Child Bait
Introduction
“It's as dangerous for pediatricians to make recommendations about advertising as for me to write a prescription for a child's ear infection,” said Dick O'Brien of the American Association of Advertising Agencies. O’Brien issued this statement in defense of his industry’s practice of targeting kids following an attack by the American Academy of Pediatrics (Teinowitz 3, 2006). This quote has multiple flaws which reflect advertisers’ mood toward children and the companies’ omniscient mindset. Dick O’Brien claims that he knows what is dangerous for children despite never studying medicine. He goes further in saying, a trained pediatrician, who has attended medical school, has no right to classify what is dangerous to children. It may be that O’Brien simply ignores these indisputable truths: advertising to children causes unhealthy food selection, promotes violence, and creates an increasingly materialistic youth, or he may be unethical in his practices and does not care for the well being of the nation’s children. Either way, American children are bombarded with thousands of advertisements every year which are designed to play on children’s susceptibility to be easily influenced. Each year companies invest more than 17 billion dollars to create advertisements that are strictly targeted at children, an increase from 100 million in 1983 (Schlesinger). As a result, children influence their parents to squander billions and billions of dollars on unnecessary goods that are neither physically nor mentally healthy for children. The question that ultimately arises here is where to draw the line? Have advertising techniques surpassed ethical concerns by taking advantage of children’s vulnerable minds? Should advertisers be restricted from advertising to children even though the United States places great importance on freedom of speech? Who determines if these companies are obtaining their sales through unethical means? All of these aforementioned questions are complex but at the same time can be answered adequately with two simple solutions. The first focuses the responsibility on the parents. After all, are not parents the ones who eventually purchase the various products their children claim they so desperately need? One of the main problems is that parents do not have the time or energy to argue with their nagging kids. This, coupled with many other problems parents encounter with their children, calls for a change in parenting practices before the situation escalates. The second solution places the liability on the advertising companies. Targeting children younger than the age of twelve should be restricted. Before this stage in their life, children’s minds are like a sponge and they are susceptible to being influenced in any way, shape, or form.
The Problem
A prominent problem that American households face all across the country is children being heavily influenced by advertisements in several mediums including television, the Internet, and the radio. Although the Internet is currently on the rise, television has had the most significant impact on children throughout history and still today. In order to diagnose the problems arising from advertising to children, one must first address the amount of advertising American children are exposed to each year. Approximately half of all the ads kids twelve and under view on television, about ten thousand a year, are food advertisements. The break down is as follows: over thirty-three percent are for candy and snacks, twenty-eight percent are for cereals, and ten percent are for fast food chains (Teinowitz 6, 2007). According to industry estimates, advertisers spend upwards of nine hundred million dollars annually on television targeted toward children twelve and younger (Barnes C1, Brooks). Advertisers infiltrate the minds of millions of children by using various features in their commercials including appealing (child) characters, attractive products, rhyme, catchy jingles, and their short-length (“The Facts…Kids”). While advertisers continuously reach children through commercials, parents stand by accepting their children’s nagging and eventually give in to the grand scheme by purchasing the products their kids demand.
In America’s fast-paced world, the relationship between parents and their children is suffering. Parents do not spend enough time with their children to monitor their activities and discuss the advertisements’ influence on their children. In fact, the influence kids have on their parent’s purchasing decisions is increasing approximately twenty percent each year. In 2004, children between the ages of four and twelve directly influenced 330 billion dollars worth of adult spending. Furthermore, those same children evoked an additional 340 billion dollars through presents from grandparents or relatives (Kanner 1). It is now reported that approximately 26% of children aged two and under already have a television in their own bedroom (“The Facts…Kids”). Parents’ negligence is not only unhelpful, but it is now encouraging advertisement to children, making it even easier for advertisers to reach children at a very young age. They might as well open the door to their homes, escort advertisers to their infant’s room, and tell them to take as much time as they need to brainwash their children’s minds to create lifetime customers with unfaltering brand loyalty.
This idea of instilling brand loyalty in a child at a young age has been occurring through the television medium since the 1970’s. Research institute Millward Brown conducted an extensive study in which they discovered numerous trends occurring among thousands of children. The studies reported, “At six months of age, a baby begins imitating simple sounds like “ma-ma” and they also form mental images of corporate logos and mascots” (Lindstrom 175). Brand loyalty can be a heavy influence by the age of two. According to Dr. James U. McNeal, an expert on kids and marketing, toddlers begin forming mental pictures of corporate logos and mascots when they are two-years-old. Experts also estimate that each lifetime customer may be worth a $100,000 to a retailer. As a result, companies’ cradle-to-grave strategies return enormous profits (Lindstrom).
One of the most significant problems I have with the children’s advertising issue is the ethics or lack thereof that many companies utilize. These advertising firms know how to take advantage of kids, and they blatantly produce commercials that convince kids to make unhealthy decisions. Studies show young children, those being under the age of five, cannot distinguish between a commercial and regular programming. Furthermore, studies prove that children eight and under are unable to comprehend the persuasive intent of commercials (“The Facts…Kids”). They have not learned many of life’s lessons such as some people (advertisers) may not always be acting in the best interest of others. A majority of the time, when kids see something appealing, they do not understand that when purchasing and consuming the product they could be subjecting themselves to serious consequences.
Ethics in advertising seems almost nonexistent as one divulges the various processes advertisers use to discover what will appeal to children. Psychologists' expertise is now being used to formulate commercials that almost always have a deeper meaning than what may be on the surface. Companies employ psychologists to use their insights in order to exploit children’s fears and desires. Psychologists are even requested to take surveys of young people across the globe in order to see how they change year to year. For example, Proctor and Gamble was cited as having young teens throw slumber parties in which they handed out free products from the company. Using the teens' reactions, Proctor and Gamble discovered how to better promote their products to their target audience (Kanner 2). Companies now have hours of access to children each day and the resources to know how they think and what they like and dislike. One psychologist, Dr. Allen D. Kanner, PhD, is attempting to end the collaboration between the greedy companies and psychologists. By warning the public and asking others in his profession, Dr. Kanner hopes to bring an end to this abuse of knowledge and power. Dr. Kanner was quoted as saying, "Psychology's business is understanding and helping people; it has no business using its insights to line corporate pockets"(Segall).
After advertisers are able penetrate children’s minds, they insert false, yet very appealing information. One such instance is the fast food industry. Their commercials appeal to children’s love of toys, animated characters, and their desire to be sociably accepted. Fast food chains alone spend three billion dollars a year for advertisements tailored for children. On Saturday mornings, children see one food commercial about every five minutes; most of these ads are for foods high in fat, sugar, salt, and calories (“The Facts…Kids”). Using their unfair advantage, advertisers implant unhealthy images and desires in our children’s minds. Children do not understand that what lies beyond all the toys and friendly animated characters is a company that is putting young lives at risk in order to obtain enormous profits.
What’s the Big Deal?
Any parent, future parent, and even any concerned citizen has a stake in the development of the nation’s youth. The children of today are soon to become the leaders of tomorrow who will be guiding the country into the future. Society needs to take the initiative in developing responsible, healthy, and educated children. Some serious consequences arising from unethical advertising to children include obesity, violence, materialism, and an attitude of instant gratification. If no action is taken to terminate companies’ extensive influence on children, then advertising will inevitably crawl into the minds of more and more children every year. Ultimately, America will have an ever-increasing population of overweight kids who are violent and believe that their wants are essentially needs. America has waited far too long to correct this problem of epidemic proportions. How can society just stand by and watch as the nation’s youth literally eat away years of their life?
Obesity is the first potentially life threatening consequence resulting from unhealthy foods being marketed to kids. America’s children are now more overweight than ever before. Studies taken in 2003 and 2004 found that 17.4% of kids and teenagers, those between two and nineteen, were considered overweight. These figures have more than doubled since 1980 (Boyse). A potential cause of the extra weight gain could be due to commercials. One Department of Agriculture study calculated that 95% of the 10,000 food commercials children see each year, pitch high-fat, high-sugar products (Grimm 44). Unless action is taken, these numbers of obese children will only continue to grow. Not only are the kids stuffing themselves with readily provided unhealthy food, they are also refraining from physical activity. For instance, some children choose to sit in front of a television set or a computer monitor for their daily entertainment.
Thousands of American children have their own personal story of how they struggled, or struggle with obesity. One such person, Dave, had been overweight ever since he was a very young child. His parents used to point out grossly obese adults to Dave and they would tell him to control his eating habits or else he would look like those people when he grew up. It is unfortunate that Dave’s parents did not take it upon themselves to help their overweight child. At school, Dave was often teased about his weight with other schoolmates nicknaming him husky and fatty. These actions severely hurt Dave’s self-esteem and it came to a point where the only thing Dave could go to for help and satisfaction was food. Dave continued to eat and eat because it helped him to drown his sorrows. He never attended school dances because he could not ask anyone out and he did not want to dress up a body that was not “normal”. Now Dave is an adult and has been able to cut down on some of his weight. However, working back to a healthy weight has been very difficult for Dave because he had so much to lose. He is now helping other children, such as his niece and nephew, to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Recently, Dave was reflecting on his experience as a child and said, “The pressures of being a kid are tough, the taunts are endless; but being a fat kid is like going through it twice.” (“I was…story”). Why should America allow advertisers to promote fattening products to kids with the potential of turning their childhood into one like Dave’s? As Dave’s story clearly demonstrates, once a kid is hooked it is very hard to break the habit.
The second effect television advertisements have on children is the violence they portray and even commend. One can hardly watch T.V. without encountering an advertisement for a show, movie, or video game that contains graphic images and violence. One such video game, Grand Theft Auto, which was heavily marketed toward teens and pre-teens, was entirely based around the objective to kill other people in order to get ahead in life. Although these games are not real, they can very easily influence young children into thinking violence is a solution. Some gaming systems, such as Playstation 3, market slogans like “This is Living”. They even go further by saying that the high definition graphics and accurate game play will challenge the player to distinguish between the game and reality. What parent would want their seven year old to view commercials advertising games that promote heavy violence that mirrors real life experiences? If the parent followed the nation’s norm, they would probably give into their seven-year-old boy’s begging and buy him this dangerous game without giving it a second thought. Their vindication, at least they were able to please their kid and get them to “shut up for once” (Demytrenko).
Back to Being a Kid for “One Saturday Morning”
As a young boy growing up in suburban Ohio I lived a fairly normal life. Similar to many kids in America, I would lazily crawl out of my bed at 7:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, nestle myself into a warm couch, and flip on “One Saturday Morning”, ABC’s early morning cartoon programming for kids. I was unknowingly subjected to advertisements that secretly appealed to my desires and motivated me to make irrational decisions. As I look back on my life, I know that I was a spoiled kid, and I believe that commercials were partly to blame. For example, it was custom in my young life that on my sister’s birthday, yes, my sister’s birthday not mine, I was given several gifts from my parents and close family friends. I now realize these gifts were provided to keep me from complaining while my sister opened her pile of presents. A cleaver technique indeed, but nonetheless, it molded me into a boy who prided himself in his toys. I am not afraid to declare my materialistic ways I had as a child because I believe what lives in the past stays in the past. However, on October 27, 2007, I went through my old routine I often practiced as a six or seven-year-old boy and tumbled onto my comfortable couch, draped myself with a blanket, and summoned the TV with my remote to tune to children’s cartoons. The only difference this time, other than my age, was that I had a notebook in hand waiting to dissect the commercials that ran approximately every eight to ten minutes.
Following my extensive online research, I knew about the content of commercials on children’s programming, but for some reason I maintained a false sense, or hope, that my research would not be entirely accurate. To my surprise, my research nailed it. I watched commercials on various networks including Fox, Nickelodeon, and the Disney Channel. All of these stations strictly stuck to approximately four different product categories: animated movies, drinks and snacks, toys, and cereals. One of the most obvious and disturbing findings was the format and frequency of unhealthy food commercials.
First, after an hour of watching TV, I noted a third of the commercials were advertising cereals. The marketed cereals included Cocoa Pebble’s, Chocolate Honey Combs, and Cocoa Puffs all of which shared one commonality, they contained chocolate. I do not have the credentials or the knowledge to label these products as completely unhealthy, but I do know chocolate for breakfast every morning is not a healthy lifestyle for a child. The commercials unfairly used children’s love of chocolate to promote their cereals. All of the brands used cartoons to present their product. One in particular, Cocoa Pebble’s, starred the Flintstone’s Barney and Fred overly joyous at the sight of the large chocolate balls. The choice of the Flintstone’s was an ironic selection because just forty years ago both Barney and Fred did an advertisement for Winston cigarettes (Wolfe 11). I am by no means saying Cocoa Pebbles are as dangerous as cigarettes, but it seems in both cases, the use of cartoons was an effective means of reaching children and influencing unhealthy decisions.
Secondly, I noticed fast food chains aired some extremely twisted commercials. McDonald’s yet again partnered with a new animated movie, Bee Movie, to appeal to children’s love of animated characters and their desire to see this movie. The distorted message that bothered me was that at no time did McDonald’s promote or even mention their food. After all, they are a restaurant, are they not? A viewer could only see a closed burger box in the background amidst all the bees flying around promoting the new movie. The closest they came to mentioning food was telling children that they would receive a free toy from Bee Movie in every Happy Meal. Burger King also used the toy tactic to lure children. However, Burger King presented the idea that just one toy was not enough. Therefore, in their kid’s meal, the child would receive a toy within a toy. Just as the multitude of toys created materialistic ideals in my life, children of today are being swindled into thinking the toys are more important than the food.
Advertisers are creating a world that thrives on materialism. After watching several more commercials, I saw that a majority of the commercials marketed towards children featured groups of kids enjoying a product. These commercials teach children that in order to “fit it” they need a particular product. Thousands of children fall victim to these advertising techniques thinking if they do not buy the toy then they will be considered an outcast. With the increased competition among toy companies and children’s changing tastes, the kids always want the newest products. It comes to a point in which the youth no longer define themselves by their character or their accomplishments but only by the materialistic goods they posses.
Wants vs. Needs
Although children claim they need new gifts in order to be accepted in society, the reality is that they only want these products and have no need for them whatsoever. It should be the parents’ role to know when to interject and explain to their children the difference between wants and needs. Kids in today’s society believe they are entitled to everything they need and want. Because some cannot distinguish between the two, children expect instant gratification of all their wants. As a result, America’s youth are becoming an increasingly materialistic society.
The key to suppressing children’s materialistic practices is to separate needs from wants. One substantial problem that accounts for why this confusion exists is that there is no clear-cut definition of what defines a want or a need. When most people think of the absolute essential needs of life they usually list food, water, air, clothing, and shelter. Although all of these are a necessity, I am realistic and know that in today’s world humans need much more than those basics. I agree with author Craig Nathanson who stated society also needs, “reliable transportation, education, enrichment, and the technology necessary to do our work. Also, we need the occasional small indulgence to treat our children and ourselves.” (Nathanson). Now a small indulgence is not necessarily buying toys and unhealthy treats, it is more of a small vacation or a nice night out for dinner. Also, emphasis should be placed on the word ‘small’. One can venture into stores with good intentions, but it is very easy to splurge and make impulsive buys. Once a consumer has properly balanced the ratio of needs to wants, they will live a much happier and less materialistic life.
The distorted image between what is a need as opposed to a want is blurred by human desire. Contained in almost every persuasive advertisement is a creation of desire in the viewer. According to California State University Sacramento professor Roger Crisp, a majority of the time advertisers play on unconscious desires for sex, money, power, and adventure. Unknowingly, kids and adults both deeply yearn for the object being promoted based on loose associations with their desires (Crisp 413). Moreover, Crisp credits advertisers with using persuasive techniques that overrides the autonomy of consumers. He goes further in saying that advertisements cause desires in such a way that, “ a necessary condition of autonomy — the possibility of decision — is removed.” (Crisp 415). If adults fall into the deceiving techniques of advertisers, how can society expect children to respond to unhealthy commercials that are appealing to their desires? Once a child sees toys and cartoons and hears catchy jingles, they focus on the animated characters and music more than the product. They then continue to the first step of the creation of desire by depicting a mental image in their mind of what it would be like to have that product (Crisp). Once children can picture themselves owning the object, they have morphed their want into what they believe to be a need. Next stop is a trip over to mom or dad accompanied with some serious pleading and bargaining.
History’s Mysteries Solved
In order to better understand the catastrophic problem of advertising to children, one must first look back to see when companies began to take advantage of the nation’s youth. Television’s advertising has its origins in the 1950’s when the Mickey Mouse Club ran commercials showing the personal gain one would receive if a product was purchased. It was not until the 1960’s that the potential of advertising to children was truly realized. The next fifteen to twenty years, children’s television became an industry in itself (Tseng). Today, the Federal Trade Commission along with Children’s Advertising Review Unit are working collectively to implement more laws that will protect the children of America.
In the mid to late 1950’s, the big companies of today began making a name for themselves. “Mattel, Hasbro and Fisher-Price were some of these toy manufacturers that became famous. At about the same time, today's traditional cereal companies, Kellogg’s, General Mills, and Trix, moved into the market” (Tseng). At this point in history, most advertising put emphasis on the personal gain one would receive if the product was purchased and consumed. Once the 1960’s came, advertisers from these companies began to realize the extreme profits that one could accrue through marketing to children. These thoughts were triggered by the youth’s extreme interest of the television and the potential impact it could have on them. This was a decade in which they aired commercials during programming targeted towards kids. However, throughout the 1960’s, advertising to children continued at a very low level. Once the 1970’s came along, the advertising industry took off.
Criticism of advertising to children began to arise in the 1970’s. Charles Winik, author of Children's Television Commercials: A Content Analysis, argued that while “advertising directed to children stimulated their materialism and consumption, it also encouraged conflicts with their peers and parents for the same materialistic matters” (Tseng). Numerous academic studies were then carried out to determine what effect these commercials were having on children. Various content sections were analyzed such as fun, taste, product performance, and action. In addition, how the ads presented their product, such as using animated characters or live action shots, was also taken into account. These studies suggested that action needed to be taken because commercials were not informing viewers, they were unfairly persuading them (Tseng).
The events of the 1970’s provoked the Federal Trade Commission to start monitoring advertising to children. One of the main responsibilities of the FTC in protecting consumers is to monitor unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. “Under the FTC Act, an act or practice is deceptive if it misleads consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances and is material to the purchase/use decision. It is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and not offset by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition” (Engle). In 1978, the FTC proposed a solution to the widespread concern about advertising to children. They believed that many of the advertised foods could have adverse health effects on its consumers. The proposal was known as Kidvid and contained three main regulations: ban all TV ads to kids six and under, ban TV ads for the most cavity-causing foods to kids 12 and under, and require TV ads for sugared products directed to older children to contain nutritional or health disclosures. After a few years of debate and several hearings, the FTC staff reports concluded that there should be cause for concern but to create a rule to address all of the concerns was impossible. In 1981, the FTC terminated all of the previous rulemakings and Kidvid unfortunately became history. The ruling failed because it was difficult to craft rules restricting advertising in any form. The FTC ran into such problems as how to define food which causes tooth decay, where and when to limit these advertisements, and what determines if an ad is directed at a kid six and under. Another obstacle for the FTC was the right to freedom of speech.
In the first amendment, all citizens are given the freedom of speech, which indirectly gives advertisers the right to say whatever they want. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. In order to determine if the government can violate the freedom of speech clause, the courts must run a Central Hudson Test in which all three sections have to be adequately answered: is there a substantial government interest, does regulation advance this interest, and is the regulation narrowly tailored? In the 1980’s, studies could not inclusively prove that TV commercials induced obesity in children. Moreover, if the government did restrict advertisements to children, would it truly advance the health of the nation’s youth (Engle)?
All those who claim advertisers have a right to express whatever they wish, according to the First Amendment, could not be further from the truth. The Constitution gives the government the right to restrict the freedom of speech if it presents a clear and present danger. In my opinion, obesity is one of the most widespread dangers that a child encounters in their young lives. Additionally, I believe all three sections of the Central Hudson Test can be adequately completed. First off, the government has an interest because its purpose for existence is to protect and govern its people. Secondly, a regulation on advertising to children would undoubtedly help advance this issue. Lastly, the regulation can be tailored however the government sees fit as long as it protects the physical and mental health of its nation’s youth.
In 2005, Federal Trade Commission Chairman, Deborah Platt Majoras, stated in an interview that the FTC was not going to ban food advertisements on TV. She claimed the FTC had made a mistake in attempting to do this in the 1970’s. She furthered her argument in saying it was a dead letter in the First Amendment and the difficulties were too large to overcome. Although Majoras was not optimistic about changing laws, she did have some practical insight on how parents can help. She declared, “The first responsibility lies with parents. Marketing is very persuasive and so is the taste of the food when kids taste it the first time. My own view is it's important to teach kids what they ought to be eating” (“We are…Kids”).
Even though the FTC rulings failed, they did inspire future regulations ten years down the road. In 1990, President George W. H. Bush signed the Children’s Television Act giving the Federal Communications Commission the power to limit the amount and type of advertising on children’s TV. The legislation required both broadcasters and cable networks to air no more than 10.5 minutes of ad time per hour on children’s programming weekends, and no more than 12 minutes per hour on weekdays. Additionally, any advertisements within the context of the show would result in the entire half hour show being counted as an advertisement, not a program. One of the main goals of this ruling was to protect children from being confused as to what is a TV show and what is an advertisement (Brown 17).
Sixteen years later, in 2006, the FCC voted in new regulations that would further limit advertisers’ right to advertise to children. The rules contained in the new legislation are as follows, programming that is preempted more than 10% of the time in a six-month span does not count toward fulfilling networks' obligations to offer on a regular schedule three hours weekly of educational and informative programming. Promotional spots for other programs, that is for programming that is not educational and informative in nature count against the advertising limit of 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays. The display of Web site addresses, primarily commercial in nature, will count against the commercial time limits. The presenting of Web site addresses that use characters from the program to sell products or services (so-called host selling) will be restricted. This new ruling has been met with objection from three major broadcasting companies: Viacom, Disney, and NBC. These three companies vehemently oppose the ruling claiming it would force far-reaching, burdensome, and expensive changes (Shields 36).
In my opinion, the new ruling should subject companies to expensive changes. Society needs to grab the attention of some of these companies, which we have done with these regulations, and then force them to cooperate and help promote healthier choices for our youth. “The Big Three broadcast networks say the rules will reduce advertising, crimp revenue and possibly threaten the financial underpinnings of children's programs, while forcing expensive redesigns of Web sites aimed at youth audiences” (Shields 36). I am thrilled to hear that the broadcasting companies will have to reduce their advertising. In fact, one of my goals is to help regulate not only the content but also the amount of children’s advertisements. Moreover, I am happy to discover that the ruling will hurt broadcasters’ revenue. The Big Three also claim that the financials underpinnings of children’s programs could be threatened. I believe that this statement is a threat in itself. Broadcasters are attempting to convince the public that without them children’s programming would be non-existent. The truth of the matter is that programs have the resources and offerings from a variety of other sources which could help to finance the shows.
What We Can Do
The two main factors that have the greatest power to end the exploitation of children are parents and the advertisers themselves. However, the government may have to intervene to restrict companies’ advertising because most will probably not discontinue their lucrative practices unless required by law. Parents have a responsibility to supervise their children’s television viewing choices. Not only should the content of the program or commercials be monitored, but parents should also set the amount of time in which a child spends in front of a screen. Also, parents need to make time for their kids and explain the difference between wants and needs instead of giving them everything they want in life. This process will take many years to fully develop, but if done correctly, children in America will become less materialistic and could pass their values down to future generations. One key solution that could be put into effect immediately is to confine advertising companies’ abilities to target children. By setting criteria and limiting advertisements tailored to kids under a certain age, America’s children can begin to break free from the constricting reins of advertising and make healthy, educated decisions.
The first step in ending advertisers’ domineering power over our nation’s youth is to call on parents, perhaps the most influential person in a child’s life, to hold themselves accountable for their kids’ television watching experiences. Although the constant limiting and monitoring of children’s exposure to television is a near impossible task, there are ways parents can start a reversal in the advertising trend. According to CBS News, “talking to kids about what sorts of marketing they're subjected to is a crucial step in countering advertising's influence. Web sites like PBS can be used to show kids some of the tricks behind making ads look good” (Schlesinger). Frequent talks about what children are exposed to on TV will help young boys and girls to understand how they are being targeted. If these discussions occur often enough then results will begin to show. Eventually, children will have a better grasp on influential techniques advertisers use and they will be able to make themselves less susceptible to manipulation. However, “while research suggests that parental mediation may help reduce the effects of television advertising on children's purchase requests, parents are subject to TV ads just as their children are” (“What Kids…TV”). If they are to set a good example for their child, parents also need to examine commercials to ensure they are not falling victim to heavily persuasive advertising. Parents must be patient throughout this entire process because they are essentially changing life habits of their child’s life.
Parents can extend their efforts even further by talking and working with a pediatrician. Some sources encourage physicians “to continue interviewing parents and children about their awareness of dietary options and providing them with additional guidance if this awareness seems limited to TV-advertised foods” (“What Kids…TV”). Furthermore, clinicians can recommend substitute activities for TV. These activities could result in children not only burning off calories but also limiting their exposure to food ads. Clinicians should also mention to children and their parents the option of public television. Programs aired on these channels are usually free of unhealthy food advertisements, in stark contrast to their competition, commercial TV (“What Kids…TV”).
Philosophers have maintained an interest in the topic of advertising to children. One in particular, Russell N. Laczniak, recommends that all marketing practices should be evaluated according to specific questions:
• Does the practice violate law?
• Does the practice go against the moral duty to honesty and exactitude?
• To gratitude?
• To justice?
• To not place the health and safety of others in danger?
• Is the intention of the practice bad?
• Could the practice generate harmful or negative consequences?
• Did the company consciously reject a practice which would have engendered the same advantages while at the same time generating fewer harmful or negative consequences?
Each and every one of these questions are rational and functional (Grimm 45). There is no reason why advertisers should not ask themselves these very same questions before they release a new children’s commercial. If marketing techniques were assessed according to these questions then America’s youth would be living in a much safer world.
Although solving the problems of companies advertising to young children is nowhere near finished, there are some organizations beginning a movement to protect children from marketing. Many groups such as the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Health Organization have banded together and called for restrictions on marketing to children. Online polls have been conducted and results indicate that the public agrees with these organizations. Their data indicated 85% of respondents believe children’s advertising should be commercial free; 81% believe that schools should be commercial free zones; 80% believed that marketing to children under eight should be prohibited. U.S. Senators, such as Tom Harkin, have also been working toward these organizations common goal by “introducing legislation that would restore the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to regulate marketing to children” (“The Facts…Kids”).
Acts and regulations such as the Children’s Television Act of 1990 and its revision in 2006 have been put into place to restrict advertisers’ rights. However, they have proven to be ineffective mostly due to their lack of punishment. For example, “the FCC…fined Viacom a cool $1 million for repeatedly--at least 591 times--breaking rules that limit ads aired during children's programming” (Stein). Viacom is being paid enormous amounts of money to air these commercials so a million-dollar fine does not hurt them. In fact, the revenue they make from the commercials that are “illegal” to air allows them to still come out with a profit following the fines. In addition, ABC was also found guilty of running commercials that provided links to a products site. Their penalty was a $500,000 fine (Stein). To ABC’s owner, Disney, this amount of money is merely pocket change. If the FCC wants to seriously limit advertising to children then they need to enforce their laws with an iron fist. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
I believe it is evident that American’s current laws protecting kids from advertising are not sufficient. Obesity rates in our youth are still increasing. Materialism and violence are still part of everyday life for kids all across the country. Also, if advertisers or our government were to ask Laczniak’s questions, I am confident that they would discover kid’s commercials violate at least half of these recommendations. Companies’ intentions may not be necessarily bad, but the effects of their products certainly are harmful. My solution is a combination of many previous attempts with numerous alterations. Additionally, the key to successfully protecting the nation’s youth is the strict enforcement of these laws.
My Solution
One of the only ways to restrict advertising is to define which age group is protected from commercials. A new law on the Internet restricted companies from obtaining personal information from kids 12 and under without parental consent (Swindle). I too believe twelve-years-old is a good threshold to determine when advertisers can specifically target kids. By the age of twelve, most kids understand advertising’s persuasive intent. They have a level of knowledge and maturity that allows them to make well-educated decisions. I feel this restriction is fair to advertisers because they can still capitalize on the teenage market. One major difficulty of this solution is how to set criteria for categorizing a commercial. How does one determine the target audience of a commercial? The answer to this question is the FTC and FCC. Both of these agencies should collectively share ideas and facts with one another. Each one should create a committee with the responsibility of determining a commercial’s target audience. If two thirds of the board is in agreement that the commercial is tailored toward kids under the age of twelve, then the advertisement is prohibited from running. All companies, who produce an ad that could even be slightly considered as being advertising to young children, should submit their commercials to the committee. Failure to submit these projects and the subsequent running of the commercial on television will result in heavy fines for each violation. In order to grab the advertising and broadcasting industry’s attention, these fines will be in the millions of dollars. Hopefully these penalties will end broadcasters’ blatant disregard of our nation’s laws.
There are a few exceptions to my proposal. Any food determined healthy or any ad explicitly considered educational will be given permission to air. The American Academy of Pediatrics will receive a federally funded mandate to create a board whose purpose is to review food content and determine if a product will contribute to a healthy lifestyle for a child. As for the educational aspect, more research needs to be analyzed in order to determine who will review commercials with educational goals kept in mind. The proposal will take time to implement, and I would suggest a low dosage period at first. By this I mean, only extremely unhealthy and violent inducing commercials should be restricted in the beginning. Next, a few years later, any food negative to children’s health should be restricted along with any ads that unfairly exploit children. Once society has adapted to these changes, hopefully three of four years later, the last step of the plan shall take effect. Any food commercial must promote healthy foods. Violent or violence inducing commercials will be restricted from the airways. All other commercials must encourage a healthy lifestyle not characterized by materialism and instant gratification. Altogether, the proposal will take approximately six to eight years until fully complete. This time allows advertising agencies to properly shift their marketing techniques and organization.
I now call on you, the reader, to not accept the exploiting of our nation’s children. Take action now. If you are a parent, talk to your kids and spend time with them, today. The rest of you readers, make sure you are not being corrupted by advertisers’ unethical techniques, and take it upon yourself to help the little ones you know to better understand this problem. America’s children need to be informed and helped immediately. Childhood is brief, but extremely influential. You may think children of today are spoiled and have everything they want, but one thing they do not have is time.
Works Cited
Barnes, Olson, Brooks, Elizabeth. Limiting Ads of Junk Food For Children." New York Times 18 July 2007, 156: C1-C4.
Boyse, Kyla. "Obesity and Overweight." University of Michigan Health Systems. Feb. 2007. University of Michigan. 24 Oct 2007 <http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/obesity.htm>.
Brown, Ivy. "Advertising to Kids Limited." Television Week 23 Feb. 2004: 25.
Crisp, Roger. "Persuasive Advertising, Autonomy, and the Creation of Desire." Journal of Business Ethics 6(1986): 413-418.
Demytrenko, Nick, dir. Advertising to Kids. 2007. YouTube. 24 Oct. 2007
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62q6HdXRZcQ>.
Engle, Mary K.. "Regulating Food Advertising to Children: An Historical Perspective." Institute of Medicine. 14 Oct. 2004.
Federal Trade Commission. 23 Oct 2007 <http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/23/031/0.pdf>.
Grimm, Matthew. "Is Marketing to Kids Ethical?." Brandweek 5 Apr. 2004: 44-48.
"We are not Going to...Ban Food Advertising to Kids." Advertising Age 30 May 2005: 4.
"I was a fat kid...this is my story." [Weblog Catay] 04 Nov. 2007. Catay. 4 Nov 2007 <http://www.catay.com/fatkid/index.asp>.
Kanner, Allen D., Ph.D. "The Corporatized Child." The California Psychologist 39(2006): 1-2.
Lindstrom, Martin. "Branding is no longer child's play!." Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(2004): 175-182.
Nathanson, Craig. "The Difference Between “Need” and “Want”." The Online Self Improvement Encyclopedia. Self Growth. 27 Oct 2007 <http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Nathanson6.html>.
Schlesinger, Richard. "Resources: Marketing to Kids." CBS Evening News. 17 May 2007. CBS. 23 Oct 2007 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/14/fyi/main2798401.shtml>.
Segall, Rebecca. "Psychology’s Child Abuse." Psychology Today Apr. 2000:
Shields, Todd. "FCC, Kids' Networks Playing for Keeps." Brandweek 10 Oct. 2005: 36.
Stein, Lisa. "O Kidding." U.S. News & World Report 137(2004):
Swindle, Orson. United States. Federal Trade Commission. Perspectives on Privacy Law and Enforcement Activity in the United States. GPO, 2002.
Teinowitz, Ira. "Pediatricians Demand Cuts in Kid's Advertising." Advertising Age 77(2006): 3-38.
Teinowitz, Ira. "Study Prompts Calls for Ad Reform." Television Week 2 Apr. 2007: 6.
"The Facts About Marketing to Kids." Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. 23 Oct 2007 <http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/factsheets/entirebooklet.pdf>.
Tseng, Eliana Shiao. "Content Analysis of Children's Television Advertising Today." CI Advertising. University of Texas at Austin. 29 Oct 2007 <http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/fall_01/adv392/estseng/ContentAnalysis/ContentAnalysis.html#references>.
"What Kids Are Watching: Food Ads On TV." Child Health Alert OCT. 2005: 5.
Wolfe, John A.. "How the Tobacco Industry Targets Children: Here's what you can do about it." American Journal of Nursing 13(2006): 11.