the impact of advertisements on children and their … · 18 the iup journal of marketing...

The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. X, No. 3, 201118

The Impact of Advertisements on Childrenand Their Parents’ Buying Behavior:

An Analytical Study

© 2011 IUP. All Rights Reserved.

* Professor and Chairman, Department of Business Administration, Chaudhary Devi Lal University,Sirsa, Haryana, India. E-mail: [email protected]

** Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, JCD College of Engineering, JCD Vidyapeeth,Sirsa, Haryana, India. E-mail: [email protected]

IntroductionSince the advent of commercialization, every company has predetermined goals beforestarting a business. The most significant objective of the companies is to make profitsand to sell their products successfully. Nowadays, there is competition among marketersto grab the consumer’s attention, especially kids. Firms generally try to increase thedemand for goods or services by influencing kids’ preferences through advertisements.Today’s children can recognize hundreds of brand names and logos. Several companieshave exclusive deals with leading fast food and soft drink companies to offer their productsin a school or college. Amusement parks offer colorful pictures and brochures to schoolchildren in order to attract them to avail special discounts and offers. Kids are greatlyinfluencing parents to spend on products of their choice.

A child’s attraction towards television increases with age. While television is a goodmedium for imparting knowledge and education, it can also be harmful considering the

Children spend much of their free time in watching television seemingly enamored of thescreen. Advertisers on children’s television channels used to appeal to the parents, butnow they directly appeal to children who do not have the emotional or cognitive tools toevaluate what is being sold to them. Gone are the days when parents talked about whattheir children should wear, eat, play and study. While television is a good medium forimparting knowledge and education, it can also be harmful considering the impact itleaves on the minds of children. Marketers try to plant the seeds of brand recognition inthe minds of young children with the hope that these seeds would grow into long-lastingrelationships. This paper aims to study the significant impact of television advertisementson children and the buying behavior of their parents. Cross-tables and one-way ANOVAare used as statistical tools for analyzing the data. The main objective of this paper isto identify and evaluate the significant difference between the opinions of respondentsrelated to various income and occupational groups. It is found that children alwaysinfluence parents’ shopping decisions whether the purchases are of use to them or not.

Sultan Singh* and Jaiman Preet Kaur**

19The Impact of Advertisements on Children and Their Parents’ Buying Behavior:An Analytical Study

impact it leaves on the minds of children. Various studies have shown that almost 30%of parents buy the toothpaste their kids choose and 45% buy a brand of spread such asbutter, jam and health drinks, which their children select. More and more children inthe world’s developed countries are spending ever greater amounts of time working onand playing with computers of various descriptions. Celebrity endorsement is anotherfactor for children to influence their purchase decision-making process.

Children’s reactions to advertisement can be very different from grown-ups. Whenadults see a product being advertised, and if they do not find it when they go shopping,they just go for another brand. As children develop the ability to recognize and understandadvertisements and their purpose, they start making demands. If these demands are notfulfilled they might scream or make a scene. It is difficult to explain to young childrenthe reasons why they cannot have everything which, according to advertising, is ‘forthem’. Children’s understanding of television advertising has two components: theirability to distinguish between programs and commercials; and their ability to comprehendthe selling intent of advertising.

To some extent, these two components are related in a hierarchical manner.As comprehension of the selling intent of advertising implies, one is aware of a certaindifference between commercials and programs, whereas the opposite does not necessarilyhold. It has been shown that most children aged between five and eight years candiscriminate between programs and commercials and/or comprehend the purpose of thecommercials. Family, peers and media are key socializing agents for children whereinfamily-specific characteristics such as parental style, family’s Sex Role Orientation (SRO)and patterns of communication play key roles. Moreover, changes taking place in thesociocultural environment in India (such as emergence of dual-career and single parentfamilies) entail that dimensions of children’s influence in family purchase decision makingare investigated in a specific context. Television enables the creative man to communicateby combining motion, sounds, words, color, personality and stage setting to express anddemonstrate ideas to a large and widely distributed audience. Television advertisementsusually play a role in introducing a product, reinforcing the familiarity to the productand also convincing people to purchase the product. Advertisements are among themost visible part of marketing strategy and have been the subject of a great deal ofattention in the last 10 to 15 years. Advertisements not only change the emotions, butalso give subliminal message. They have created keen effects on the minds of parents aswell as kids.

Cognitive DevelopmentResearch evidence demonstrates that cognitive development intervenes with children’sunderstanding of television advertising and their response to it. Other factors such asparental intervention, media literacy, consumer experience and program/advertisementseparators also play a role in helping children understand television advertising directedat them. Children slowly, but progressively, develop an understanding of the intent ofadvertising that can be conveyed both in linguistic and formal elements.


‘Piagetian’ stages of cognitive development follow the same sequence regardless ofculture, but vary modestly in their timing across any population, meaning that whilemost of the children will reach a given stage at around the same age, some will arriveearlier and some later. The four main stages, each of which incorporates sub-stages,follow this basic sequence: birth to two years (sensorimotor stage); two to six years(pre-operational stage); six to 11 years (concrete operational stage); and 11 years toadult (formal operational stage).

It has been proved that children are attracted towards television at a very small age.Progressively over these stages, children develop a range of faculties relevant to televisionadvertising, including distinguishing advertising from program content, recalling andawareness of advertising, recognizing and understanding persuasive intent of advertising,liking and skepticism of advertising and cognitive defense to advertising. For instance,Carlson Grossbart’s (1988) study identifies four types of families influenced by thechildren in the family decision-making process as follows:

1. Authoritarian parents attempt to have a high degree of control over theirchildren and expect unquestioned obedience. In families where parents areauthoritarian, the involvement of children in the family decision-making processis expected to be limited.

2. Neglecting parents are distant from their children and they do not exert muchcontrol over them.

3. Democratic parents seek to create an atmosphere where both parents’ andchildren’s rights are balanced. In families where parents are democratic,children’s self-expression, and hence their involvement, in family decision-making is encouraged.

4. Permissive parents attempt to eliminate as many restraints as possible withoutendangering them. Lenient parents believe that children have adult rights,but few responsibilities.

Children today constitute a considerable proportion of consumer population and assuch represent a significant target audience where advertisers are concerned. Their roleis definitely assuming significance as far as buying decisions are concerned, and as such,their importance is being increasingly realized by advertisers. Substantial budgets areallocated for advertising either directly or indirectly to this market audience. To use theresources allocated for the purpose of advertising, strategies should be so formulated asto appreciate both the children’s as well as their parents’ points of view.

Review of LiteratureAdvertisement is one of the major tools that all business firms use for persuasivecommunication and its effectiveness depends on the extent to which the advertisingmessage is received and accepted by the target audiences. With regard to the above,a brief review of some of the relevant literature is as under:


Livingstone (2006) stated that the main reason for the emerging role of children is theuse of Internet. This study focused on the use of Internet by children and young people,asking how Internet is being used at home. More and more children in the world’s developedcountries are spending ever greater amounts of time working on and playing with computersof various descriptions. The computer desk or computer room has become a fixture ofmany middle classes and an increasing number of working-class homes.

Mukherjee (2007) showed that advertisements have three types of effet on children’stender minds—cognitive effect, attitudinal effect and behavioral effect. Children readilyget attracted to the advertised products due to their observable features, but their consumerknowledge of the same does not exceed beyond the surface level. The impact ofadvertisements on the various age groups of children varies depending on their knowledgeof the existing brands, parental supervision, mode of delivery of the advertisement andother variables. Parents, advertisement visualizers, marketers and government have tomake a concerted effort to reduce the negative impact of advertisements on children.

Pine and Nash (2007) analyzed the influence of advertising on children and where‘pester power’ is frequently expressed by the media, parents and government. The impactof advertising on children is a rich area for research, blamed in part, as it is, for thecurrent obesity crisis, the rise in binge drinking among teenagers and materialism inyoung people. A key feature of this study is adopting a developmental approach tomethodological issues. This includes that for developmental reasons, children cannotalways articulate their knowledge.

Noergaard et al. (2007) discussed the studies on family decision making during foodbuying. Family food decision making is often a joint activity and children’s activeparticipation among other things determines the influence they wield. Parents andchildren do not always agree on how much influence children have in the various stagesof the process, indicating the importance of listening to both parties for an understandingof the family dynamics and processes involved in everyday food buying. The studyemphasized the importance of looking at food decision making as a joint activity wherechildren participate actively and wield influence.

Sheoliha (2007) opined that Indian marketers are becoming more complex day byday, but a new phenomenon which is gaining prominence is ‘advertising to children’.Today, kids have more self-sufficiency and influencing power in the family in purchasedecision. Even corporate has realized the power of schools in promoting their products,and naturally companies like McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Lilliput and many more successfulplayers have attained a good market share.

Katke (2007) discussed the link between television advertising and its influence onchild health and family spending. Nearly every aspect of children’s lives has beenadversely affected by recent trends in advertising and marketing. Research links advertisingto increased violence, obesity and eating disorders in children, as well as family stressand negative values. Advertisers of children’s television used to appeal to the parents,but now they appeal directly to children who do not have the emotional or cognitivetools to evaluate what is being sold to them.


Kotwal et al. (2008) felt that television and advertising together present a lethalcombination and has become an integral part of modern society. The results of their studyrevealed that advertisements played a vital role in introducing a new product in thefamily list and making better choice during shopping. Majority of the respondents, afterwatching an advertisement, wanted to buy the new brand introduced in the market.They were disappointed when they were not allowed to buy products of their choice andwere of the opinion that television advertisements helped them make better choices duringshopping.

Nath (2008) acknowledged that television has become an essential part of life.Much research was conducted to find out the impact of television on children. Thereare both positive and negative impacts on children. Selected viewing of television helpsin the cognitive development of children, while watching without any discretion resultsin aggressiveness. Parents should play an active role in monitoring and discussing theprograms their children watch on television.

Ninan (2008) emphasized that parents who are too busy these days try to compensatefor not spending quality time with the children by yielding to the latter’s demands, justto keep them happy. Parents are always on the lookout for better products and serviceswhich they were denied of during their childhood. Therefore, it is the moral duty ofmarketers to practice certain ethics and codes while promoting their products. Theyshould educate the prospective clients by sending positive signals rather than threateningor emotionally blackmailing them into purchasing any product. Proper positioning ofthe right product at the right time could help companies leverage their brand image andincrease their market share.

Jam (2010) investigated the impact of marketing activities (specially adverting) onchildren which is a very important and sensitive issue for the society and marketers.Results showed interesting findings that ads do not impact negatively on children’smemory and behavior. It enhances the knowledge of children and the ads targeted atchildren are very effective. Also, for effective positioning of children-related products,marketers should target parents and include ethical orientations along with environmentalknowledge to influence the buying behavior of parents.

Scope of the StudyThe scope of the study includes data from the respondents from cities like Sirsa, Hisar,Panipat, Karnal and Sonepat in the state of Haryana.

Research MethodologyObjectives of the StudyThe present study aims to achieve the following objectives:

• To evaluate the impact of advertisements on children and parents’ buyingbehavior.


• To know the attitude of parents towards the advertisements aimed at children.

• To draw imperatives for formulating advertising strategies targeted at children.

Hypothesis of the StudyTo achieve the objectives of the study, the following hypotheses were formulated andtested:

H01: There is no significant difference in the opinions of respondents of various occupationaland income groups.

Ha1: There is a significant difference in the opinions of respondents of various occupationaland income groups.

Data Collection and AnalysisBoth primary as well as secondary data were used in the present study. The primarydata was collected through a pre-tested structured questionnaire and secondary datawas collected through Internet, journals and business magazines. This survey wasconducted from 2008 to 2010. A sample of 150 respondents was taken, out of which59 were in service, while 31 belonged to business class, and the rest 60 respondentswere professionals. On the basis of income per year, 14 respondents have income above3,50,000; 86 have income between 1,50,000 to 3,50,000; and 50 have income below1,50,000 (Table 1).

Demographic Variables Number of PercentageRespondents

Occupation Service 59 39.3

Business 31 20.7

Profession 60 40

Total 150 100

Income Below 1,50,000 50 33.3

1,50,000-3,50,000 86 57.4

Above 3,50,000 14 9.3

Total 150 100

Table 1: Distribution of Respondents on the Basisof Demographic Variables

Tabulation and Codification of Data: To achieve the objective of measuring the impactof advertisements on children, a total of 14 variables were selected and the analysisresponses were collected using a 5-point Likert type scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral,disagree, strongly disagree). Score 1 is assigned for ‘strongly agree’, 2 for ‘agree’, 3 for‘neutral’, 4 for ‘disagree’ and 5 for ‘strongly disagree’ with regard to Tables 2 and 4. Inorder to make the data more transparent and clear, an agreement score and disagreementscore were calculated separately in Tables 3 and 5. The statistical analysis was carried


out with the help of Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS). In order to findout significant differences between the opinions of different demographic groups, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used.

Results and DiscussionIn the present study, the inter-relationship between 14 variables (perceptions of parents)with regard to demographic variables was examined. These 14 variables are the statements(vertical) mentioned in first column of Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 about perceptions ofrespondents regarding advertisements. These variables/statements were of multivariatenature and influenced each other significantly. For the purpose of understanding parents’perception regarding the impact of advertisements on children and the buying behaviorof a family, cross tables (based on both demographic variables) and one-way ANOVAwere applied and carried out. All the above variables were studied through field survey.

Extent of Respondents’ Perceptions Regarding the Influenceof Television Advertisements

Occupation-Wise AnalysisOccupation-wise analysis of the respondents’ perceptions regarding the influence oftelevision advertisements (Table 2) shows that out of a total of 150 respondents, 59belong to service class, 31 belong to business class and the remaining 60 respondents areprofessionals. Out of the service class respondents, 40.7% being the major portion inthe category disagree with the rationality of children in understanding advertisements;whereas other impact of advertisements are stated positive by a maximum number ofrespondents, such as advertisements which help in widening children’s choice (47.5%),it leads to unnecessary demand by children (42.4%), it affects health and leads toobesity (59.3%); 49.2% respondents consider advertisements a source of information,whereas 35.6% strongly disagree with the aspect of considering advertisements as asource of entertainment. Other respondents again are of a similar views regarding likingof advertisements involving the role played by children (67.8%), TV commercials caneasily convince their children to buy certain products (49.2%), they always try alladvertised products (54.2%), disappointment due to poor quality of advertisements(45.8%), they dislike watching unethical advertisements while sitting with children(72.9%), advertisements’ effect on shopping patterns (83.1%), asking children beforebuying the products of their use (50.8%) and children always show strong response topremium/gifts/discount offers (69.5%).

Out of business class respondents, 45.2% respondents disagree with this aspect thatchildren are rational enough in understanding advertisements, whereas a majority ofrespondents are of the view that advertisements help in widening children’s choice(64.5%), it leads to unnecessary demand (32.3%), advertisements affect the health ofchildren and leads to obesity (54.8%), it is a source of entertainment (29%), it is asource of information (41.9%), they like ads involving the role played by children (74.2%),


Chi

ldre

n ar

e ra

tion

al e

noug

h8

189

240

59

214

69

03

16

2413

152

60

to u

nder

stan

d th

e m

essa

ge(1

3.6)

(30.

5)(1

5.3)

(40.

7)(0

)(1

00

)(6

.5)

(45.

2)(1

9.4)

(29.

0)(0

)(1

00

)(1

0.0)

(40.

0)(2

1.7)

(25)

(3.3

)(1

00

)of

the

adve

rtis

emen

t

Adv

erti

sing

wid

ens

your

2830

10

05

99

202

00

31

2018

126

46

0ch

ildre

n’s

rang

e of

cho

ice

(47.

5)(5

0.8

)(1

.7)

(0)

(0)

(10

0)

(29.

0)(6

4.5)

(6.5

)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)(3

3.3)

(30.

0)(2

0.0)

(10.

0)(6

.7)

(10

0)

in a

par

ticu

lar

mar

ket

Chi

ldre

n ev

er p

ress

uriz

ed25

197

35

59

108

70

63

123

1611

82

60

You

to b

uy u

nnec

essa

ry(4

2.4)

(32.

2)(1

1.9)

(5.1

)(8

.5)

(10

0)

(32.

3)(2

5.8)

(22.

6)(0

)(1

9.4)

(10

0)

(38.

3)(2

6.7)

(18.

3)(1

3.3)

(3.3

)(1

00

)pr

oduc

ts d

ue t

o at

trac

tive

adve

rtis

emen

ts

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect t

he9

357

80

59

017

83

33

1

7

2715

83

60

heal

th o

f ch

ildre

n(1

5.3)

(59.

3)(1

1.9)

(13.

6)(0

)(1

00

)(0

)(5

4.8)

(25.

8)(9

.7)

(9.7

)(1

00

)(1

1.7)

(45.

0)(2

5)(1

3.3)

(5)

(10

0)

and

lead

to

obes

ity

You

look

upo

n5

1116

621

59

39

73

93

19

924

612

60

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(8

.5)

(18.

6)(2

7.1)

(10.

2)(3

5.6)

(10

0)

(9.7

)(2

9.0)

(22.

6)(9

.7)

(29.

0)(1

00

)(1

5.0)

(15.

0)(4

0.0)

(10.

0)(2

0.0)

(10

0)

of e

nter

tain

men

t

You

look

upo

n29

273

00

59

1013

50

33

120

2012

44

60

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(4

9.2)

(45.

8)(5

.1)

(0)

(0)

(10

0)

(32.

3)(4

1.9)

(16.

1)(0

)(9

.7)

(10

0)

(33.

3)(3

3.3)

(20.

0)(6

.7)

(6.7

)(1

00

)of

info

rmat

ion

Adv

erti

sem

ents

invo

lvin

g11

408

00

59

3

23

50

03

15

363

160

60

the

role

pla

yed

by c

hild

ren

(18.

6)(6

7.8)

(13.

6)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)(9

.7)

(74.

2)(1

6.1)

(0)

(0)

(10

0)

(8.3

)(6

0.0)

(5.0

)(2

6.7)

(0)

(10

0)

alw

ays

impr

ess

you

TV

com

mer

cial

s ca

n ea

sily

2924

42

05

910

135

30

31

1524

124

56

0co

nvin

ce y

our c

hild

ren

(49.

2)(4

0.7)

(6.8

)(3

.4)

(0)

(10

0)

(32.

3)(4

1.9)

(16.

1)(9

.7)

(0)

(10

0)

(25.

0)(4

0.0)

(20.

0)(6

.7)

(8.3

)(1

00

)to

buy

cer

tain

pro

duct

s

Tabl

e 2:

Occ

upat

ion

-Wis

e A

nal

ysis

of

Res

pon

den

ts’ P

erce

ptio

ns

Reg

ardi

ng

the

Infl

uen

ce o

f A

dver

tise

men

ts

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Serv

ice

Bus

ines

sPr

ofes

sion

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total


Tabl

e 2

(Con

t.)

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Serv

ice

Bus

ines

sPr

ofes

sion

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

You

alw

ays

try

for

thos

e3

3211

130

590

187

60

316

1521

1

44

60pr

oduc

ts w

hose

(5.1

)(5

4.2)

(18.

6)(2

2.0)

(0)

(100

)(0

)(5

8.1)

(22.

6)(1

9.4)

(0)

(100

)(1

0.0)

(25.

0)(3

5.0)

(23.

3)(6

.7)

(100

)co

mm

erci

al y

ousa

w o

n T

V

A p

rodu

ct w

ith

a go

od27

262

13

599

712

30

3126

232

63

60ad

vert

isem

ent,

but

wit

h(4

5.8)

(44.

1)(3

.4)

(1.7

)(5

.1)

(100

)(2

9.0)

(22.

6)(3

8.7)

(9.7

)(0

)(1

00)

(43.

3)(3

8.3)

(3.3

)(1

0.0)

(5.0

)(1

00)

poor

qua

lity,

eve

rdi

sapp

oint

ed y

ou

You

disl

ike

wat

chin

g43

122

20

5920

90

20

3131

175

43

60un

ethi

cal a

dver

tisem

ents

(72.

9)(2

0.3)

(3.4

)(3

.4)

(0)

(100

)(6

4.5)

(29.

0)(0

)(6

.5)

(0)

(100

)(5

1.7)

(28.

3)(8

.3)

(6.7

)(5

.0)

(100

)w

hile

sit

ting

wit

h yo

urch

ildre

n

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect

449

60

059

128

20

031

834

104

460

your

chi

ldre

n at

the

(6.8

)(8

3.1)

(10.

2)(0

)(0

)(1

00)

(3.2

)(9

0.3)

(6.5

)(0

)(0

)(1

00)

(13.

3)(5

6.7)

(16.

7)(6

.7)

(6.7

)(1

00)

tim

e of

sho

ppin

g w

ith

you

You

alw

ays

ask

your

017

309

359

06

205

031

1010

346

060

child

ren

befo

re(0

)(2

8.8)

(50.

8)(1

5.3)

(5.1

)(1

00)

(0)

(19.

4)(6

4.5)

(16.

1)(0

)(1

00)

(16.

7)(1

6.7)

(56.

7)(1

0.0)

(0)

(100

)bu

ying

the

prod

ucts

of t

heir

use

Chi

ldre

n sh

ow s

tron

g1

741

55

590

022

27

310

1122

717

60re

spon

se t

o pr

emiu

m/

(1.7

)(1

1.9)

(69.

5)(8

.5)

(8.

5)(1

00)

(0)

(0)

(71.

0)(6

.5)

(22.

6)(1

00)

(0)

(18.

3)(3

6.7)

(11.

7)(2

8.3)

(100

)gi

fts/

disc

ount

sof

fers

in

tele

visi

onad

vert

isin

gdi

rect

ed to

them

Not

e: F

igur

es i

n (

) re

pres

ent

perc

enta

ge v

alue

.


TV commercials can easily convince your children to buy certain products (41.9%),they always try all advertised products (58.1%), disappointment due to poor quality ofadvertisements (38.7%), they dislike watching unethical advertisements while sittingwith children (64.5%), it affects shopping patterns (90.3%), asking children beforebuying the products of their use (64.5%) and children always show strong response topremium/gift/discount offers (71.0%).

Among the professionals, maximum respondents have common perceptions regardingthe impact of advertisements such as children are rational enough to understandadvertisements (40%), advertisements help in widening children’s choice (33.3%), itleads to unnecessary demand by children (38.3%), affects the health of children andleads to obesity (45%), it is a source of entertainment (40%) and a source of information(33.3%), liking of ads involving the role played by children (60%), always try alladvertised products (35%), disappointment due to poor quality of advertisements(43.3%), dislike watching unethical advertisements while sitting with children (51.7%),it affects shopping patterns (56.7%), asking children before buying the products of theiruse (56.7%) and children always show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers(36.7%). Therefore, it can be construed from the results that there is no difference in theperceptions of different occupational groups regarding the impact of advertisements onchildren in influencing the buying behavior of a family.

Table 3 shows that out of 59 service respondents, 44% being the major portion in thecategory, agree with the view that children are rational enough to understand the messageof the advertisement, Another major part of the respondents completely agree with theaspects such as advertising widens their children’s range of choice in a particular market(98.3%), children ever pressurized you to buy unnecessary products due to attractiveadvertisements (74.5%), advertisements affect the health of children and lead to obesity(74.5%), you look upon advertisements as a source of information (95%), advertisementsinvolving the role played by children always impress you (86.4%), TV commercialseasily convince your children to buy certain products (89.8%), you always try thoseproducts whose commercial you saw on TV (59.3%), a product with good advertisementbut with poor quality, ever disappointed you (89.8%), you dislike watching unethicaladvertisements while sitting with your children (93.2%), advertisements affect yourchildren at the time of shopping with you (89.8%). Except this, one major part of therespondents, i.e., 45.8%, disagree when asked whether they looked upon advertisementsas a source of entertainment. Besides that, a major part of the respondents of serviceclass are neutral in their opinion regarding asking children before buying the productsof their use (50.8%) and children show strong response to premium/gifts/discounts offersin TV advertising directed to them (69.4%).

Out of the 31 business class respondents, a majority agree with the rationality ofchildren to understand the message of the advertisement (51.6%), advertising widenstheir children’s range of choice in a particular market (93.5%), children ever pressurizedyou to buy unnecessary products due to attractive advertisements (58.1%), advertisements


Chi

ldre

n ar

e ra

tion

al e

noug

h26

924

59

166

93

130

1317

60

to u

nder

stan

d th

e m

essa

ge(4

4.0)

(15.

3)(4

0.7)

(10

0)

(51.

6)(1

9.4)

(29.

0)(1

00

)(5

0.0)

(21.

7)(2

8.3)

(10

0)

of th

e ad

vert

isem

ent

Adv

erti

sing

wid

ens

your

581

05

929

20

31

3812

106

0ch

ildre

n’s

rang

e of

cho

ice

(98.

3)(1

.7)

(0)

(10

0)

93.5

(6.5

)(0

)(1

00

)(6

3.3)

(20.

0)(1

6.7)

(10

0)

in a

par

ticu

lar

mar

ket

Chi

ldre

n ev

er p

ress

uriz

ed44

78

59

187

63

139

1110

60

you

to b

uy u

nnec

essa

ry(7

4.5)

(11.

9)(1

3.6)

(10

0)

(58.

1)(2

2.6)

(19.

4)(1

00

)(6

5.0)

(18.

3)(1

6.6)

(10

0)

prod

ucts

due

to

attr

acti

vead

vert

isem

ents

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect t

he44

78

59

178

63

134

.015

116

0he

alth

of

child

ren

(74.

5)(1

1.9)

(13.

6)(1

00

)(5

4.8)

(25.

8)(1

9.4)

(10

0)

(56.

7)(2

5)(1

8.3)

(10

0)

and

lead

to

obes

ity

You

look

upo

n16

1627

59

127

123

118

2418

60

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(2

7.1)

(27.

1)(4

5.8)

(10

0)

(38.

7)(2

2.6)

(38.

7)(1

00

)(3

0.0)

(40.

0)(3

0.0)

(10

0)

of e

nter

tain

men

t

You

look

upo

n56

30

59

235

33

140

128

60

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(9

5.0)

(5.0

)(0

)(1

00

)(7

4.2)

(16.

1)(9

.7)

(10

0)

(66.

6)(2

0.0)

(13.

4)(1

00

)of

info

rmat

ion

Adv

erti

sem

ents

invo

lvin

g51

80

5926

50

3141

316

60

the

role

pla

yed

by c

hild

ren

(86.

4)(1

3.6)

(0)

(10

0)

(83.

9)(1

6.1)

(0)

(10

0)

(68.

3)(5

.0)

(26.

7)(1

00

)al

way

s im

pres

s yo

u

TV

com

mer

cial

s ca

n ea

sily

534

25

923

53

31

3912

96

0co

nvin

ce y

our c

hild

ren

(89.

8)(6

.8)

(3.4

)(1

00

)(7

4.2)

(16.

1)(9

.7)

(10

0)

(65.

0)(2

0.0)

(15.

0)(1

00

)to

buy

cer

tain

pro

duct

s

Tabl

e 3:

Occ

upat

ion

-Wis

e A

nal

ysis

of

Res

pon

den

ts’ P

erce

ptio

ns

Reg

ardi

ng

the

Infl

uen

ce o

f A

dver

tise

men

ts

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Serv

ice

Bus

ines

sPr

ofes

sion

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore


Tabl

e 3

(Con

t.)

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Serv

ice

Bus

ines

sPr

ofes

sion

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

Not

e:Fi

gure

s in

( )

rep

rese

nt p

erce

ntag

e va

lue.

You

alw

ays

try

for

thos

e35

1113

59

187

63

121

2118

60

prod

ucts

who

se(5

9.3)

(18.

6)(2

2.1)

(10

0)

(58.

1)(2

2.6)

(19.

4)(1

00

)(3

5.0)

(35.

0)(3

0.0)

(10

0)

com

mer

cial

you

saw

on

TV

A p

rodu

ct w

ith

a go

od53

24

5916

123

3149

29

60

adve

rtis

emen

t, b

ut w

ith

(89.

8)(3

.4)

(6.8

)(1

00

)(5

1.6)

(38.

7)(9

.7)

(10

0)

(81.

6)(3

.3)

(15.

0)(1

00

)po

or q

ualit

y, e

ver

disa

ppoi

nted

you

You

disl

ike

wat

chin

g55

22

59

290

23

148

57

60

unet

hica

l adv

ertis

emen

ts(9

3.2)

(3.4

)(3

.4)

(10

0)

(93.

5)(0

)(6

.5)

(10

0)

(80)

(8.3

)(1

1.7)

(10

0)

whi

le s

itti

ng w

ith

your

child

ren

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect

536

05

929

20

31

4210

86

0yo

ur c

hild

ren

at t

he(8

9.8)

(10.

2)(0

)(1

00

)(9

3.5)

(6.5

)(0

)(1

00

)(7

0)(1

6.7)

(13.

4)(1

00

)ti

me

of s

hopp

ing

wit

h yo

u

You

alw

ays

ask

your

1730

125

96

205

31

2034

66

0ch

ildre

n be

fore

(28.

8)(5

0.8)

(20.

4)(1

00

)(1

9.4)

(64.

5)(1

6.1)

(10

0)

(33.

4)(5

6.7)

(10.

0)(1

00

)bu

ying

the

prod

ucts

of t

heir

use

Chi

ldre

n sh

ow s

tron

g8

4110

59

022

93

111

2224

60

resp

onse

to

prem

ium

/(1

3.6)

(69.

4)(1

7.0)

(10

0)

(0)

(71.

0)(2

9.1)

(10

0)

(18.

3)(3

6.7)

(40.

0)(1

00

)gi

fts/

disc

ount

sof

fers

in

tele

visi

onad

vert

isin

gdi

rect

ed to

them


affect the health of children and lead to obesity (54.8%), you look upon advertisements asa source of entertainment (38%), you look upon advertisements as a source of information(74.2%), advertisements involving the role played by children always impress you (83.9%),TV commercials easily convince your children to buy certain products (74.2%), you alwaystry those products whose commercial you saw on TV (58.1%), a product with goodadvertisement but with poor quality, ever disappointed you 51.6%, you dislike watchingunethical advertisements while sitting with your children (93.5%), advertisements affectyour children at the time of shopping with you (93.5%). Besides above, a major part of therespondents of business class are neutral in their opinion regarding asking children beforebuying the products of their use (64.5%) and children show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers in TV advertising directed to them (71%).

Out of 60 professionals, maximum respondents have common perceptions regardingthe impact of advertisements and they agree on the points such as children are rationalenough to understand advertisements (50%), advertising widens their children range ofchoice in a particular market (63.3%), children ever pressurized you to buy unnecessaryproducts due to attractive advertisements (65%), advertisements affect the health ofchildren and lead to obesity (56.7%), you look upon advertisements as a source ofentertainment (30%), you look upon advertisements as a source of information(66.6%), advertisements involving the role played by children always impress you(68.3%), TV commercials easily convince your children to buy certain products (65%),you always try those products whose commercial you saw on TV (35%), a product withgood advertisement but with poor quality, ever disappointed you (81.6%), you dislikewatching unethical advertisements while sitting with your children (80%), advertisementsaffect your children at the time of shopping with you (70%). Except these agreeableissues, another major portion of respondents are neutral in opinion regarding askingchildren before buying the products of their use (56.7%), and 40% respondents beingthe major part disagrees with the view that children show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers in TV advertising directed to them.

On the basis of the above findings, it becomes clear that the respondents’ view differonly in case of advertisements when regarded as a source of entertainment, asking childrenbefore buying the products of their use and children show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers in TV advertising directed to them; otherwise all the respondentshave common opinions regarding the impact of advertisement on children.

Income-Wise AnalysisIt is evident from Table 4 that out of a total of 150 respondents, 50 have income below1,50,000; 86 have income between 1,50,000 to 3,50,000; and 14 respondents have

income above 3,50,000.

Out of the 50 lowest income group, a majority of respondents have positive andcommon attitude towards the impact of advertisements on children in influencing


buying behavior of a family. They say that children are rational enough in understandingadvertisements (48%), advertisements help in widening children’s choice (42%), itleads to unnecessary demand by children (26%), it affects health and leads to obesity(50%), advertisements are a source of entertainment (36%), advertisements are a sourceof information (34%), they like the ads involving the role played by children (66%),TV commercials can easily convince children (38%), they always try advertisedproducts (34%), disappointment due to poor quality of advertisements (50%), theydislike watching unethical advertisements while sitting with their children (52%),advertisements affect shopping patterns (56%), they always ask children before buyingthe products of their use (72%) and children always show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers (48%).

Out of the 86 middle income group, 41.9% respondents disagree with the aspect ofrationality of children in understanding message of advertisements. However, majorportion agrees that advertisements help in widening children’s choice (48.8%), it leadsto unnecessary demand (47.7%), it affects the health of children and lead to obesity(58.1%). 39.5% respondents disagree with this point that advertisements are a sourceof entertainment. Others consider advertisements as a source of information (46.5%),they like those ads which involve the role played by children (70.9%), TV commercialscan easily convince their children to buy certain products (45.3%), they always tryadvertised products (51.2%), they feel disappointed due to poor quality of advertisements(58.1%), they dislike watching unethical advertisements while sitting with children(62.8%), advertisements affect shopping patterns (83.7%), they always ask childrenbefore buying the products of their use (54.7%) and children show strong response topremium/gift/discount offers (63.5%).

Out of the 14 highest income group, a majority of respondents are of the viewthat children are rational enough to understand advertisements (71.4%), it helps inwidening children’s choice (64.3%), it leads to unnecessary demand (28.6%), itaffects the health of children and leads to obesity (50%), advertisements are a sourceof entertainment (42.9%), advertisements are a source of information (71.4%), likingof ads involving the role played by children (35.7%), TV commercials can easilyconvince their children to buy certain products (35.7%), they always try advertisedproducts (42.9%), they feel disappointment due to poor quality ads (50%), theydislike watching unethical advertisements while sitting with children (100%),advertisements affect shopping patterns (78.6%), they always ask children beforebuying products of their use (64.3%) and children show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers (50%).

Table 5 shows that out of the lowest income group, a major portion of respondents havepositive and common attitude towards the impact of advertisements on children ininfluencing the buying behavior of a family. Major part of respondents agree with, childrenare rational enough to understand the message of the advertisement (50%), advertising


Chi

ldre

n ar

e ra

tion

al e

noug

h1

2412

112

50

1222

1636

08

63

100

10

14

to u

nder

stan

d th

e m

essa

ge(2

.0)

(48.

0)(2

4.0)

(22.

0)(4

.0)

(10

0)

(14.

0)(2

5.6)

(18.

6)(4

1.9)

(0)

(10

0)

(21.

4)(7

1.4)

(0)

(7.1

)(0

)(1

00

)of

the

adve

rtis

emen

t

Adv

erti

sing

wid

ens

your

1021

114

45

042

384

20

86

59

00

01

4ch

ildre

n’s

rang

e of

cho

ice

(20.

0)(4

2.0)

(22.

0)(8

.0)

(8.0

)(1

00

)(4

8.8)

(44.

2)(4

.7)

(2.3

)(0

)(1

00

)(3

5.7)

(64.

3)(0

)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)in

a p

arti

cula

r m

arke

t

Chi

ldre

n ev

er p

ress

uriz

ed13

1212

85

50

4127

100

88

64

43

30

14

you

to b

uy u

nnec

essa

ry(2

6.0)

(24.

0)(2

4.0)

(16.

0)(1

0.0)

(10

0)

(47.

7)(3

1.4)

(11.

6)(0

)(9

.3)

(10

0)

(28.

6)(2

8.6)

(21.

4)(2

1.4)

(0)

(10

0)

prod

ucts

due

to

attr

acti

vead

vert

isem

ents

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect t

he5

2515

50

50

850

814

68

6

3

47

00

14

heal

th o

f ch

ildre

n(1

0.0)

(50.

0)(3

0.0)

(10.

0)(0

)(1

00

)(9

.3)

(58.

1)(9

.3)

(16.

3)(7

.0)

(10

0)

(21.

4)(2

8.6)

(50.

0)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)an

d le

ad t

o ob

esit

y

You

look

upo

n6

718

127

50

519

253

348

66

34

01

14

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(1

2.0)

(14.

0)(3

6.0)

(24.

0)(1

4.0)

(10

0)

(5.8

)(2

2.1)

(29.

1)(3

.5)

(39.

5)(1

00

)(4

2.9)

(21.

4)(2

8.6)

(0)

(7.1

)(1

00

)of

ent

erta

inm

ent

You

look

upo

n15

1712

24

50

4033

82

38

64

1

00

00

14

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(3

0.0)

(34.

0)(2

4.0)

(4.0

)(8

.0)

(10

0)

(46.

5)(3

8.4)

(9.3

)(2

.3)

(3.5

)(1

00

)(2

8.6)

(71.

4)(0

)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)of

info

rmat

ion

Adv

erti

sem

ents

invo

lvin

g8

333

60

50

861

107

08

63

53

30

14

the

role

pla

yed

by c

hild

ren

(16.

0)(6

6.0)

(6.0

)(1

2.0)

(0)

(10

0)

(9.3

)(7

0.9)

(11.

6)(8

.1)

(0)

(10

0)

(21.

4)(3

5.7)

(21.

4)(2

1.4)

(0)

(10

0)

alw

ays

impr

ess

you

TV

com

mer

cial

s ca

n ea

sily

1319

117

05

039

337

25

86

29

30

01

4co

nvin

ce y

our c

hild

ren

(26.

0)(3

8.0)

(22.

0)(1

4.0)

(0)

(10

0)

(45.

3)(3

8.4)

(8.1

)(2

.3)

(5.8

)(1

00

)(1

4.3)

(64.

3)(2

1.4)

(0)

(0)

(10

0)

to b

uy c

erta

in p

rodu

cts

Tabl

e 4:

In

com

e-W

ise

An

alys

is o

f R

espo

nde

nts

’ Per

cept

ion

s R

egar

din

g th

e In

flue

nce

of

Adv

erti

sem

ents

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Bel

ow

1,50

,000

Bet

wee

n

1,50

,000

to

3,

50,0

00A

bove

3,

50,0

00

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total


Tabl

e 4

(Con

t.)

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Bel

ow

1,50

,000

Bet

wee

n

1,50

,000

to

3,

50,0

00A

bove

3,

50,0

00

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

StronglyAgree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

Total

You

alw

ays

try

for

thos

e4

1617

112

50

544

1916

28

60

53

60

14

prod

ucts

who

se(8

.0)

(32.

0)(3

4.0)

(22.

0)(4

.0)

(10

0)

(5.8

)(5

1.2)

(22.

1)(1

8.6)

(2.3

)(1

00

)(0

)(3

5.7)

(21.

4)(4

2.9)

(0)

(10

0)

com

mer

cial

you

saw

on

TV

A p

rodu

ct w

ith

a go

od5

2515

50

50

850

814

68

63

47

00

14

adve

rtis

emen

t, b

ut w

ith

(10.

0)(5

0.0)

(30.

0)

(10

.0)

(0)

(10

0)

(9.3

)(5

8.1)

(9.3

)(1

6.3)

(7.0

)(1

00

)(2

1.4)

(28.

6)(5

0.0)

(0)

(0)

(10

0)

poor

qua

lity,

eve

rdi

sapp

oint

ed y

ou

You

disl

ike

wat

chin

g20

153

60

50

5423

42

38

614

00

00

14

unet

hica

l adv

ertis

emen

ts(5

2.0)

(30.

0)(6

.0)

(12.

0)(0

)(1

00

)(6

2.8)

(26.

7)(4

.7)

(2.3

)(3

.5)

(10

0)

(100

)(0

)(0

)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)w

hile

sit

ting

wit

h yo

urch

ildre

n

Adv

ertis

emen

ts A

ffec

t8

288

42

50

572

70

28

60

113

00

14

your

chi

ldre

n at

the

(16.

0)(5

6.0)

(16.

0)(8

.0)

(4.0

)(1

00

)(5

.8)

(83.

7)(8

.1)

(0)

(2.3

)(1

00

)(0

)(7

8.6)

(21.

4)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)ti

me

of s

hopp

ing

wit

h yo

u

You

alw

ays

ask

your

102

362

05

00

2247

143

86

09

14

01

4ch

ildre

n be

fore

(20.

0)(4

.0)

(72.

0)(4

.0)

(0)

(10

0)

(0)

(25.

6)(5

4.7)

(16.

3)(3

.5)

(10

0)

(0)

(64.

3)(7

.1)

(28.

6)(0

)(1

00

)bu

ying

the

prod

ucts

of t

heir

use

Chi

ldre

n sh

ow s

tron

g re

spon

se9

246

110

50

854

518

08

61

73

03

14

to p

rem

ium

/gift

s/di

scou

nts

(18.

0)(4

8.0)

(12.

0)(2

2.0)

(0)

(10

0)

(9.4

)(6

3.5)

(5.9

)(2

1.2)

(0)

(10

0)

(7.1

)(5

0.0)

(21.

4)(0

)(2

1.4)

(10

0)

offe

rs i

n te

levi

sion

adve

rtis

ing

dire

cted

to

them

Not

e:Fi

gure

s in

( )

rep

rese

nt p

erce

ntag

e va

lue.


widens their children range of choice in a particular market (62%), children everpressurized you to buy unnecessary products due to attractive advertisements (50%),advertisements affect the health of children and lead to obesity (60%), you look uponadvertisements as a source of information (64%), advertisements involving the role playedby children always impress you (82%), TV commercials easily convince your children tobuy certain products (64%), you always try those products whose commercial you sawon TV (40%), a product with good advertisement but with poor quality, everdisappointed you (60%), you dislike watching unethical advertisements while sittingwith your children (82%), advertisements affect your children at the time of shoppingwith you (72%) and children show strong response to premium/gifts/discounts offers inTV advertising directed to them (66%). Except this, one major part of the respondents,i.e., 38% disagrees when asked that you look upon advertisements as a source ofentertainment. Also besides it, 72% being the major part of the respondents of serviceclass are neutral in their opinion regarding asking children before buying the productsof their use.

Out of the middle income group, major chunk of respondents agree on the pointssuch as advertising widens their children range of choice in a particular market (93%),children ever pressurized you to buy unnecessary products due to attractiveadvertisements (79.1%), advertisements affect the health of children and lead to obesity(67.4%), you look upon advertisements as a source of information (84.9%),advertisements involving the role played by children always impress you (80.2%), TVcommercials easily convince your children to buy certain products (83.8%), you alwaystry those products whose commercial you saw on TV (57%), a product with goodadvertisement but with poor quality, ever disappointed you (67.4%), you dislike watchingunethical advertisements while sitting with your children (89.5%), advertisements affectyour children at the time of shopping with you (89.5%) and children show strongresponse to premium/gift/discount offers in TV advertising directed to them (72.9%).Except these agreeable issues, another major portion of respondents are neutral in opinionregarding asking children before buying the products of their use (54.7%) and 41.9%respondents disagree with the view that children are rational enough to understandadvertisements.

Out of the highest income group, major part of respondents agree with children arerational enough to understand the message of the advertisement (92.8%), advertisingwidens their children’s range of choice in a particular market (100%), children everpressurized you to buy unnecessary products due to attractive advertisements (57.2%),advertisements affect the health of children and lead to obesity (50%), you look uponadvertisements as a source of entertainment (64.3%), you look upon advertisements asa source of information (100%), advertisements involving the role played by childrenalways impress you (57.1%), TV commercials easily convince your children to buycertain products (78.6%), a product with good advertisement but with poor quality,ever disappointed you (50%), you dislike watching unethical advertisements while sitting


Chi

ldre

n ar

e ra

tion

al e

noug

h25

1213

50

3416

3

68

613

01

14

to u

nder

stan

d th

e m

essa

ge(5

0.0)

(24.

0)(2

6.0)

(10

0)

(39.

6)(1

8.6)

(41.

9)(1

00

)(9

2.8)

(0)

(7.1

)(1

00

)of

the

adve

rtis

emen

t

Adv

erti

sing

wid

ens

your

3111

85

080

42

86

140

01

4ch

ildre

n’s

rang

e of

cho

ice

(62.

0)(2

2.0)

(16.

0)(1

00

)(9

3.0)

(4.7

)(2

.3)

(10

0)

(100

.0)

(0)

(0)

(10

0)

in a

par

ticu

lar

mar

ket

Chi

ldre

n ev

er p

ress

uriz

ed25

1213

50

6810

88

68

33

14

You

to b

uy u

nnec

essa

ry(5

0.0)

(24.

0)(2

6.0)

(10

0)

(79.

1)(1

1.6)

(9.3

)(1

00

)(5

7.2)

(21.

4)(2

1.4)

(10

0)

prod

ucts

due

to

attr

acti

vead

vert

isem

ents

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect t

he30

155

50

588

208

67

70

14

heal

th o

f ch

ildre

n(6

0.0)

(30.

0)(1

0.0)

(10

0)

(67.

4)(9

.3)

(23.

3)(1

00

)(5

0.0)

(50.

0)(0

)(1

00

)an

d le

ad t

o ob

esit

y

You

look

upo

n13

1819

50

2425

378

69

41

14

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(2

6.0)

(36.

0)(3

8.0)

(10

0)

(27.

9)(2

9.1)

(43.

0)(1

00

)(6

4.3)

(28.

6)(7

.1)

(10

0)

of e

nter

tain

men

t

You

look

upo

n32

126

50

738

58

614

00

14

adve

rtis

emen

ts a

s a

sour

ce(6

4.0)

(24.

0)(1

2.0)

(10

0)

(84.

9)(9

.3)

(5.8

)(1

00

)(1

00.0

)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)of

info

rmat

ion

Adv

erti

sem

ents

invo

lvin

g41

36

50

6910

78

68

33

14

the

role

pla

yed

by c

hild

ren

(82.

0)(6

.0)

(12.

0)(1

00

)(8

0.2)

(11.

6)(8

.1)

(10

0)

(57.

1)(2

1.4)

(21.

4)(1

00

)al

way

s im

pres

s yo

u

TV

com

mer

cial

s ca

n ea

sily

3211

75

072

77

86

113

01

4co

nvin

ce y

our c

hild

ren

(64.

0)(2

2.0)

(14.

0)(1

00

)(8

3.8)

(8.1

)(8

.1)

(10

0)

(78.

6)(2

1.4)

(0)

(10

0)

to b

uy c

erta

in p

rodu

cts

Tabl

e 5:

In

com

e-W

ise

An

alys

is o

f R

espo

nde

nts

’ Per

cept

ion

s R

egar

din

g th

e In

flue

nce

of

Adv

erti

sem

ents

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Bel

ow

1,50

,000

Bet

wee

n

1,50

,000

to

3,

50,0

00A

bove

3,

50,0

00

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore


Tabl

e 5

(Con

t.)

Perc

epti

on R

egar

din

gA

dve

rtis

emen

ts

Num

ber

of R

espo

nde

nts

(Pe

rcen

tage

)

Serv

ice

Bus

ines

sPr

ofes

sion

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

AgreementScore

Neutral

Total

DisagreementScore

You

alw

ays

try

for

thos

e20

1713

50

4919

188

65

36

14

prod

ucts

who

se(4

0.0)

(34.

0)(2

6.0)

(10

0)

(57.

0)(2

2.1)

(20.

9)(1

00

)(3

5.7)

(21.

4)(4

2.9)

(10

0)

com

mer

cial

you

saw

on

TV

A p

rodu

ct w

ith

a go

od30

155

50

588

208

67

70

14

adve

rtis

emen

t, b

ut w

ith

(60.

0)(3

0.0)

(10.

0)(1

00

)(6

7.4)

(9.3

)(2

3.3)

(10

0)

(50.

0)(5

0.0)

(0)

(10

0)

poor

qua

lity,

eve

rdi

sapp

oint

ed y

ou

You

disl

ike

wat

chin

g35

36

50

774

58

614

00

14

unet

hica

l adv

ertis

emen

ts(8

2.0)

(6.0

)(1

2.0)

(10

0)

(89.

5)(4

.7)

(5.8

)(1

00

)(1

00.0

)(0

)(0

)(1

00

)w

hile

sit

ting

wit

h yo

urch

ildre

n

Adv

erti

sem

ents

aff

ect

368

65

077

72

86

113

01

4yo

ur c

hild

ren

at t

he(7

2.0)

(16.

0)(1

2.0)

(10

0)

(89.

5)(8

.1)

(2.3

)(1

00

)(7

8.6)

(21.

4)(0

)(1

00

)ti

me

of s

hopp

ing

wit

h yo

u

You

alw

ays

ask

your

1236

25

022

4717

86

91

41

4ch

ildre

n be

fore

(24.

0)(7

2.0)

(4.0

)(1

00

)(2

5.6)

(54.

7)(1

9.8)

(10

0)

(64.

3)(7

.1)

(28.

6)(1

00

)bu

ying

the

prod

ucts

of t

heir

use

Chi

ldre

n sh

ow s

tron

g re

spon

se33

611

50

625

188

68

33

14

to p

rem

ium

/gift

s/di

scou

nts

(66.

0)(1

2.0)

(22.

0)(1

00

)(7

2.9)

(5.9

)(2

1.2)

(10

0)

(57.

1)(2

1.4)

(21.

4)(1

00

)of

fers

in

tele

visi

on a

dver

tisi

ngdi

rect

ed to

them

Not

e: F

igur

es i

n (

) re

pres

ent

perc

enta

ge v

alue

.


with your children (100%), ads affect your children at the time of shopping with you(78.6%), you always ask your children before buying the products of their use (64.3%)and children show strong response to premium/gift/discount offers in television advertisingdirected to them (57.1%). Out of this income group, 42.9% respondents completelydisagree when asked that you always try those products whose commercial you saw onTV because they sometimes get influenced through ads and sometimes not.

Analysis of VarianceAnalysis of Variance (one-way ANOVA) on occupation factor (Table 6) articulates thatsignificance level in the last column is greater than 0.05 in all the perceptions of parentsregarding the impact of advertisements on children, except advertising widens yourchildren’s range of choice in a particular market, advertisements affect the health ofchildren and lead to obesity, you look upon advertisements as a source of information,advertisements involving the role played by children always impress you, TV commercialscan easily convince your children to buy certain products, you dislike watching unethicaladvertisements while sitting with your children, advertisements affect your children atthe time of shopping, you always ask your children before buying the products of theiruse and the perception regarding whether they show strong response to premium/gifts/discounts offers in television advertising directed to them. Thus, the null hypothesis isrejected in these cases and it shows that there is a significant difference between theperceptions of respondents belonging to different occupations because of differentmindsets such as parents in service can provide more time to their children than theparents in business. On the other hand, professional respondents guide their children ina skilled way as they are very well versed with the criticality of the impact ofadvertisements. It may be unethical advertisements or advertisements leading to obesity.However, significance level is greater than 0.05 in the perceptions like children arerational enough to understand the message of the advertisement, children pressurizedyou to buy unnecessary products due to attractive advertisements, you always try thoseproducts whose commercial you saw on TV and a product with a good advertisement,but with poor quality, ever disappointed you. It means that there is a significant differencein the perceptions of different occupational groups and the null hypothesis is acceptedat 5% level of significance. The results presented herein are more psychological in natureand influence-based too. It may be because of the fact that in today’s era, children getthe same education from their schools and families, no matter to which class they belong.

Table 7 depicts that the significance level in the last column is greater than 0.05 inthe perceptions of respondents like advertisements affect the health of children andlead to obesity, advertisements involving the role played by children always impressyou, TV commercials can easily convince your children to buy certain products, youalways try for those products whose commercial you saw on TV, a product with a goodadvertisement; but with poor quality, ever disappointed you, advertisements affect yourchildren at the time of shopping with you and children show strong response to


Perception About Advertisements Sum of df Mean F Sig.Squares Square

Children are rational enough to 0.484 2 0.242 0.213 0.808understand the message of theadvertisement

Advertising widens your 16.043 2 8.022 10.362 0.000children’s range of choice ina particular market

Children ever pressurized you 3.851 2 1.925 1.205 0.303to buy unnecessary products dueto attractive advertisements

Advertisements affect the health of 5.870 2 2.935 3.139 0.046children and lead to obesity

You look upon advertisements as 5.027 2 2.514 1.387 0.253a eource of entertainment

You look upon advertisements as a 13.707 2 6.854 7.015 0.001source of information

Advertisements involving the role 9.675 2 4.837 8.494 0.000played by children always impress you

TV commercials can easily 14.174 2 7.087 7.345 0.001convince your children tobuy certain products

You always try for those products 3.895 2 1.948 2.131 0.122whose commercial you saw on TV

A product with a good 5.658 2 2.829 2.507 0.085advertisement, but with poorquality, ever disappointed you

You dislike watching unethical 7.185 2 3.592 4.152 0.018advertisements while sittingwith your children

Advertisements affect your 4.000 2 2.000 3.929 0.022children at the time ofshopping with you

You always ask your children before 4.840 2 2.420 3.733 0.026buying the products of their use.

Children show strong response 8.074 2 4.037 4.201 0.017to premium/gifts/discounts offersin television advertising directedto them

Table 6: Analysis of Variance (One-Way ANOVA) on Occupation Factor


Perception About Advertisements Sum of df Mean F Sig.Squares Square

Children are rational enough to 11.014 2 5.507 5.178 0.007understand the message of theadvertisement

Advertising widens your 21.888 2 10.944 14.902 0.000children’s range of choice ina particular market

Children ever pressurized you 15.129 2 7.564 4.972 0.008to buy unnecessary products dueto attractive advertisements.

Advertisements affect the health of 1.081 2 0.540 0.558 0.573children and lead to obesity

You look upon advertisements as 24.923 2 12.462 7.433 0.001a source of entertainment

You look upon advertisements as a 8.054 2 4.027 3.965 0.021source of information

Advertisements involving the role 0.922 2 0.461 0.732 0.482played by children always impress you

TV commercials can easily 4.917 2 2.458 2.392 0.095convince your children tobuy certain products

You always try for those products 3.373 2 1.687 1.838 0.163whose commercial you saw on TV

A product with a good 4.923 2 2.462 2.171 0.118advertisement, but with poorquality, ever disappointed you

You dislike watching unethical 6.712 2 3.356 3.864 0.023advertisements while sittingwith your children

Advertisements affect your 1.140 2 0.570 1.079 0.343children at the time ofshopping with you

You always ask your children before 4.972 2 2.486 3.840 0.024buying the products of their use

Children show strong response 2.037 2 1.019 1.016 0.364to premium/gifts/discounts offersin television advertising directedto them

Table 7: Analysis of Variance (One-Way ANOVA) on Income Factor


premium/gifts/discounts offers in television advertising directed to them. Thus, the nullhypothesis is accepted at 5% level of significance and there is no significant difference inthe perceptions of different income groups.

It reflects that income range of respondents does not affect the impact of advertisementson children. Respondents with different income groups are of the view that advertisementshave a tremendous influence on children as it is felt during shopping, it affects theirhealth too and disappointment is felt due to poor quality of advertisements. Premium/gift and discount offer also lure the children in different income groups. However,significance level is smaller than 0.05 in other cases like children are rational enough tounderstand the message of the advertisement, advertising widens your children’s rangeof choice in a particular market, children ever pressurized you to buy unnecessaryproducts due to attractive advertisements, you look upon advertisements as a source ofentertainment, you look upon advertisements as a source of information, you dislikewatching unethical advertisements while sitting with your children and you always askyour children before buying the products of their use. Therefore, the null hypothesis isrejected at 5% level of significance and it is proved that there is a significant differencein the perceptions of respondents belonging to different income groups. The reasonbeing reflected may be due to increasing pocket money of children in high income groupsand they prefer buying products because of peer pressure and show-offs.

FindingsTelevision and advertising together present a lethal combination and has become an integralpart of modern society. The results of the study reveal that children are rational enough toevaluate advertisements, as Mukherjee (2007) found that the impact of advertisementson the various age groups of children varies depending upon their knowledge of the existingbrands, parental supervision, mode of delivery of the advertisement and other variables.Parents being the respondents in the study are of the view that their children develop avery healthy awareness and attitude towards messages they see in television commercialsand they are quite independent in making their judgments. Respondents state thatadvertisements play a vital role in introducing a new product in the family list andmaking better choice during shopping. The study also reveals the findings of Kotwal et al.(2008) who are of the view that a majority of the respondents after watching anadvertisement want to buy the new brand introduced in the market; they were disappointedwhen they were not allowed to buy products of their choice. They consider advertisementsas a source of knowledge and information for their kids. On the basis of this study, it maybe stated that during advertisements, further increase in informative factors such as price,quality and suggested use of items might improve the educational value of an advertisementand make the consumers aware of the prevailing prices. The manufacturers should, therefore,take care to provide all the information which would help the young consumers in thedecision-making process.


ConclusionThis study indicates that parental control is weaker and children also have extensiveinfluence on how their parents buy products, but there is a gap with the study conductedby Noergaard et al. (2007), that parents and children do not always agree on how muchinfluence children have in the various stages of the process, indicating the importance oflistening to both parties for an understanding of the family dynamics and processes involvedin everyday food buying. Based on the reasons stated above, it can be said that advertisersare more interested in targeting children than adults. To conclude, it may be of great helpfor the respondents to make their children study and understand the characteristics of theadvertisements, their merits and demerits, before going for shopping. J

References1. Carlson Grossbart (1988), “Parental Style and Consumer Socialization of Children”,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 77-94.

2. Jam F A (2010), “Impact of Advertisement on Children Behavior: Evidence fromPakistan”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 1-8.

3. Katke K (2007), “The Impact of Television Advertising on Child Health and FamilySpending: A Case Study”, International Marketing Conference on Marketing &Society (IIMK), April, pp. 284-286.

4. Kotwal N, Gupta N and Devi A (2008), “Impact of TV Advertisements on BuyingPattern of Adolescent Girls”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 51-55.

5. Livingstone (2006), Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children,retrieved in January, 2008, pp. 4-9, available at www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/whoswho/sonialivingstone.htm

6. Mukherjee (2007), “Advertisements—Shaping a Child’s Future: An Indian Insight”,Advertising Express, October, pp. 27-30.

7. Nath (2008), “Television and Its Impact on Children”, Advertising Express, January,pp. 52-58.

8. Ninan (2008), “Pester Power—Emerging New Dimensions”, Advertising Express,October, pp. 36-38.

9. Noergaard M K, Bruns K, Christensen P H and Mikkelsen M R (2007),“Children’s Influence on and Participation in the Family Decision Process DuringFood Buying”, Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, Vol. 8,No. 3, pp. 197-216.

10. Pine and Nash (2007), “Dear Santa: The Effects of Television Advertising onYoung Children”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, Vol. 26, No. 6,pp. 529-539.

11. Sheoliha (2007), “Kids: A Bull’s Eye for Advertisers Today”, Advertising Express,June, pp. 39-42.

Reference # 03J-2011-08-02-01

Copyright of IUP Journal of Marketing Management is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

the impact of advertisements on children and their … · 18 the iup journal of marketing...

Documents