+ 003 - 2.16.2010 - NEWS

IN RESPONSE TO: A FINE LINE WHEN ADS & CHILDREN MIX


This article was definitely a tough read. I'm a media awareness advocate. I play both sides of the field when it comes to the ethics of advertising for several reasons and not only because it's a tendency of mine to play the Devil's Advocate for debate's sake. When children are involved, however, my personal preference is to advocate for them and not the media being directed at them, if the two, in this case, can be considered as the two sides to this equation.


The article addresses the fact that advertising is becoming more subtle than ever in magazines like Discovery Kids, Boys' Life and National Geographic Kids, saying that "Publishers and advertisers are becoming more creative about such ads [aimed at children,] and are running games, contests and events where the advertiser has only a subtle presence — exactly the opposite of what some of the advocacy groups were aiming for." I agree with that fact. It's like the old advertisements on television, where Fred Flintstone would walk out of Bedrock and into a Winston cigarette commercial, except these days, it's technically under different terms. There are blips of black screen to separate commercials from the television show, but where is the line in a magazine? This article brings to light this issue and I find it fascinating.


There is no blip of black space in a magazine. There is no differentiation between what is part of the show and what isn't, at least that's the argument the Times is making. The regulations on advertising to children are tighter than ever. Hersheys', Coca Cola and other companies have specifically stated that they will not advertise to children, period, because of the points brought up by advocacy organizations regarding child obesity and health.


Another argument that the article presents is that children are not educated or equipped enough to properly process or analyze advertisements. This is another point I agree with, to an extent. The blanket answer for my personal stance, is that it depends. Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is vehement about her claim, saying that the goals of advertisers are "insidious" and are meant to force a child to incorporate a brand into their identity. I feel that this is a bit extreme. It all depends on the child and what their comprehension is. A child that can differentiate a commercial from a show is vastly different from one that cannot, but both are impacted. Each child is different, as are their comprehension skills. While I think it's good that Ms. Linn is standing up for these children, I do believe that her stance is a bit too broad for my taste.


Do I think that advertisers should be more wary when advertising to children? Of course. As an advertising student, I wouldn't market macaroni and cheese to a child the same way that I would market it to an adult. It's comparing apples and oranges, for lack of a better analogy. I agree that discretion should be taken. I think that advertising to children should be done with tact and taste and I think that it should be noted the significance of the impact advertising has on children, whether it is as extreme as saying that it forces children into incorporating brands into their identity of changing the channel, it tells a child to do something, and that is what the bottom line is. The variable is what that child ultimately chooses to do on his or her own.