LCDR Millard
English Comp and Speech, 1st Pd.
03NOV14 Word Count:
Effects on Children of Advertising
Our parents always tell us to watch what we say and do around children; why does this idea not apply to advertisers? Most are unaware that advertising to children is regulated, though it is not to the extent that one might think. Currently, congress controls the policies that regulate these ads. Thomas A. Barry describes in his article, “A Framework for Ascertaining Deception in Children’s Advertising,” the science behind how big business finds loopholes in their advertising contracts. It is very important to make these contracts more stringent lest large, powerful advertising agencies continue finding loopholes in the contracts. Kids are becoming more technologically savvy (television, cellphones, internet) at younger ages, making them susceptible to advertising at earlier ages. It is crucial for us as Americans and consumers to control the way we allow advertising to enter our homes in order to filter what our youth are being bombarded with. It is no surprise that these mega advertising agencies have been exploiting the open, impressionable minds of children for generations in order to boost business and profits. As concerned citizens, consumers, teachers, and parents it is our job to convince Congress to try passing laws to regulate it.
Advertising for fatty products such as Pepsi and Coke is banned during children’s television shows, yet advertisers find a way to sneak things in. According to the American Heart Association, childhood obesity now affects thirty-two in every one hundred children (The Editors 2010). The Children’s Television Act was developed by the FFC and passed was passed in 1990. It is still in effect today. The act states: “The amount of advertising aired during children's programming should be limited to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays which is still more than for adult prime time.” The FTC, which was dismissed by congress from regulating advertising to children, attempted to regulate advertising directed at children through a bill introduced by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. According to the AAAA (American Association of Advertising Agencies), “Advertising to children will become less controversial only when advertisers and parents assume mutual responsibility for its content and exposure.”
The Children’s Advertising Review Unit is used as the industry standard for marketing guidelines. They cover the specific areas of product presentations and claims, sales pressure, disclosures and disclaimers, comparative claims, endorsements and promotions by program or editorial characters, premiums, promotions and sweepstakes, safety, and interactive electronic media (AEF 1). Right now the policy regulating child advertising is at a standstill. Congress is currently in control of advertising regulations. The Federal Trade Commission used to regulate these advertisements but it has since become cost prohibitive. The American Marketing Association provides good examples and references to other reliable topics on the subject. It is tailored more specifically to the legal, political side of children’s advertising. Many advertising companies are under contract to not advertise to children during their viewing hours. An interesting example of how advertisers use loopholes to get past their contracts concerns Coco Cola. Coca Cola and Pepsi Co. were restricted from advertising during children’s Television hours in order to reduce childhood obesity. One might think that they would call that game over and just advertise to an older consumer; Coca Cola did not. They would use similar logos and names to their own brand in children’s television shows in order to subliminally advertise (Friestad 183). It was not just a loophole, but an underhanded attempt to market to children unaware of what was being done.
Subliminal advertising has been around for years. It is a sneaky trick advertisers use to imprint subconscious mind. Subliminal advertising could be described as a type of brain washing. Children sitting in front of a televisions screen, computer screen, or movie screen are very impressionable. This is not only due to what they are watching, but also due to their age. Their minds are sponges which absorb data. Regardless if they are aware of this or not, it is happening. The images and messages that advertisers are putting across the media are being imprinted in their minds. Those quick images of soda, popcorn, and candy in the movie previews have one goal. The goal is to market and sell product for profit (Barry 11). The advertisers do not care about the health or weight of a child; at that moment it is all about the sale. It has been argued that “a strong stimulus produces a strong response, and a weak stimulus produces a weak response,” Subliminal advertising is typically short, and quick; does this type of advertising actually have an effect on children? Subliminal advertising does not have a huge impact on children. In fact, the child is typically more influenced by their parents, peers, and other social contacts. Also it’s not the quick flashes of a product that may or may not be comprehended by the viewer. It is more the product placement that influences the viewer. Product placement can be as simple as a child actor playing a scene which shows that child coveting a certain toy or behaving in a certain way. If a young adult views an actor that they admire and wish to emulate, they may pick up on that actor’s behaviors such as eating or drinking a certain food or even undesirable habits such as smoking or doing drugs.
Advertisements come in all sorts of shapes, and give off varying degrees of messages. But one thing is certain: they are always growing. Advertisers have developed and are continually perfecting the techniques used to reach their target audience. Actors in commercials always must look perfect in order to entice the target audience. The message they are trying to bring across has a feel-good influence. Toys are made to appear life-like. The shiny truck makes sounds like a real truck and moves across the screen on its own. The doll talks to her friends on her cell phone about planning a party, just like a little girl might do. All of these messages ask the viewer to respond by desiring the product. Music and backgrounds are used to draw the viewer in. A perfect family might be shown around a game table have a fantastic time. Most children viewing this activity may project that if they have that toy or game, maybe there family will sit around the table laughing and having fun together. Super heroes, sports heroes, and heartthrobs are all there to tell the children how they should dress and what they should wear in order for the child to be more like them (Ferrero).
The most recent breakthrough in market campaigning is the use of “advergames,” which is a play on words combining “advertisements” and “video-games.” These advergames are not the bars that appear on the side of your browser, full of malware and viruses. These advertisements are far more addicting and attractive. In fact, people go looking for these games. One of the most famous of these games was Chipotle’s game, “The Scarecrow.” First Chipotle came out with a film about a scarecrow living in an extremely melancholy, and socialistic dystopia. In the film a company named “Crow Foods” controlled the food industry with GMO filled foods. A crow takes the scarecrow around to patch up all of the hidden areas where the steroids injections are taking place. Its use of ethos was unbelievable. The way they depict the misuse of “all natural,” and how false these ads are is compelling; one does not even stop to realize the information is false. The main tag is “Cultivate a Better World.” If this ad was not persuasive enough, at the end of the short film they advertise a game created by their team in order to further advertise their brand. According to Lauren Maffeo, this ad was extremely effective in Chipotle’s Q1 sales report in 2014. The ad was instrumental in informing the public of Chipotle’s natural ingredients though it concealed the fact that it is still a fast food restaurant that serves high cholesterol, fatty, salt filled foods. The ad was very attractive to a child. The corresponding game made children even more interested. The duo was Chipotle’s attempt to instill brand loyalty. If regulating these types of ads on TV was not hard enough, video games are a very different issue to tackle. IAB internet advertising report shows that digital ads and ads on the internet have outdone television ads in 2013 (Maffeo 1). They may be much more difficult to battle.
Children are being brought up to be very aware of money. Money is seen as a very good thing. The more money you make the more things you can buy, and the more status you can achieve. Most children may initially choose a career path that they feel will offer them more money. They will not take into consideration what they want, or what will make them happy, only what will make them the most money. When athletes are making millions of dollars and flaunting extravagant lifestyles in the media, children begin to have unrealistic goals of playing football or basketball instead of their initial goals. Adverting is far-reaching, and entered schools, showing children these often-unattainable images. Kids may feel inferior to others based on the sneakers a friend wears, the cell phone they have, or their newest computer gear. Are the means that advertisers use to market to children unethical? Advertisers hire child psychologists in order to influence a child’s behavior through the media, making the answer a defiant, “Yes.” A psychologist’s talent and education is supposed to be used to help children, not sell the newest toy or trend to them. However, the goal of the advertiser is to sell; that is what they are being paid to do (Clay 1).
American children are an asset to the economy according to advertisers. They are all consumers in an advertiser’s mind. Without them, every toy company would go out of business. A concerned parent would not think that it is necessary for a business to advertise to children specifically, but children have a spending power that most do not realize. The statistic on allowances and the nagging power of kids shows an estimated worth of nine billion dollars in total across the United States (Gunter and Furnham vii). It is a common belief of business owners that targeting children will get them a chunk of that nine billion dollars. While children do, in fact, hold this power, it is not entirely up to them what money buys. Parents have a big say in what children buy or receive; children do not drive to Target on their own to buy a Tickle Me Elmo with their American Express card. If parents were more aware of what companies knew as far as targeting children to earn money, they might have stronger resolve next time their child asks them to buy something. The time for educating the parent more than the child is more critical than ever. Unless parents realized what advertisers are aiming for they will not realize the severity of the situation and will continue to spend more money without thinking about the long run effect it has on our youth.
