Sorry, but the idea that a weekend family outing needs to include Universal Studios Orlando is fucking batshit. That sort of outing should be maybe once every three years at most. A weekend outing can be as simple as going to the nearest park for the day. Doing things like hiking, biking, playing stupid outdoor games. Eating pre-prepared sandwiches and other food kept in a cooler with enough icebags to keep it cool.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gfxguy ( 98788 )
          A "day" is not a weekend, and going to the local park isn't a "getaway." You're conflating what you could do to occupy time with what they are claiming the "average" cost is for a weekend getaway. That means travel, hotels, restaurants, and the cost of whatever it is you are traveling to (if it's not a theme park, it's something else - an aquarium, a zoo, something). They also say it's an average cost, not the cheapest thing you can possibly do.
          • That means travel, hotels, restaurants, and the cost of whatever it is you are traveling to

            Let's use my recent examples. I've taken a few one week vacations over the last year or so, and during that time it's cost me roughly $1,200 for each trip. That's everything from hotels, eating out, travel (gas money) as well as entrance fees to wherever and miscellaneous.

            Some of what I visit is free in the sense my taxes have already paid for it, but everything else comes out of my pocket. If I can spend t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gfxguy ( 98788 )

              You're misunderstanding. I get what you are saying, I do, but now take a family of four, and remember that the summary is pointing out it could (being an operative word) cost around $2350 on average.

              So yes, you can do things for a whole lot less, you can also do things for a whole lot more. You can't take what they say and then argue you can do it cheaper - nobody is saying you can't. But it depends on what you're doing, and what may be suitable for me, travelling alone, where I might do things as chea

              • You're misunderstanding. I get what you are saying, I do, but now take a family of four, and remember that the summary is pointing out it could (being an operative word) cost around $2350 on average.

                The issue here is that the summary is misleading. The actual article (I know, who would look at that) says the family's "perfect weekend" would cost $2328. So yes, you could certainly fit in several weekend trips to nearby state parks for much less than the "perfect weekend".

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gfxguy ( 98788 )
                  Well, with that I agree - if fact, the whole article is misleading because it shouldn't take a weekend getaway to pull you off the screens. As a lot of people point out, going to a nearby park is free - my only point was that a weekend getaway, for a family of four, can easily be that much or more (and that's why they say average). It's silly for people to be jumping on the number they give because nobody is arguing you can't get away for less (or more).

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by bws111 ( 1216812 )

                Here is what it says: "...parents say that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive. A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328."

                Do you understand that? They are saying they CAN NOT do more activities away from home because it is TOO EXPENSIVE, and the only number they give is that the AVERAGE 'typical weekend getaway' costs $2328.

                And what everyone but you is saying is: that is bullshit. There are MANY 'outings'

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by gfxguy ( 98788 )

                  It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you

                  That's because you're ignoring what I'm saying. I'll repeat it, because you're not letting it sink in: nobody argued that you couldn't have a weekend getaway for a lot less than they are saying. Nobody. Not the people who wrote the article, and not me. That's why they use words like "could average" instead of "costs at least." My posts reflect that people jumping in and complaining that the number too high just because they can do it cheaper are not understanding the word "average" and not reading the

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by tsqr ( 808554 )

                    You seem to be overlooking a key message of the article, which is that parents are saying "that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive". So when you say, "nobody argued that you couldn't have a weekend getaway for a lot less than they are saying", you are dead wrong; that's exactly what those parents are saying.

                    It isn't the cited cost of a weekend getaway that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the proposition that the only way to pry

        • The current state of the airline industry has turned people back to the old family road trip. If you're going to see a theme park, make it one in the next state and plan a route that includes a lot of adult attractions along the way. Take a close look at the map and you can find places to hike, explore ghost towns, see interesting downtowns, and hit the beach on the way to Wally World.

      • You typed all those words because you can't understand a tiny little phrase like, "Many green spaces cost nothing to visit."

        Universal Studios Orlando isn't a green space. We're talking about parks here. Check a map, you probably have one within walking distance. You'll probably drive anyways.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gfxguy ( 98788 )
          I typed all those words because people are talking the statement "A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328" and completely misunderstanding what they are saying. I have an annual parking permit to a park nearby - I go hiking there all the time for no extra cost, but that's not a weekend getaway, is it? A getaway involves, you know, getting away, which means travel, hotels, and restaurants at least. Nobody said you can't do something for a lot less money; nobody s

          • No, actually, the person you replied to didn't say anything about family getaways. Maybe you stepped in a pile of clickbait?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gfxguy ( 98788 )
              Really? So he wasn't responding to anything in particular, nothing in the article or the summary; he was just mentioning offhandedly, for no reason at all otherwise, that many green spaces cost nothing to visit?
      • I somewhat agree, but see both sides of the argument here. I have a famliy of 5, and it gets expensive to do much of anything outside of the house often. The article mentions a weekend 'getaway' which does to me imply a vacation of sorts, which is different than an 'outing' for a day trip. A weekend vacation can be done on the cheap, but can also get very expensive depending on what you do.

        An example of both extremes:
        earlier this year our family went to Disneyland. We drove there to save money on tr
    • if you don't live in Detroit. If you live in a poor neighborhood they're not that green and there's drug dealers around. But besides that you're looking at travel. That means gas and a reliable car that can get you to and fro. Me? I've been stuck with a beater for years since everytime I get some money saved something blows up in my face. It's all I can do to stay out of debt. And I live a pretty modest life (no drink, no smokes, aforementioned beater car, don't eat out much, wear cheap cloths) and I make a

  • $2300/weekend?? (Score:3)

    by eth1 ( 94901 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @01:44PM (#54443371)

    Why the heck do you have to have a "weekend family getaway" to get people off of screens? When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside (now get off my lawn!).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside.

      Nowadays that'll get some powertripping CPS worker at your house threatening to take your kids to foster care if you don't do exactly what they say.

    • Re:$2300/weekend?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dargaud ( 518470 ) <slashdot2@nOSpaM.gdargaud.net> on Thursday May 18, 2017 @02:00PM (#54443519) Homepage
      And even if you do want a family WE getaway, 2300$ ?!? What do you do during this WE, snort coke with hookers and badly lose at poker or what ? I mean 50$ of gas to reach some forest, beach or mountain, 50$ in BBQ coal, food and booze, 10$ to sleep in a tent on some campground, 0$ to hike, climb or swim. Double those prices depending on local price of life but if 2300$, you are doing it wrong.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jzanu ( 668651 )

        Cost includes for all assets required. Perhaps unknown to you is the fact that people are very different than your apparently limited imagination allows you to know. Those who live in apartment face limited physical space, and can not stow items used a few times per year. This means they must purchase all items to be used in an outing. For your camping idea you must consider also lost wages which the poorest can not afford outright, which again creates more cost from lost income.

        Throughout Germany in the

      • I'm about to walk to the park, it is totally free and open all year.

        People don't travel for the weekend in order to look at their screens, so the alternative to looking at a screen might be on the same time scale as a TV show or movie. It might even be available without leaving their private property for most people!

    • Re:$2300/weekend?? (Score:4, Informative)

      by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Thursday May 18, 2017 @02:10PM (#54443597) Journal

      If you sin and RTFA, you'll see that that amount is for the "perfect getaway", and includes $500 for tickets to the amusement park, $350 in food, and $1500 in travel costs.
       
      So, clickbait as normal.

      • Sounds like bullshit clickbait, I'll pass.

        And for the record, an amusement park is full of screens.

    • Definitely.

      The issue is now the outside world is competing for kids attention. The days of walking around and finding that "perfect stick" to be your sword or staff or whatever, then wielding it with friends for hours of fun has to compete with killer graphics and MMO gameplay essentially doing the same exact thing.

      Except one of them teaches kids socialization and gets them active while one keeps them sedentary and exposes them to a twisted version of socialization with no real cause and effect dynami

    • my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer

      And these days, my wife goes into hysterics if our kids set foot outside the house because she's convinced somebody will kidnap them. When I tell her I spent every single day of every single summer outside from the time I was 10 to the time I was old enough to drive she just insists that "times were different back then".

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        Yeah.... we'd be gone all day and only come home around dinner time... and then go back to our friends houses or the parks and come home for bedtime. My wife sounds a lot like yours. I point out there's no difference, just more ubiquitous media scare tactics, but it doesn't work.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jzanu ( 668651 )
          The problem is one of supervision in environments rife with gang activity and/or drug trade. This is not limited to cities or developed areas. Why do you think there are Appalachian methamphetamine addicts? All the open wild desirable, and yet people find drugs. And in that environment as in all others, kids unsupervised are more prone to manipulative influence to use them. This applies to every other "worry" which has a real basis, and is in contrast to the new practice of digital exploration done by kids.

      • Times were very different back then. Crime was a lot higher, including kidnapping. It wasn't safe like it is now!

    • Pretty much the same with me. Of course back then the only screen was on a small B&W TV.

    • Why the heck do you have to have a "weekend family getaway" to get people off of screens? When I was a kid, my parents just kicked me out of the house most of the summer, and I spent it outside (now get off my lawn!).

      Illegal in many states. Leaving a pre-teen unsupervised is against the law. Now kids used to be left to do as they pleased and things are a lot safer now than they were, however, I've yet to see any study if there is causation or correlation between the two.

  • A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328.

    What are these people doing on the weekend? Holy crap.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )
      They are getting away... not going to some local park or a movie theater. Have you had to pay for your whole family to travel somewhere for a few nights? Hotels, travel expenses, restaurants.... and then you are typically paying for what you're going to, like theme parks or something. In a post above I described taking my family from GA to Universal Theme Parks in Orlando... we drove, we stayed on site, went to the park for two full days. It easily cost a lot more than that "average." Could you do thin

  • There are dozens of Sci-Fi novels that predicted that we'd all be mindless slugs staring at screens all day.

    Thralls, enjoy your new system of government that is about to be imposed on you. Hopefully Twitter explains it to you after the fact.

  • "All things factored in" includes what - airfare, five-star hotels and four-diamond restaurants, hookers and blow?

    Even if I were tired of all the green spaces, parks, wildlife refuges, etc. etc. in my own area, $60 in gas will get me and my family a round-trip to somewhere 300 miles away, and I'm not sure how I'm going to spend $2,268 more.

    • I clicked for your sins, and that's the cost of a 'perfect weekend' which apparently involves flying to Disney World. Clickbait summary.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )
      $60 will get you a round trip 300 miles away... for an entire weekend? That is impressive. I need to point out, again, they are talking about an "average" cost, not a bare minimum you could get away with cost, for a weekend getaway. Yes, you can spend a lot less; you can also spend a lot more. That's why it's an "average" they have somehow come up with for a family to travel somewhere for a weekend (which one would assume would be at least two nights). I'm not trying to argue with anybody - we have a p

      • I'm not sure which part of "getaway" you're so confused about that it sends you into an argumentative hipster rage, but "get away" doesn't say anything about blowing a bunch of money trying to look like you're spending lots of money on a vacation. All you have to do is get, and keep getting until you're away!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gfxguy ( 98788 )
          You don't have to blow a lot of money, but unless your definition of "weekend family getaway" is driving 300 miles, your whole family sleeping in the car and not eating any food the whole time, I'm suggesting you're not going to do it for $60. The larger point I'm arguing is that nobody said you can't have a weekend family getaway for a lot less than $2350, they are saying it that's what it could average. Immediately everybody jumps on that to point out how you could do it a lot less.... yes, you could.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Jzanu ( 668651 )
            This fellow who argues won't understand. Slashdot has lost its users with basic numeracy faster than those with basic literacy, which is a deplorable rate in itself.

            • While you are dickwaving your gigantic numeracy you might want to consider upgrading your literacy, because your statement was not self-consistent.

  • Cost seems odd (Score:3)

    by Gilgaron ( 575091 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @01:47PM (#54443403)
    Year long memberships to the zoo, museum, campground, pool, etc etc don't add up to that, let alone one weekend.

  • Before I would read a book while getting a tan... now I can surf the net, play Angry Birds or read an e-book if I still want that.

  • Can you blame kids for not wanting to go outdoors when they are in serious danger of being shot by the police for walking down the street?
    http://thefreethoughtproject.c... [thefreetho...roject.com]

  • A modern boardgame , a good one like pandemic, battlestar galactica, dead of winter etc... Either coop or with a traitor, played out in the garden or in a parc. And it is reusable. For "$2,328" you can even try a few different one until you find something the family click in.

  • 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @02:01PM (#54443527)
    It's about all I can afford. I'm not going to do any travel. I can't afford it. I could wander around the neighborhood or go to a park I suppose, but the kid's a bit old for that. A trip down to one of the lakes burns gas and puts miles on my old car. So yeah, "staycation" it is.

  • Groupon asked 1,000 U.S. parents how much time their families plan to spend on their electronic devices this summer

    So a website which encourages people to be glued to the screen trawling for bargains discovers its users are glued to the screen.

  • Only 150 hours playing video games? Kids these days, such slackers. Back in my day, kids would easily rack up 150 hours in 2-3 weeks.

  • just means bigger targets for terrorists and possible fights between families for park green space. Better just watch some tv and play SNES.

  • What do you think about this state of affairs?

    There's a question that tends to generate thoughtful and introspective answers...

    Should parents do more to limit screen time for themselves and their children during summer?

    Thinly-veiled "Do you think that other people should do more to limit screen time," which is sure to bring out the maladjusted perfectionists, the hypocrites, and anyone otherwise desperate for attention.

    The answer is no. You're not qualified, you don't have reliable information, you know li

  • Unintended consequences... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fringe ( 6096 ) on Thursday May 18, 2017 @03:48PM (#54444591)
    Long long ago, we would...
    • Run around outside playing cowboys & indians.
      • Only now, that's racist and violent and will get you locked up.
    • Roam around the countryside with our friends.
      • Only now, that's an abdication of parenting, and results in HHS taking kids from parents.
    • Play random games of dodgeball.
      • Only now, that's violent and gets you sent to counselling.
    • Played soccer or competitive (organized) sports.
      • Only now, those are judgemental, because there are winners and losers, so they've over-burdened them with rules and awards to where they're no longer fun enough to do.
    • Goofed off in one of our parents' backyards.
      • Only now, any minor injury results in a lawsuit, so you can't risk your neighbor kids coming over to play.
      • When younger, have birthday parties with our besties.
        • Only now, that's exclusionary and the school forbids parents from having non-school related parties at all.
      • Each our brown-bagged lunches, mostly peanut butter & jelly, together outside at recess, except for the kids who luckily brought the chips and candy.
        • Only now, peanut butter is banned. And so are candy and chips. One is dangerous and the other is, well, dangerous but slower.

      Geez, and you wonder why the kids hide from everything?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )
      Great, another long winded post from some baby boomer with rose tinted glasses.

      Geez, and you wonder why the kids hide from everything?

      Kids aren't hiding from having fun, they're hiding from you because they don't want to listen to another boring story about the "good old days" and how kids have it too easy these days. I'm old enough to remember scraping half my face off playing around with bike jumps constructed of whatever detritus we could find. I also vividly remember getting a giant fuck-off needle jag up my arse because of it.

      So kids these days like vi

  • Off the couch boy. It aint rainin, go play in traffic. Oh and if I catch you on that roof again I'm gonna harvest parts outta yer goddamn xbox, NOW GIT BEFORE I PUT YOU TO WORK!

    But dad, my K:D is finally evening out.....

    THAT'S IT! GO MOW THE FUCKING LAWN!

  • "Worse"? What is this "worse"?

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close