The Truth Behind Advertisements Targeting Children Essay Example

advertisements directed at young children (12-years-old or younger) has seen noticeable development with the advent of new technologies along with the ready availability of mass media. “By the time most U. S. children start school they will have spent 5000 hours watching television. They will spend more time watching television than they spend in class for their entire schooling,” (qtd. in Beder).Before the advent of the commercially available television in the late 1930’s, this number would have been non-existent.

So the opportunity to exploit children through T. V. ads isn’t much of a challenge at all, not to mention the along with television there are movies, DVD’s and video games which are all new ways for the ad industry to dive into. Recently video games have become so popular that companies that don’t even make games are paying other companies to insert advertisements for their products in the actual games.For example, one popular video game on the market today is called Grand Theft Auto, in this game the main character drives around an imaginary city reaping havoc on it, but as you’re driving billboards for various real-life products are visible everywhere.

This just shows how far the advertising industry has come in the last 30 years, from billboards on actual roads to billboards on roads in virtual reality, the possibilities are endless.On top of television and its accessories, the internet has become the tool of choice it would seem for mass ads and offers. To children today, using a computer is just as easy as brushing their teeth. A study on four to six-year-olds showed that over 50 percent have used a computer by themselves (Stanley).

This is

a quite substantial figure considering that the internet really didn’t fully develop its ‘user-friendly’ capabilities until the mid 1990’s and it was still quite difficult to use compared to today’s standards.Now, only around ten years later, children as young as four have access to millions upon millions of different web pages. This may or may not be beneficial to their development but it’s a major change in times none the less. Since the debate on advertising to children is one where there are no real laws or regulations each side has opinions and complaints based on studies and reports. Arguments opposing advertisements directed toward young children are mostly centered on their mental development.

Obviously development is dependent on other variables besides just television and advertising, however young children today spend more time watching television than any other activity besides sleeping (“Children and Advertising”), so it would make sense for people to become worried about TV and its effects on children if they devoting so much of their lives to it. A particularly influential study cites that before age eight children are unable to fully comprehend the idea of an advertisement. They tend to take everything they see and hear literally and are unable to properly distinguish claims from fact. [Children under eight] tend to accept ad claims as being truthful, they process it as legitimate information.

They can't understand the motives and persuasive intent," (Stanley). So a child watching an ad for Fruit Loops during Sesame Street isn’t going to stop and think about the fact that Fruit Loops just wants them to go out and buy their cereal, they just see it as a show in-between

a show. This wouldn’t seem like a big deal to most because it’s just Fruit Loops and Sesame Street, but if that child was watching MTV instead and a commercial for a new violent movie came on it’s not hard to believe that might cause some damage.Joel Greenberg reported a test on the effects of television advertising on children that researchers at Stanford University and McGill University in Montreal conducted.

They believe that young children should be ‘inoculated’ against the adverse effects of television advertising. The ‘vaccine’ developed by the researchers consisted of two consumer awareness films entitled The Six Billion $$$ Sell and Seeing Through Commercials. They taught children to think critically towards ads on television instead of following whatever they saw blindly.Upon evaluation the investigators found that the ‘vaccine’ films indeed helped children to become more critical of television commercials, particularly younger, "more trusting" children (Greenberg). This study shows that in fact children do struggle to see the difference between commercial and program and it’s not because of a lack of cognitive ability but because the ads are so persuasive and well thought out that they don’t recognize the line between show and ad.Some feel that corporations are out to take advantage of and exploit young children purposefully.

“Marketers often use older children’s desire to fit in with their peers… as selling points for their products. A recent Pepsi ad celebrated teens who had been arrested for downloading music illegally” (“The Facts About Marketing To Kids”). The placement of certain ads, like those for cigarettes, is often the subject for debate among advocates. Cigarette ads are placed at a height that is perfect for children

to see, usually right at eye level.

This would be pointless for advertising to adults because most adults that smoke already have brand loyalty, that is that they already have a favorite cigarette that they smoke. The point of putting a cigarette ad near the gum and candy section of a convenience store is to get children to look at them and store that particular brand in their mind and later when they decide to smoke they recall that ad and that cigarette brand now has a new customer. Ad placement is a major factor in the amount of children who start smoking.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that about 3000 children take up smoking every day (qtd. in Emery) and some believe the only way to remedy this is to adopt some sort of legislative regulation that would prevent or limit ads for cigarettes directed towards children. Though some wonder if this is an effective way to deter young people from smoking seeing as how in 1971 cigarette ads were banned from television, and though profits suffered as a result, they quickly bounced back and are now still flourishing.

It’s unfair to say that big tobacco is purposefully targeting children in their advertising, but it’s hard to deny that children are taking up smoking in record numbers and the incentive to smoke isn’t being hindered by their ad placement. To understand more fully the reason for the debate against advertising to children, it’s important to look into some of the actual dollar amounts at stake. The amounts of money generated by ad placement directed toward children are huge. On average children age four to

six spent around 30 billion dollars in the year 2002 on consumer goods (Stanley).That’s the money they spent out of their own pocket, not to mention the other 500 billion they influenced their parents to buy. So it’s easier to see that the amount of revenue to be gained by companies by advertising to children is quite substantial.

That’s why a lot of ad companies enlist the aid of child psychologists to fashion their ads to be perfectly directed and perfectly effective towards children. “Advertisers have hired well-paid psychological consultants to help them study every phase and stage of a child's life. The results are sophisticated, finely-honed commercials that work” (Kanner).When children are viewing up to 40,000 commercials on TV every year, an advertiser needs to have an edge to win out over the other 39,999 and that edge is having someone tell them exactly what a child wants to see. The problem with these ads are that they work so well parents are almost forced to buy things they know aren’t good for their children for fear that if they don’t they will have to be constantly telling their child “no” and that’s something that a lot of parents just can’t do.

For the individual parent, it’s very hard to fight these advertising giants, they ust don’t have the means. In 1997 alone the advertising industry spent about 12 billion dollars just on ads directed at young children (“Children and Advertising”). One of the most visible effects on children caused by the advertising industry is the effect on children’s physical health. “A study of food commercials during the most popular shows for children ages 6 to

11, including those outside of the traditional children's programming blocks, found that 83% were for snacks, fast food or sugary treats” (qtd.

in Stanley).This combined with the fact that children are more likely to choose food advertised on television when given the choice, if 83 percent of what they are seeing is junk food the obvious result is children eating more unhealthy food than healthy food. This in turn can lead to premature obesity along with other health problems attributed to an unhealthy diet, such as heart problems, asthma, high blood pressure and diabetis. Also, children who spend more time in front of the television are more likely to be doing less activity outside which in turn can lead to more problems regarding poor health.People feel that in order to prevent these health issues prohibition may be the answer; Robert Weissman was quoted saying, "There should be a prohibition on advertising to children under age 12 across the board" (qtd. in Stanley).

Many European markets have actually taken this sentiment to heart and have issued bans on advertising to children during certain programming with much success. Another huge topic for debate is advertising to children while in school. Many school budgets around the country are suffering and this is yet another door for ad companies to stick their foot in.Many schools, in return for free video equipment as well as other goods, must agree to show a Channel One program to their children every day (“The Facts About Marketing To Kids”). These programs consist of about 10 minutes of news, which some question the legitimacy of, as well as two minutes of commercials, usually focused on junk

food such as Twinkies, Mountain Dew and others.

In a given year one week of teaching is lost to Channel One programming as well as a day just from the advertisements.It seems unfair that a suffering school budget should be forced to seek help that could possibly harm their students. These are merely a few of the uncountable arguments against ads directed towards young children. However, these show some of the key areas that need to be shown in order to see some of the effects imparted on children by ad companies.

So far these areas are; cognitive ability, ad placement, revenue, health effects and education. All of which are areas that have multiple arguments and facets to them.The next obvious place to go is to the other side of the debate, to those who feel that advertising to children is not a problem and doesn’t deserve the negative campaigns against it. Those who support child focused ads stand upon a very difficult platform to defend. Companies and the ad industry have the right to advertise to children, whether it is positive or negative, they have the right. However, the difficulty comes into play when faced with the argument that they are purposefully harming children with their ads and programming.

They hold a position much the same as that held by big tobacco, in that they can’t very well come out and say “yes, we feel that harming children is ok” because it isn’t the ethical stance to take, however they also cannot deny the statistics showing the increase in money being spent on ads for children, along with the unhealthy products being advertised. The ad industry maintains

a defensive position but the arguments against their stance far outnumber their own.

The best that the ad industry can do is to rationalize the claims made by the opposition and then explain why they feel those claims are either false or aren’t directly a result of the ads and they’re manufacturing. Of course they are in an industry whose goal is, in the end, to make a profit. On top of the fact that ad companies must assume the position that they do not harm children with their ads, they must not only convince the opposition of that but they must do so in a manner that allows them to continue doing profitable business.Those who are on the side of advertisers, including marketers and corporations, defend their position arguing that they have no aspiration of exploiting young children.

Julie Halpin, CEO of the Geppetto Group, a New York-based marketing firm with ties to companies such as Coke and Reebok, states "In 20-plus years, I've never had a meeting with a client who said, 'How can we exploit kids today? '" (qtd. in Stanley). Though it seems obvious that someone in Halpin’s position would take this stance, it seems that those in opposition to child focused ads would believe that in fact that harm is the goal of the industry.

The more logical explanation is that these ad companies have to compete with each other for profits, and when children are spending near 30 billion dollars (Stanley) the competition is fierce. To be successful the companies have to enlist help from psychologists and other sources that might make it look like they are producing commercials that are too

enticing or persuasive, to an extreme effect, when all they really want in the end is to make a profit.

Other companies take the stance that their ads are not directed strictly toward children, but to their parents. We target moms exclusively," said Josef Mandelbaum, president and CEO of American Greetings Intellectual Properties Group. This is the same company responsible for creating Care Bears and Strawberry Shortcake whose primary target audience is children from three to six years of age, "Our TV shows reinforce the brands to kids, but we don't target kids with our ads" (qtd. in Stanley).

Some marketers are stating that the responsibility to protect children rests on the shoulders of their guardians, not the brands.Isabel Kallman, a marketer and a parent states "Parents are smart enough to educate their children… They have to take the primary responsibility in regulating what kids do. It's our job to teach our kids about the world” (qtd. in Stanley).

It might be more realistic to spread the blame to both sides of the issue for whatever problems result from ads that target children. Parents have a certain responsibility to their children to monitor what they are watching.The number one after school activity chosen by children age six to seventeen is watching television (“Children and Advertising”). This isn’t something that the ad companies can directly influence, it’s determined by the children themselves. Also, children aren’t forced to watch television, there’s no laws stating that a child must watch television, and though it may be unrealistic to expect them to cease watching all together, parent’s who feel that their child may be suffering harm due to what their watching may

want to think about limiting their exposure.

The staple defense for companies that are targeting children with their ads is the fact that there are programs and regulations in place that limit the content and the amount of time ads focused on children are allowed. One of these regulations is the “three hour rule” where a broadcaster must televise at least three hours of educational programming for children per week (Quello). This allows parents who are concerned the opportunity to allow their child to watch television as well as giving them the piece of mind that what their children are watching is educational and regulated. Another egulation that the FCC has instated to limit kids exposure to unsuitable material is the V-Chip.

The V-Chip is a device that has been placed in every TV manufactured after the year 2000, the chip allows parents to filter what their children are watching based on content and rating. The ratings are as follows; TV-Y is programming that is suitable for all audiences, TV-Y7 for children ages seven and above, TV-G for general audiences (most of the content here could be watched by children unattended), TV-PG parental gidence suggested, TV-14 for children ages 14 and above and lastly TV-MA that is for mature audiences only.

These gidelines allow parents to block TV programming that does not fall under the rating of their choice (“V-Chip: Viewing Television Responsibly”). However on of the problems with this feature isn’t that it doesn’t work, it’s that most parents do not take the time to program their televisions accordingly. Along with these two FCC regulations there are separate companies that help to keep the content of ads

under control. One of these is the CARU or the Children’s Advertising Review Unit, a branch of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.The CARU reviews any advertisement that may not be suitable for children or has content that may be false or inaccurate.

For example, the CARU reviewed Mattel’s My Scene Fab Face Dolls and concluded that the advertisement didn’t clearly demonstrate the function of the dolls, the ad made it look like the arms of the doll moved much easier than they actually did and recommended that Mattel change or remove the ad from television. Thought this isn’t something that would harm a child mentally, it shows how in depth the CARU goes when reviewing material that may be seen by children on television.

All three of the regulatory efforts are in place and are there to combat any possible damage, mental or physical, that may imparted by advertisements that target children specifically. The fact here is that there is no way to place the blame for any ill effects on either side of the debate. Both sides have valid points and arguments, but they aren’t enough to conclusively say that the ad companies are responsible for any problems seen in children today. Contiuing with responsibility, the parents of the children who are ‘suffering’ need to take a good look at what they are allowing and then reassess their position.

Almost 50 percent of children today have television sets in their bedrooms (“Children and Television”), and with TV being the number one after school activity chosen by children ages six to seventeen it’s not hard to put two and two together and come to the conclusion that

it’s not the ad companies that are to blame it’s parents allowing their children to television more than they should.

If parents would only allow one less hour of television per day that would save 365 hours per year that kids could be doing some other activity.With an average of 16 minutes of commercials per hour of television (“Children and Television”) 365 hours of TV would translate to about 100 hours of advertisements that kids wouldn’t have see. Along with the obvious cutting back of televison viewing, the National Institute on Media and the Family published an article on their website that gives tips to parents who want to change their childs TV viewing habits.

For example, don’t use the TV as a babysitter; there’s no need to sit your child in front of the TV just to keep them quiet.Keep TV’s out of the bedroom, studies have shown that most people watch TV simply because it’s there, if it’s not there then they won’t watch. Set guidelines and practice appointment TV, kids need to know what’s okay to watch and what’s not, that’s the responsibility of the parent, not the ad company (“Twelve Tips to Tame the Tube”). These are just a few examples but the information and the help is out there for parents to use. It’s unrealistic to think that the ad industry is going to up and stop advertising to children just because a group of people feel that they’re exploiting them. You're playing Whack a Mole," said Vicky Rideout.

"If you stomp it down in one area, it'll pop up somewhere else" (qtd. in Stanley). For every company that people get rid of

ten more are going to be created. Children spend and influence close to 600 billion dollars in sales and everyone in the ad industry is going to try and take a piece of that. Also, this is an industry, it has to be obvious that they’re in business to make a profit. A lot of the people who are making these ads are working so that they can make money to bring home to their children.

People can complain as much as they want, but the fact is that they’re making excuses for bad parenting. The advertisement industry isn’t going anywhere soon, they’ve been around for a lot longer than the alleged problems they’ve created. There are so many fascets ad industry, television happens to be the most profitable, but get rid of ads on TV and the effect is only going to be an increase in other areas. There is too much money to be made and not enough people to make a difference in the way these companies advertise.There is no telling what the future holds for the industry but there’s no chance that they’ll go without a fight.

Should Ad companies specifically target children with their ads? Yes, there are plenty of regulations in place, and for those people who feel those regulations aren’t enough, there are plenty of tips and advice to help monitor what kids are watching today. Advertisements that are designed for a young audience are going to effect them in some way, but that’s the point, they’re there for are reason, and that reason is to get kids to buy consumer goods.Is it ethical to target kids in ads? There

really isn’t enough evidence to prove one way or the other, if there were then something would have been done already.

The ad industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world because people are consumers at their core, they will always need to buy something, so there will always need to be someone there to tell them what to buy. In conclusion, the ad industry is a vital part to the American economy and without it the ‘free enterprise’ way of life is lost.

Works Cited

1. Beder, Sharon. ’A Community View’, Caring for Children in the Media Age. ” Papers from a National Conference. Ed. John Squires and Tracy Newlands. New College Institute for Values Research. 1998 <http://homepage. mac. com/ herinst/sbeder/children. html>.
2. “Children and Advertising. ” 8 Jul. 2002. National Institute on Media and the Family. 14 Nov. 2007. < http://www. mediafamily. org/facts/facts_childadv. shtml>.
3. “Children and Television. ” 18 Jul. 2002. National Institute on Media and the Family. 14 Nov. 2007. < http://www. mediafamily. rg/facts/facts_childandtv. shtml>.
4. Emery, Gene. “Tobacco Ads Still Targeting Children, Study Shows. ” 15 Aug. 2001. Action on Smoking and Health. 16 Nov. 2007 <http://no-smoking. org/august01/08- 16-01-4. html>.