In class, we began to discuss advertising and its ethical implications when it comes to children. I personally believe that although it is not possible to circumvent exposure of advertising to children, it is not necessarily the best or healthiest thing to do.
Advertisements during Saturday morning cartoons, on specialty channels for kids (such as Treehouse or YTV along with many others), after-school programming all have one very large thing in common: they all advertise for products and not services. There are no commercials for car insurance or banking advice or mortgage loans when there is children’s programming on. The advertisements are usually for toys, toys, and more toys. Other items may include cereal. But generally, advertisements targeted towards children advertise products. They are too young to comprehend the necessity of services but are old enough to understand that having the toy in the commercial would fulfill a materialistic desire within them that will make them happy once the toy is in their possession. It is almost scary how innate materialism (turned product desire) is in children.
Children are extremely impressionable and almost all their decisions are made based on social acceptance and immediate fulfillment; they cannot comprehend the fact that having a Barbie might promote unrealistic expectations for body image so then it becomes the responsibility of the toy companies to ensure that their toys are kid-friendly and promote the proper values and principles while children absorb and believe things like sponges. Advertising targeted towards children, I believe, has more power in social conditioning than any other source before a child turns 12. Even if a child has limited television time, their friends at school may not and whatever values and wants and desires those kids bring to school, it is going to reflect upon little Suzy who does not get to watch television for 7 hours a day but still knows what is being discussed.
Think about all the fads that have occurred in the 90s amongst children. When I say fads, I am talking about things that had such an impact that teachers eventually banned them from school. For this, I am sourcing my own memory. These fads included: Pogs, Yo-Yos, Pokemon Trading Cards, Devil Sticks, Tamagotchis, Crazy Bones, and so on. Notice how all of these are products and not services. All it takes is for one kid to bring something to school, show his friends and they will all go home and ask their parents for the same thing. The level of influence is seen in the ultimate consequence that these items be banned from school because they are so distracting that teachers feel as though the children are more interested in socializing through their toys rather than learning.
I remember having my Pogs stolen in grade 3 and being severely upset about it because I knew my parents would not buy me replacements and I had a Slammer that I had to beg my parents to get me. It cost $5.99. Looking back, that is a RIDICULOUS price to pay for a piece of plastic. BUT, I know that at the time, had my parents not gotten it for me, I would have been left out of all recess games and I would have nothing to trade with my friends. I would be shunned from the Pog parties (yes, they existed) and I would have to sit there and watch my friends enjoy a product that basically dictated how socially accepted I was (the kids with the “best” Pogs suddenly rocketed to elementary school stardom) and served as a membership pass into the group (there was no point for me to be around if I did not have Pogs). At such a young age, toys are representative of social acceptance levels as well as the “in” to any social interaction with peers. I could apply the exact same thing to the rest of the toys listed above and it is astounding as to how important it is for a child to possess a toy. So important that when Tamagotchis came out, parents were spending up to $80 on one for their child, and then 5 years later seeing them in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart for $2.99. I do want to call my parents and apologise right now for making them buy me ridiculously overpriced and undervalued toys, but thank them at the same time that they let me have whatever I needed in order to fit in socially. Ultimately, the social skills developed as a child through product possession and peer acceptance molds their social skills and material perceptions in their adolescent years.
All of this is a result of one child seeing one advertisement. Children are not going to go to a toy store and decide to randomly pick out a product to bring to school; they are going to tell their parents that they want something that they have seen on television. The one means of communication between an advertiser and children that is most effective is television: it is visually appealing and the narration is so enthused that it rubs off on children right away.
The possession of toys and social acceptance also speaks to the exclusivity that is promoted by advertisers. They want each child to believe that possessing their product will make them cool and they could not possibly be happier with any other toy. As young children, they believe this, so they run to their parents and BEG for a toy. The parent, knowing that they are just going to outgrow it in 6 weeks, is then torn between satisfying their child’s demands for a toy and paying a most likely overpriced tag or saying no and risking having their child hate them for it. Tough spot to be in.
I could go on and on about advertising to children and why I believe it is unethical but what is the point when it is unavoidable? Especially these days when children are under ten years old and already have cell phones and iPods and all these other technologically advanced gadgets. Children these days want to grow up faster and do “adult things”, so the window of opportunity for advertisers to capitalize on the years in between being in diapers and developing this need of “wanting to grow up faster” is limited and it is then that they aggressively market many toys. As children move into their “wanting to grow up faster” stage, toys like realistic baby dolls and pseudo-shaving kids and toy money begin to make their appearances but that is when children begin to move from solely wanting a product to wanting to fulfill a certain image and live a certain lifestyle. Children do not buy realistic baby dolls because they want to change diapers, it is because they want to play the role of a mother; children do not buy pseudo-shaving kids because they enjoy pretending to shave (because any man will tell you it is a bit of an annoying task) but because they want to grow up and do something that only grown ups do. Advertisers know that they are not targeting the parents with toy adverts; they are targeting children because they understand the buying influence that children possess these days.
It is a twisted world of materialism caught up and capitalizing on the world of childhood development.
