Lastly in the article “$211 Billion and So Much to Buy: American Youths,the New Big Spenders” it states in paragraph one that, “Over half of eight to 12 year olds will spend their own money…” And in the article “Thanks to Ads, Kids Won’t Take No,No,No.No,No For an Answer” it states in paragraph two that, “The unfortunate fact is that kids feel an overwhelming need to buy a host of consumer goods in order to fit in… admitted feeling pressure to buy things...because their friends have them. More than half confessed that buying certain products makes them feel better about themselves.”Both articles explain that because of our peers we feel the need to buy or have certain products. The result is that if one person has something everyone has to have it to. This proves that the ads are purposely target youth so they will tell their
Children are easily influenced, and this can be taken advantage of in the commercial industry. Thy have the desire to fit in and do what is considered “cool”. Many people believe that people use this desire to their own benefit in order to create profit. While it’s true children are easily manipulated by commercials, these commercials and be beneficial to the child's development. Commercials can be used to bring good ideas and good life skills to children that will lead them to being a successful adults. Commercials aimed at children are ethical because they can reinforce positive behaviors and good ideals. This is shown through articles, press and reports.
Advertisements also affect a child's own identity because "advertising manipulates [children] through their insecurities, working to define normality for them" (Source C). Children, especially pre-teens and teenagers, are essentially going through a multitude of crises with the most prominent one being and identity crisis. Figuring out who one is, is a vital step towards adulthood and independence, and with advertisements altering children's thoughts and ideas, their futures are not looking as bright. Without a sense of self, humans are nothing. They are simply mindless creatures just trying to survive. They have no intellectual independence and therefore, inventions, ideas, and discoveries will begin to slowly diminish. But, the manipulative ways of advertising can in facts be positive. With 15,312 promotions and public service announcements seen by children and teens annually (Source A), the world has a high chance of new generations of innovators and environmental heroes. If advertisements can, in a sense, manipulate children into doing positive things and taking actions, then yes, advertising to children is an extremely clever thing to do, and will benefit not only the viewers, but the world in
Many people believe that everything is black and white, especially when it comes to advertisements. What many don’t understand is that everything has an underlining meaning. Every advertisement has been thought out thoroughly to catch the attention of the consumers it is aiming towards. Advertisements aiming towards children has definitely been a topic that many people can’t seem to wrap their mind around. It’s been a topic that many have exposed because of the way marketers are willing to manipulate children in ways that only benefit their own. This whole issue began after the progression of marketing to children during the late 70s and early 80s with the advertisers’ intentions of making children lifelong consumers of products.
It is easier to influence someone who cannot comprehend that they are being influenced. This is ultimately Eric Schlosser’s main argument in his case against the mass marketing scheme aimed at children. Our subconscious influences our decisions more than we are probably aware. As we grow older, we recognize this; children, however, do not possess the same capacity to discern this as we do — and so, their naivety is exploited by marketing companies. These companies make their ads to appeal to the factors their target audience desperately (albeit unconsciously) seek. Whether it be by creating a sense of belonging, exclusiveness, and contentedness to the customers, their tactics are subtle enough to lure a wide array of people.
From two years children cannot know the difference between advertising and actual TV programs . Between 3 to 6 years , they Can identify an advertisement and distinguish it from programming , but they cannot understand that advertising are trying to sell an product . in addition , they think advertisements as being enjoyable or helpful . Between 7 – 12 years they Can understanding that advertising are trying to sell something . Also , they
I feel as if we need to protect childern from targeted advertising. Childern can be persuaded very easily compared to teens and adults. Companys use simple things that catch a child's eye like superheros and toys to make them want something even more, fast food restaurants usually do that type of adertising. In the passage they explain how childern influence their parents to spend $249 billion a year. That number is just going to grow if they don't stop this kind of advertising. Advertising show harmful negative messages to kids world wide. Like smoking, and drinking commericals. They show these type of things like if only "cool guys and girls" do it so it persuades them to want to try it.
According to the article “Facts About Marketing to Children”, the average kid is exposed to 40,000 ads a year, nearly 100 a day. This leads to what is known as the “nag factor” which means that kids have lots of control over what their parents buy based on what they ask for, or nag their parents about. Being exposed to this many ads lead them to ask their parents an average of 9-50 times, even though they may not actually want or need them; they might have just seen a cool looking ad for the
Marketing to children is not a new phenomenon; however, there have been many ethical debates on its rightness; is advertising to children a gentle persuasion of the innocent or a sinister threat to our society? There’s too much as stake if we remain silent and simply assume that marketing companies have our children’s best interests at heart; the truth is they don’t. This paper will explore to implications of marketing to children and the overall effects it has on our society. I will argue that advertising to children is a social problem. In the first part of my paper I will discuss why advertising to children is ethically wrong, I will then discuss what has changed; this will be followed by a discussion as to why it is a social problem and finally, I will conclude my paper by discussing what should be done to change it. Please note this paper is written in the first person as I have children and I have a vested interest in this topic.
Marketers understand that no child is too young to be targeted by television; many of these programs are linked directly to commercial products. For example, Burger King then McDonald 's sponsored the public television show "Teletubbies" (show for toddlers). McDonald 's distributed toys of the four characters in their happy meals. It is estimated that advertising for children has now reached over $1 billion. The most common advertised foods seen are not surprisingly low in nutritional value; products such as, presweetened breakfast cereals, candy, fast food, sodas, cookies, and chips. Its safes to say the money isn 't being spent on advertising of fruits, vegetables, bread, or fish.
The only way using a child to advertise could be harmful, would be if they are promoting violence. Many children advertise new toy's, clothing, breakfast foods, and new television series' etc. In that, depending on the humor, cast, and genre could you label it harmful, or not. Both passages mention that it is only a money making industry, for both the business
Children between the ages of 8 and 18 spend a whopping 44.5 hours in front of media sources that are possibly displaying these ads. Research has shown that children less than age 8 cannot tell that the advertisements are merely trying to be persuasive. Children under age 6 cannot even tell the difference between an advertisement and a program. Yet
Although not all will see it in this way. Some say that advertisements directed at children relay negitive messages; such as, happiness can be bought. While some will counteract saying it is up to the parent(s)/guardian(s) to regulate what messages are relayed.
Children are similar to brand new sponges. Kids absorb everything you put in front of them. If you model bad behavior, they reenact the conduct. So, if you put a child in front of a television that exposes bad foods and rebellious behavior, therefore the kid now witnessed a terrible type of habit and could easily decide to mimic it. As an adult, it’s much easier to perceive that television is all acting, but a child’s brain is very vulnerable to anything that appears in front of them. A child is the easiest consumer companies can wield to want their products due to their ignorance upon how the real world works. If an advertising company asks children questions about what types of toys they like, or something like questioning what their favorite kinds of ads are, they wouldn’t see the unethical reasoning behind theses questions. Without a doubt, there certainly should be a limit to how advertisers approach children. The next question is, who is responsible for how much the children get exposed to ads? The answer is not just the company, or parents. Exposure to ads is the accountability to both the markets and parents.