advertisements and children

Running Head: ADVERTISMENTS AND CHILDREN 1

Advertisements and Children

Sheldon Anderson

Brigham Young University-Idaho

ADVERTISEMENTS AND CHILDREN 2

Abstract

In his paper, entitled “Advertisements and Children,” Sheldon Anderson talks about the effect of

modern-day advertising on children. He claims that advertisements aimed at children should be

regulated, but not entirely banned. He says that some advertisements are manipulating, unfair,

and unethical towards children. He addresses opposing points of view and offers his reaction. His

paper ends by him offering a solution for this problem.


Advertisements and Children

Introduction

From the moment that people awaken, they are constantly greeted by advertisements.

Companies are trying to sell their consumer goods to them. They put fancy colors and funny

pictures on boxes and other things to catch the attention of the population. They are targeting

many diverse groups, including men, women, and people who live in a certain region. Another

group that the large companies are aiming at is children.

Children are highly susceptible to the marketing ploys of others. Whether or not they see

a brightly-colored candy at the store or an advertisement for a new toy on the television, they are

bound to shout, “Mommy! Can you buy me that?" When I was a child, I certainly did. I would

complain until my parents would cave in and buy it for me. Who hasn’t had this experience when

they were a child? Or perhaps they have experienced this as a parent. There is no doubt that it

has an effect on the children.

While I do not support nor oppose advertising towards children, I do feel that it could be

used in a better way. I feel that it can be somewhat misleading, as with most marketing ploys,

and that some advertisements are unsuitable for children. While researching this topic, I found

many more arguments against advertisements aimed at children. Because of this, I will explain

why there should be regulations on these things. Advertisements, as a whole, are bad for

children.

My Position


While looking into this topic, I did not think much of it. I did not consider children to be

extremely effected by advertising. However, through my research, I found many articles and

studies done that say that it is, in fact, not beneficial in a child’s life. Through reading these

articles, I concluded that I should form my position on that basis. I thought to myself, “Why

would advertising towards children be bad?” I found that these advertisements are very

manipulative, unfair, and sometimes unethical towards them. I will address these issues and how

we can fix the problem.

Advertisements are manipulative. This is true for any type of advertising, including

advertising aimed towards men and women. According to Merriam-Webster, advertising is

defined as “the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid

announcements.” The reason for advertisements is that they get people to buy or use their

product. Manipulation is what drives the marketing industry.

There are many ways in which children can be manipulated by means of advertising.

According to Melissa Dittmann, “The advertising industry spends $12 billion per year on ads

targeted to children (Dittmann, 2004).” She also said that the average child watches more than

40,000 commercials on TV per year. As you can see, children are very exposed to being

influenced. During one of these 40,000 commercials, your child is bound to see something that

they like, whether you like it or not.

So, what are these forms of manipulation of which I am talking? They are many forms to

which we, ourselves, are exposed to. Some methods are more obvious than others. One such

method is that companies will never make themselves look bad, creating a type of false reality

for some. If each product is perfect, we should not hesitate to buy it. Children will fall for these


advertisements. They will want a toy that looks perfect on the television. They will not know that

the toy breaks easily, is not so fun, or that it is not as big as in the commercial.

Propaganda has been used for a long time. Propaganda is “the spreading of ideas,

information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

(Merriam-Webster, 2012).” In “Propaganda under a dictatorship,” by Aldous Huxley, Huxley

teaches about the use of propaganda under Hitler. He writes, quoting an authority from Hitler’s

cabinet, about the things that Hitler used against his people to control them. He says:

Hitler’s dictatorship . . . differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in

history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical

development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the

domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loud-

speaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby

possible to subject them to the will of one man. . . . Earlier dictators needed highly

qualified assistants even at the lowest level—men who could think and act independently.

The totalitarian system in the period of modern technical development can dispense with

such men; thanks to modern methods of communication, it is possible to mechanize the

lower leadership. As a result of this there has arisen the new type of the uncritical

recipient of orders (Huxley, 1958, p. 247).

While we do not live under a dictatorship, in a way we are being enslaved by the media.

Several large companies, by means of propaganda, are taking control of the heart and the mind.

To illustrate this, think about the rivalry of McDonalds and Burger King. Daily on the television,

or online, there are hundreds of commercials designed to get the public to buy their products.

They are designed not only to sell their own products, but to deter others away from the other


brand. Their goal is to be the on the top of the fast food industry. They capture people who will

regularly visit their stores.

To tie this back into the issue on children, companies such as McDonalds or Burger King

are trying to hook them when they are young. If they are partial to one or the other when they are

young, they would be most likely to be their client their whole lives. That is what these

companies want! However, they won’t say that their product may lead to obesity or future health

problems. They will hide the fact that it is unhealthy, while saying that their product is so good

that “it is to die for!” This may not be from a dictatorship, but we may still be controlled by the

corporate industry.

Another form of manipulation is through subliminal messaging. In many commercials,

the actors always look happy. They might be sitting on the beach smiling, just to end by showing

a bottle of beer next to them. While there is no clear message in the ad, it insinuates that beer

leads to happiness. Of course, it is illegal for minors under eighteen to drink alcohol. However,

just as with the fast food companies, alcohol companies are searching for future customers. I

don’t know how many football games I watched with my dad over the years, but I do know that

Budweiser has some funny commercials. Although I do not drink alcohol, their product has been

inscribed into my brain and has been associated with happiness and laughter. However, I also

know that it leads to deaths. They won’t tell their future customers this. These are just a few

ways of how companies manipulate and deceive their target customers.

Marketing towards children can also be unfair. I think that there are two main reasons

why this is. The first is that children do not have jobs. They cannot earn a living or buy the things

that they want. This puts a strain on parents as well. They have to bear this responsibility. The


second is that many children think that everything is a fact. They believe everything that they

hear.

Many advertisements are unfair because children do not work. While they are

irresponsible and cannot work, they still want things. Some items may be cheap, but the majority

of children’s toys are quite expensive. As a child, I always wanted the Hot Wheels track for my

toy cars. Today, these tracks cost around thirty dollars online. Thirty dollars was far outside of

my budget as a child, and I am sure that it is outside of the means of most children today. Selling

lemonade on the corner for fifty cents will not buy a kid a nice toy. They must ask their parents

to buy the toy for them. If they do not receive the toy that they want, they will most likely beg

until they get it. This puts a strain on the parents because they want to please their child, all while

managing a family budget. Of course, all families don’t make the same amount of money.

Nevertheless, I think that the principle is the same.

In my opinion, I also feel that advertising can be unfair because many children always

believe what they are told. Have you ever told a child a fib? From my experience, they have

taken my word and believed it. Some children have believed that I actually took their nose!

Another common example also shows that they are very gullible. Many traditions in the United

States, such as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Cupid were all created for children.

While examples such as Santa Claus are created to make children happy, commercials are

made to persuade children that other things are good as well. A professor, Vikram Jaswal, from

the University of Virginia did a study on three year olds to determine why they are so trusting. In

his abstract to the study, it says:

In Study 1, 3-year-olds either heard an experimenter claim that a sticker was in one

location when it was actually in another or saw her place an arrow on the empty location.


All children searched in the wrong location initially, but those who heard the deceptive

testimony continued to be misled, whereas those who saw her mark the incorrect location

with an arrow quickly learned to search in the opposite location … Three-year-olds have

a specific, highly robust bias to trust what people—particularly visible speakers—

say(Jaswal, Croft, Setia, & Cole 2010).

This study relates with advertising. The study shows that the children that were deceived

by being misled continued to show trust in that person. These kids are likely to trust the person

that is talking to them in commercials. In a peer-reviewed summery about this study, Jaswal is

quoted saying, “Children have developed a specific bias to believe what they're told. It's sort of a

short cut to keep them from having to evaluate what people say (ScienceDaily.com, 2010).”

Based on this analysis, children will believe what they are told, whether it be their mom, a

company, or a stranger, so that they do not have to analyze what that person said. Companies can

use this to their advantage.

My final reason for my claim is that it may be unethical. While not all means of

advertising are unethical, there are advertisements that are starting to cross the line. This area of

my argument blends with my other two points, which are that they are manipulative and unfair. I

say this because if somebody is manipulating somebody, they are being unethical. Also by

targeting children who don’t work, it may seem as if the company is trying to tease the child with

something that they cannot have.

What does it mean that advertisements are crossing the line? It can mean many things.

Some commercials teach that somebody cannot be attractive if they do not use a certain product.

Other commercials portray happiness, when it can lead to addictions and family problems. There

are many TV spots today that are including sexual innuendoes and heavy overtones. All of these


things are crossing the line and should not be exposed to young children. While adults can chose

what to see and hear, we should not expose our youth with things that may alter their

mannerisms for the worse. If this does not change, our future generations may be in danger. If we

do not protect them, it may bring on some serious consequences.

My Opposition’s views

While I consider some advertising methods to be manipulative, unfair, and unethical,

there are many opposing views, some of which I can agree with. At the same time, there are

other views that I do not agree with. A few of these arguments include that advertising is normal

to a child’s development, it limits freedom of speech, and it would hurt the economy. I am sure

that there are many more arguments, but I will address these ones.

According to “Advertising and Children,” by Dr. Ruth Quinn, a report written for the

Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, says, “Advertising is a part of a child’s normal

environment. It plays a part in the child’s development process by equipping children with the

necessary knowledge and skills to act as responsible consumers in later life (Quinn, 2002, p.

27).” Some people think that the advertisements will help integrate children into our society. I

can see where they are coming from. Nevertheless, I do not agree.

Advertisements are something very normal to us from the time that we are born. They

start taking effect whether we notice it or not. However, the fact that it helps develop the child, in

my opinion, is flawed in nature. I believe that even if children had no exposure to television, or

something similar, there would be no drastic differences between a child who has been exposed

and one who has not. Advertising does not promote being social. It does not teach a child. While

many say that it will lead to better decisions when grown up, there are better ways to learn. For


that reason we go to school to get an education. Parents are also a key role in their education.

While advertising may have some role, it is not significant.

On a side note, some say that rather than restricting advertisements towards children,

their parents should help control what they see. I agree that parents should do this. While adults

are responsible, they probably don’t care what commercials their children see because they

themselves have been exposed to them their whole lives. In an article by the Washington Post,

this point is brought up. “[Advertisers] overlook the psychological difficulties parents face to

constantly be responding negatively to their child's requests . . . Parents give in too much and

that's why you have childhood obesity. Over half the ads are for junk food, sugared cereal, sodas,

candies, potato chips (Mayer C, 2004).” Parents have to be responsible. That is part of the

problem happening right now.

I do agree with the fact that it would limit freedom of speech. Making a law against

commercials would possibly be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Companies have

the right of speech just as much as a normal citizen does. The only problem would be if they use

their speech to exploit the people that they are marketing to. If the company is trying to exploit

and take advantage of children, I would then still side to regulate it.

Finally, some people think that if children’s advertisements are cut out, the economy

would suffer. I also agree with this. While looking through some data, I found a study of TV

stations in Europe. From the stations surveyed “based in the European Union earned from

advertising to children was 320 million Euros… Each year, these same channels spend 241

million Euros to purchase or produce children's programs (ETGA, 2001).” Looking at the

numbers, there is a significant revenue and cost that comes from advertisements and production,

respectively. Although there is still around 100 million Euros left over, it still doesn’t amount to


much in the corporate world. There are still expenses to be paid. I think that this would be the

case in the United States, and all over the world. While the television studios would struggle, I

feel that the companies advertising would struggle as well. They would lose revenue from all the

things that the children would get their parents to buy them.

I had an email correspondence with an employee at the Coca-Cola company about the

impact of advertising on the economy. I asked him, “Why do companies, such as Coca-Cola,

continue to advertise, although they already have a strong following?” He had a very interesting

answer. He said, “My guess is that Coca-Cola could go a year or so without some traditional

marketing and it would probably fare okay. But over time, I don’t imagine that they would grow

with that strategy and their market share would very likely decrease.” I had not thought about

this before. However, I now realize that it is like that. If Coca-Cola stopped advertising, Pepsi

would gain ground and take over the industry. The same could go for the McDonalds/Burger

King debate that I brought up earlier.

Conclusion

While doing this research, my eyes have been opened. I agree with many things from my

opposition’s argument, especially about the economic issue. The ideal thing to do would be to

preserve both ideas by blending the ideas. Much like politics, it would be a give and take away

situation. Some people feel that advertising towards children should be outlawed completely. I

feel that it needs some type of reform, but at the same time it does not need to be outlawed

completely. Both issues need to be addressed, the protection of children and the protection of the

cooperate world. There is precedence in banning commercials. In 1971, the “Public Health

Cigarette Smoking Act” banned advertisements for tobacco on television. “The enacting of this

law was part of a larger health campaign to discourage Americans from tobacco usage (The


Banning of Cigarette Commercials From TV (and Other Dangerous Products)).” However, I do

not feel as though all children’s TV commercials need to be banned, but only when necessary.

While it is unknown what will happen to commercials aimed at children, or when it will

become a big issue again, it is an important issue. Children are our future. They need to be taught

how to be an example to their own children and be successful. We need to protect the future of

America by protecting them from the things that harm them, whether they are commercials on

the TV or not.


Works Cited

advertising. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com.Retrieved December 7, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertising

Association for Psychological Science (2010, October 15). Young children are especially trusting of things they're told. ScienceDaily.

Dittmann, M. (2004, June). Protecting children from advertising. Retrieved December 7, 2012, from APA: http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/protecting.aspx

E.T.G.A. (2001, May). Position Paper. Retrieved December 7, 2012, from ETGA: http://www.egta.com/documents/egta%20position%20paper%20children.pdf

Huxley, A. (1958). Propaganda under a dictatorship. In Brave new world revisited (pp. 47-57).New York, NY: Harper Collins

Jaswal, V., Croft A., Setia A., and Cole C. (2010) Young Children Have a Specific, Highly Robust Bias to Trust Testimony. Psychological Science, 2010; DOI: 10.1177/0956797610383438

Mayer, C. E. (2004, February 24). Information or Manipulation? Retrieved December 7, 2012, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A659-2004Feb23.html

propaganda. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com.

Retrieved December 7, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propoganda

Quinn, R. (2002). Advertising and Children. Broadcasting Commission of Ireland.

The Banning of Cigarette Commercials From TV (and Other Dangerous Products). (n.d.). RetrievedDecember 7, 2012, from Hub Pages: http://billd01603.hubpages.com/hub/The-Banning-of-Cigarette-Commercials-and-Other-Dangerous-Products

ttp://billd01603.hubpages.com/hub/The-Banning-of-C

ttp://billd01603.hubpages.com/hub/The-Banning-of-C

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propoganda

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A659-

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/protecting.aspx

advertisements and children

Documents