Childhoodfor

$ale

Michele Stockwell’s

Discussion Question:

In what ways have people in the class been targeted in advertising or marketing? Do

people have examples of memorable slogans, jingles, or images that affected them or

children they know?

Main Idea #1:

Consumer culture has turn pervasive and invasive, enticing children to spend

their pocket money.

Supporting Facts:

People spend more than $200 billion per year and become lifelong customers.

(Other supporting facts are the following main ideas and their supporting facts.)

Main Idea #2:

With the help of psychologists and child development experts, marketers use

strategies to take advantage of children’s deeply impressionable

nature, which include:

Supporting Facts:Word-of-mouth campaigns;

“Advergames” in video and computer games;

Surveys online, through chat rooms, interactive sites, gaming sites, etc.;

And using cell phones to bypass gatekeeper parents.

Main Idea #3:

Commercialising childhood has cumulative, long, lasting, and damaging

effects.

Supporting Facts: Children who are more exposed and involved in consumer culture

are more apt to physical and emotional problems, inter- and intrapersonal problems.

Research has specifically shown that children’s exposure to food advertising and marketing may be influencing their food choices.

Children’s frequent exposure to ads for violent entertainment enhances the chances of childhood displays of violent and aggressive behaviour.

Sexual imagery in marketing campaigns and consumer products is hyper-charging children’s sexuality before they may be cognitively or emotionally ready.

Parents worry over their children not growing up with the same values they have and this is a sentiment shared by Hillary Clinton.

Main Idea #4:

The article offers suggestions for the U.S. government policy makers to prevent

possible effects of advertising and marketing campaigns aimed at children and actions to be taken by the Congress

and the Federal Trade Commission.

Supporting Facts: Ensure that marketing practices aimed at children

are fair.

Ensure that advertising is appropriate for media in which it appears.

Require toys and other products based on movies and TV shows to carry consistent age ratings.

Protect children’s privacy.

Curtail marketing activities inside public schools.

More Supporting Facts:

End the practice of using children’s friendship for marketing purposes.

Protect children involved in product research.

Ask more from broadcasters.

Ask more from cable and satellite TV providers.

Criticisms: There is a lack of accountability in the article. This was proven by

the lack of specific resources provided; there are ambiguously alluded to, with the exception of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which, by the way, is also missing its reference information.

She herself has no relevant credentials; she works for an education and research corporation (Progressive Policy Institute) that may or may not be biased with their research.

The journal she has written for is not a psychology journal but a political magazine sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council.

More Criticisms: The research, studies, and everything that she mentions as

sources are extremely vague.

The article targets parents, who can’t do anything but rely on policymakers, and policy makers themselves. In addition, there is no mention of actually HOW these suggested policies are to be formatted, put into context, taken up to Congress, etc.

This is an opinion paper that is all about what the Congress SHOULD do and nothing about direct actions that parents may take.

Theoretical Perspectives:Social Learning Theory (Bandura)

Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky)

Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner)

Discussion: Marketers hire psychologists and child development

experts, and cool hunters to help them devise strategies that take advantage of children’s deeply impressionable nature. Is this unethical? Why or why not?

Do you agree that the primary responsibility for shielding children from the damaging effects of rampant commercial culture lies with parents?

And Now, for Our Feature Presentation:

Video: Children: the latest victims of consumerism

Teachable Moment: Born To

Buy

The Commercialisation of Childhood:

American tweens and teens have emerged as the most brand-oriented, consumers in history.

More children in America than anywhere else believe that their clothes and brands describe who they are and define their social status.

American kids display more brand affinity than their counterparts; indeed, experts describe then as increasingly “bonded to brands”

At the same time, evidence of distress among children has been mounting:

Rates of obesity are at epidemic levels

Diagnoses of attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have risen dramatically

Record numbers of kids are taking drugs to help them achieve self-control and focus

Anecdotal reports of electronic addictions have begun to surface

Teasing and bullying is rampant in schools, and includes a new protagonist, the “alpha girl,” a mean-spirited social enforcer

According to studies done, 9-17s would have been psych patients in 1957.

Many young people have reported they are drawn to working for gangs because they want to have more money and material possessions (promised by gang lords)

Today’s average young person between the ages of nine and seventeen scores as high on anxiety scales as children who were admitted to clinics for psychiatric disorders in 1957.

“Fear and pressure are the two most common elements characterizing the daily lives of tweens” and the exploitation of anxiety in ads has steadily increased in the past few years.

Those who are more involved in consumer culture fare far worse in psychological and social terms:

Dysfunctional kids are drawn to

consumer culture

Involvement in consumer culture

causes dysfunction

The APA believe that aggressive marketing cultivates “a materialistic value system

in young people.”

Juliet Schor also found that:

Children spend more time each week shopping than reading, going to church, participating in youth groups, playing outdoors, or talking with family members

44% of 4th through 8th graders report daydreaming “a lot” about being rich

Historical Perspective:

In the past, consuming was modest in comparison to other activities, such as work, play, school, and religious involvement.

Now, marketed leisure has replaced unstructured socializing, and most of what kids do revolves around commodities

Children’s purchasing power and influence have exploded as they spend their days shopping and watching more television

The Disappearance of Childhood:

The advent of internet technology

The decline in children’s games

The disappearance of special clothing styles for children

Early sexual exposure and activity

Drug and alcohol use

And the widespread eroticisation of children

Today’s youth have earlier exposure to and more involvement with adult worlds. Evidence of the blurred boundaries between children and adults include:

“Bonded to Brands”:

The average 10 year old has memorised 300-400 brands (Nickelodeon, 2001).

Among 8-14 year olds, 92 % of requests are brand-specific, and 89% agree that “when [they] find a brand [they] like, [they] tend to stick with it.”

Kids have clear brand preferences, they know which brands are cool, they covet them, and they pay attention to the ads for them.

Today’s tweens are the most brand-conscious generation in history.

The increase of importance of brands is a predictable outcome of kids’ greater exposure to ads.

They turn brands into “signs,” pure symbolic entities, detached from specific products and functional characteristics.

The intensification of “sign wars” has led to an ever-accelerating spiral of changing symbolism and brand vulnerability; and that vulnerability fuels marketing innovation and sometimes desperation.

Eventually, brand kids start to crave designer duds and luxury items available in fashion houses:

By the mid-1990s, designers have started to advertise heavily on them, even if they claimed, “the kids are driving the trend.”

Marianne Szymanski reported, “kids are starting to want more expensive toys like computer software, cell phones, bedroom microwaves, consoles, etc. And guess what? Parents are buying all [of them].”

What Do Kids Know About Ads?

At around age 5, children see ads as mainly entertaining and unbiased.

Deeper understanding of the persuasive intent of ads doesn’t occur until the age of 8.

As they age, children become less trusting of ads.

Middle schoolers (Boush, Friestad, and Rose, 1994) gave statements such as:

“Advertisers care more about getting you to buy things than what is good for you.”

“TV commercials tell only the good things about a product; they don’t tell you the bad things.”

The message that the children get is that “friends are exploitable.”

Do ads lead to purchases?

Children whose television viewing time decline made 70% fewer toy requests than those in the control group whose media habits were unchanged. (Robinson, 2001)

Advertisers rely on the “nag factor”; the average child will make a request 7 times before letting it go.

Opinions:

Ours

Yours

Questions

Brought to you by:

Alex Palencia & Darren Sumner