![Picture](http://www.weebly.com/uploads/6/0/6/3/60631023/6646331.jpg?236)
I have researched the health factors that influence children to eat the way they do, and also the legitimacy of news articles and experiments you may come across. Now, I am going to take a deeper look into how commercialization has taken over the world and why they seem to target younger audiences. After watching a documentary written by The Media Education Foundation called Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood, directed by Adriana Barbaro and Jeremy Earp and made in 2008, and reading an article called Advertising to children: Is it ethical?, written by Rebecca Clay for the American Psychological Association in 2000, I have posed the questions: How is advertising changing us as a country? Do we really want this? In this blog post I will be sharing information from these sources to exemplify the negative changes advertising can implement on a child throughout their cognitive, physical, and emotional growth.
According to Barbaro and Earp, marketing strategies attempt to make parents as miserable as possible from when their child is an infant up until their teenage years. The point is to make children the main consumer while their parents buy the goods, whether that be food or toys. This part of advertising was not new to me, however, what was surprising to me was that children psychologists play such an important role in influencing the world’s youth through the medium of media. For example, according to Barbaro and Earp, psychologists perform MRI’s, blink tests, and interviews on children from ages two to twelve in order to discover what advertising techniques will lead to more interest and, ultimately, better sales. Also, in the documentary, Barbaro and Earp, a researcher called marketers and psychologists “very similar to pedophiles.” The use of this word to describe marketers shocked me because there is such a heavy and negative connotation with the word “pedophile.” How harmful does that make these advertisements?
The consequences of over-advertising for children extends beyond obesity, bipolar disorder, ADD, depression, diabetes, and hypertension. According to Clay, many of the problems listed above are due to food advertisements of unhealthy nutrition, for example, sugary cereals, candies, and fast food restaurants. Alternative consequences, pointed out by Barbaro and Earp, include developmental issues such as a lack of imagination and creativity. To address my previously posed question, “How is this changing us as a country?” the answer lies in the issues of the future generations. Children are being brought up not knowing how to creatively engage their minds in problem solving situations due to mindlessly engaging themselves in media influences (TV, video games, internet, etc). It is hard not to let children be influenced by these advertisements because, even as a teenager, I see these temptations everywhere. Even as I am walking through Target, a large retail store, I come across countless toys, videos, TV’s, DVD’s, and shows that supposedly highlight the positive influences of media.
How do we fix this problem? An idea presented to the public, which Barbaro and Earp found fault in is that “good media is the best antidote to bad media.” DVD’s, for example, like Baby Einsteins, claim to be educational, and if your baby is not watching them, they will not develop properly or with vital skill sets. In first hearing this, it sounded valid to me. Not all TV has to be bad TV, right? Barbaro and Earp presented some information that made me second guess my ideas, however. For example, they relayed that there is no scientific evidence proving that educational videos make babies under two years old any smarter than children who do not watch the videos. Also, it is proven that face to face communication and positive social dynamics are more important for children to better their emotional, cognitive, and physical developments.
Our world cares so much about bettering future generations because one day they will be the generation leading us. In answering my second question, “Do we really want advertisements to influence our children so heavily?” the answer is no. For example, according to Clay, there have been acts sent to Congress in order to ban children’s advertisements. In 1980, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Improvement Act was sent to Congress to ban authority over children’s advertising. When reading this, I was shocked because I did not know that this was taken to Congress not that long ago, and that this issue has been prevalent for decades. Then, in 1984, President Reagan deregulated children’s advertisements, so it was possible that marketers could entrap children into lifelong advertising holds, hence the seemingly menacing phrase: cradle to grave.
This issue is far past parental guidance, but has merged into a societal issue that needs enlightening and mended for the sake of our future generations. Not all media is bad media, but there needs to be definite line of integrity set in place for marketers and advertisements. Without a barrier on entrapping young children in the marketing world’s schemes, we may lose our most valuable component of the future to a Happy Meal.
Clay, Rebecca A. "Advertising to Children: Is It Ethical?" American Psychological Association, Sept. 2000. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood. Dir. Adriana Barbaro and Jeremy Earp. Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood. Media Education Foundation, 29 Oct. 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.
According to Barbaro and Earp, marketing strategies attempt to make parents as miserable as possible from when their child is an infant up until their teenage years. The point is to make children the main consumer while their parents buy the goods, whether that be food or toys. This part of advertising was not new to me, however, what was surprising to me was that children psychologists play such an important role in influencing the world’s youth through the medium of media. For example, according to Barbaro and Earp, psychologists perform MRI’s, blink tests, and interviews on children from ages two to twelve in order to discover what advertising techniques will lead to more interest and, ultimately, better sales. Also, in the documentary, Barbaro and Earp, a researcher called marketers and psychologists “very similar to pedophiles.” The use of this word to describe marketers shocked me because there is such a heavy and negative connotation with the word “pedophile.” How harmful does that make these advertisements?
The consequences of over-advertising for children extends beyond obesity, bipolar disorder, ADD, depression, diabetes, and hypertension. According to Clay, many of the problems listed above are due to food advertisements of unhealthy nutrition, for example, sugary cereals, candies, and fast food restaurants. Alternative consequences, pointed out by Barbaro and Earp, include developmental issues such as a lack of imagination and creativity. To address my previously posed question, “How is this changing us as a country?” the answer lies in the issues of the future generations. Children are being brought up not knowing how to creatively engage their minds in problem solving situations due to mindlessly engaging themselves in media influences (TV, video games, internet, etc). It is hard not to let children be influenced by these advertisements because, even as a teenager, I see these temptations everywhere. Even as I am walking through Target, a large retail store, I come across countless toys, videos, TV’s, DVD’s, and shows that supposedly highlight the positive influences of media.
How do we fix this problem? An idea presented to the public, which Barbaro and Earp found fault in is that “good media is the best antidote to bad media.” DVD’s, for example, like Baby Einsteins, claim to be educational, and if your baby is not watching them, they will not develop properly or with vital skill sets. In first hearing this, it sounded valid to me. Not all TV has to be bad TV, right? Barbaro and Earp presented some information that made me second guess my ideas, however. For example, they relayed that there is no scientific evidence proving that educational videos make babies under two years old any smarter than children who do not watch the videos. Also, it is proven that face to face communication and positive social dynamics are more important for children to better their emotional, cognitive, and physical developments.
Our world cares so much about bettering future generations because one day they will be the generation leading us. In answering my second question, “Do we really want advertisements to influence our children so heavily?” the answer is no. For example, according to Clay, there have been acts sent to Congress in order to ban children’s advertisements. In 1980, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Improvement Act was sent to Congress to ban authority over children’s advertising. When reading this, I was shocked because I did not know that this was taken to Congress not that long ago, and that this issue has been prevalent for decades. Then, in 1984, President Reagan deregulated children’s advertisements, so it was possible that marketers could entrap children into lifelong advertising holds, hence the seemingly menacing phrase: cradle to grave.
This issue is far past parental guidance, but has merged into a societal issue that needs enlightening and mended for the sake of our future generations. Not all media is bad media, but there needs to be definite line of integrity set in place for marketers and advertisements. Without a barrier on entrapping young children in the marketing world’s schemes, we may lose our most valuable component of the future to a Happy Meal.
Clay, Rebecca A. "Advertising to Children: Is It Ethical?" American Psychological Association, Sept. 2000. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood. Dir. Adriana Barbaro and Jeremy Earp. Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood. Media Education Foundation, 29 Oct. 2008. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.