Support NeoGAF

[Bleepey]

They subsidised my kids' TV shows as a kid so i am cool with it.

 

[TouchMyBox]

Turn off the TV.

(Parent here)

When I start a family I plan to have no television subscription much like I currently do. The Internet has made television look completely irrelevant. And by the time I have kids, Internet video will be even more ubiquitous.

I was actually thinking of this the other day when I was taking a walk, and thought of all these stupid reality-altering ideas I got in my head which I thought were possible because of commercials, and my lust to convince my parents to buy me utter garbage. I would never wish that upon my offspring.

 

[CrankyJay]

Are you implying that the obesity issue could be solved via not marketing to children under 12?

Not at all, but it's one step in a series of things that need to be done.

 

[WanderingWind]

Threads like this are hilarious to me. Everybody wants the government to stay out of their business, until they don't. Oh, no. Some companies advertise toward children! This is bad...why, again? Are you seriously attempting to argue that the government has a responsibility to act in the stead of parents who are too weak willed to stand up to a 10 year old demanding the newest toy or McGarbage Burger? Why on earth is that considered a good thing?

 

[DanteFox]

Well, let's get down to brass tacks. TV/modern advertising is stimulus no fucking parent can compete with.

My parents did alright. Only ate junk food sparingly and developed a healthy liking for fruits and what not. I like to think that I turned out fine. All while being bombarded with advertising on tv.

Sure they do...but we know they don't.

can we stop with the generalizations? Obviously lots of people's parents DID parent. I don't see how banning these commercials would magically make the bad parents better.

 

[CrankyJay]

Are you seriously attempting to argue that the government has a responsibility to act in the stead of parents

No one is. Read the entire thread before spouting off.

 

[tubgirlsplumber]

An increasing number of parents are utterly shit. This is evidenced (amongst other things) by the rising problem of child obesity.

If the parents are idiots, all you can do is attempt to mitigate.

Stopping massive corporations peddling their shit will probably help.

There is no reason to get behind advertising, but more compelling reasons to reduce it.

 

[SolKane]

When I start a family I plan to have no television subscription much like I currently do. The Internet has made television look completely irrelevant. And by the time I have kids, Internet video will be even more ubiquitous.

I was actually thinking of this the other day when I was taking a walk, and thought of all these stupid reality-altering ideas I got in my head which I thought were possible because of commercials, and my lust to convince my parents to buy me utter garbage. I would never wish that upon my offspring.

Surely you realize there are as many ads on the internet as on television? If anything advertisement companies will only get better at advertising on the world wide web as we become more dependent on it as consumers. You're not outsmarting them!

Edit: For the people who are saying that "parents are getting worse." Is there any evidence to back this up, or is it all supposition?

An increasing number of parents are utterly shit. This is evidenced (amongst other things) by the rising problem of child obesity.

This can't be attributable solely to parenting.

 

[WanderingWind]

No one is. Read the entire thread before spouting off.

You can't be serious. The topic of the thread is EXACTLY that. How do you read that and get anything other than that? Have you read the thread?

 

[CrankyJay]

You can't be serious. The topic of the thread is EXACTLY that. How do you read that and get anything other than that? Have you read the thread?

I'm dead serious.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

It's completely untrue. You can go to Subway and get a $5 foot long, go to Taco Bell and the $5 box, whatever. Or you could go to the grocery store and buy some bread meat and cheese that will make many meals. Staple foods (flour, rice, potatoes, corn) are dirt cheap. The issue is people don't want to fucking cook and they prefer the taste of fast food. Fast food is absolutely more expensive than cooking your own food.

I'm just going to ignore the "on a per calorie basis" part of your statement because no one living off of fast food is aiming at a 2000/2500 daily calorie target. I bet there are menu items that are cheaper on a per-calorie basis than basic foods, but those cases would be a mark against fast food. Affordable or not, you don't need a triple whopper with king size fries and a shake.

Bread meat and cheese for $5 isn't getting you enough to eat for a day. I have had to take care of plenty of patients (adults though) whose only meal in an average day is a few dollars worth of fast food. And despite giving plenty of teaching about which foods they should be eating, it is just more practical for them to eat fast food, at least in the short term. So i'd argue that in my experience there are plenty of people who rely on fast food to survive. To some degree at least...I agree that many probably could cook normal, healthy foods, but they would be hungry for an unacceptable amount of time each day. Given the choice between feeling hunger and eating unhealthy food, people will usually pick the unhealthy food. Granted, not being able to cook for your children is an issue on its own.

 

[WanderingWind]

I'm dead serious.

Then I ask again - have you read the thread? Because when you're talking about banning advertising foodstuffs to children (a people wholly without an income in this country, mind you, and entirely reliant on their providers) then yes, you are discussing the government taking an active role in child rearing. I really don't see how this is a point of contention. It is what's being discussed here.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I don't think the government banning advertising to children is taking an active role in parenting, it's taking a role in advertising. Perhaps an indirect role in parenting, but that's debatable

 

[bggrthnjsus]

This can't be attributable solely to parenting.

I agree with this, but unfortunately that is really difficult to prove scientifically

 

[Plasmid]

Directly advertising to kids isn't good, but parents who let it go anyway are also a problem.

 

[G-Fex]

gonna go with this. kids and parents problem, not mine.

 

[DanteFox]

I agree with this, but unfortunately that is really difficult to prove scientifically

exactly, so until you can support a causal link between child advertizing and obesity, you don't even have a leg to stand on. Until such a link is established, there's really no reason to have this debate.

 

[CrankyJay]

Then I ask again - have you read the thread? Because when you're talking about banning advertising foodstuffs to children (a people wholly without an income in this country, mind you, and entirely reliant on their providers) then yes, you are discussing the government taking an active role in child rearing. I really don't see how this is a point of contention. It is what's being discussed here.

I've read the thread, and read through the links provided in the OP (have you?).

Since childhood obesity is rising, it tends to indicate that parents aren't making very good choices for their children's well being. Parents also tend not to make very good decisions when their kids are constantly badgering them to buy them something. I can't tell you how many times I have seen parents at the grocery store I used to work at buy something to shut their kids up. Once in awhile I would see a mom or dad just leave their full cart and walk out of the store with their kid so they didn't give in, but the vast majority of the time they would buy the item their kid wanted. Why? Because they were either embarrassed at the scene their child was making or they didn't want to deal with it anymore.

I think all parents should say no, but they don't. Can you deny that there are many weak willed parents? Don't you want the society you live in to be healthy?

What is your plan to get parents to make better decisions for their children?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I also wonder how GAF feels about the old movement to ban Joe Camel. He wasn't advertising directly to children, but there were plenty of studies linking his appearance to increases in proportion of camel cigarettes sold to underage ppl. (Plus all the documents which basically said that he was aimed to get kids smoking)

 

[Mortrialus]

Recently I went to a house meeting about some grass roots campaign to get mcdonalds to stop advertising to children, stop happy meal toys if the happy meals cannot meet a basic nutritional requirement, and to retire ronald mcdonald. Obviously everyone at the house meeting was all for that, but i was interested in seeing what the reaction would be in a more diverse group of people.

As for me, I'm about 75% on board with this, mostly because I'm in a medical profession (or about to be anyway) so it has consequences in my line of work. Fast food ads directed at kids have obvious consequences in terms of individual health, public health, health care costs, etc. The American Association of Pediatrics policy is more or less against advertising fast food to children (among other things) (see: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/Testimonies-Statements-Petitions/dr_ Shifrin_remarks.htm ) and ( http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;118/6/2563 ).

Children are more or less defenseless to advertising, and the ftc has admitted to this, saying that it is unfair and deceptive. However, there are no regulations regarding advertising to children in this country because the ftc deemed them impractical and likely ineffective (i partly disagree with the former, definitely disagree with the latter) http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/040802adstokids.pdf Some countries have bans on tv advertising to children (norway, sweden, others), while many others have some regulation but not an outright ban. Characters such as Joe Camel were discontinued because of the intent to build brand loyalty to unhealthy products at a young age. The case is a little more cut and dry (but not totally) with tobacco, but with fast food, it's a different story.

However, I also feel that laying all the blame on advertising absolves parents of responsibility, and I don't want that to happen. Also, on a per calorie basis, fast food is the cheapest food available to most lower income people, and I think if they had the option of feeling full but being unhealthy vs. being healthy but hungrier, they would take the unhealthy option every single time. And for some people, crappy food is really the only option as far as survival goes.

So what does gaf think?

What a coincidence. I've been reading quite a bit on the topic. I am very much against marketing food to children in general, and against anything being marketed towards children under the age of reason. Advertising in America is omnipresent and no parent can compete with it when it is literally in every aspect of children's lives, including schools.

Here is a documentary about the subject that I think is relevant for the discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u8HL3Bjygw

Are you implying that the obesity issue could be solved via not marketing to children under 12?

Actually, everything I've seen on the topic indicated that regulating food advertising towards children would drastically reduce our child obesity problems.

 

[CrankyJay]

exactly, so until you can support a causal link between child advertizing and obesity, you don't even have a leg to stand on. Until such a link is established, there's really no reason to have this debate.

Come on...how often do you see a kid begging their mom to buy them a bag of carrots? LOL

 

[Weenerz]

I don't mind, it's not the fast food companys place to govern what children eat. That is the job of the parents.

 

[DanteFox]

Come on...how often do you see a kid begging their mom to buy them a bag of carrots? LOL

do you think banning these commercials would make kids start to beg for carrots?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

exactly, so until you can support a causal link between child advertizing and obesity, you don't even have a leg to stand on. Until such a link is established, there's really no reason to have this debate.

Yeah but does anybody need a direct link to argue for it? There are plenty of studies directly increased fast food to obesity, and linking advertising to increased fast food is a gimme, so that is arguably enough of a link for plenty of people.

 

[CrankyJay]

do you think banning these commercials would make kids start to beg for carrots?

No, I think it will make them less likely to beg for fast food. What a stupid fucking question.

 

[SciencePilot]

I'm going to go with the "parents' responsibility" line. Sure, children are defenseless against advertising. But they aren't the ones paying for things.

It just seems ridiculous to me to tell a company, "No, you can't advertise to that audience." It makes sense with cigarettes because cigarettes are illegal for children to have. But for food? Nah.

 

[DanteFox]

Yeah but does anybody need a direct link to argue for it? There are plenty of studies directly increased fast food to obesity, and linking advertising to increased fast food is a gimme, so that is arguably enough of a link for plenty of people.

It's a tempting fallacy, but a fallacy all the same until there's solid data to back it up. But even if it were true, the duty to parent is still on the parents, and not the government.

 

[Kitsunebaby]

Come on...how often do you see a kid begging their mom to buy them a bag of carrots? LOL

You're right. Clearly it's the marketing that makes kids prefer fast food. Not the taste at all. Carrots just need a better spokesperson and kids will magically start eating them more.

 

[sonicmj1]

Seems weird to put all the blame on parents. Children don't have any direct control over where they eat, but if advertising to children were ineffective, the companies wouldn't do it. They'd be wasting money. And it's not hard to follow the effectiveness of an advertising campaign.

Since advertisements targeting children are an effective way of getting them to eat fast food, I don't see how exhortations for parents to parent better are going to solve the problem of obesity. If society actually believes obesity to be an issue, then more should be done than ask parents to parent better. Especially since limitations on advertisements targeting children have worked in the past for things like beer or cigarettes.

 

[CrankyJay]

You're right. Clearly it's the marketing that makes kids prefer fast food. Not the taste at all. Carrots just need a better spokesperson and kids will magically start eating them more.

You gotta hook 'em somehow on that tasty food. How about a free happy meal toy?

 

[x Power Pad Death Stomp x]

I can't tell you how many times I have seen parents at the grocery store I used to work at buy something to shut their kids up. Once in awhile I would see a mom or dad just leave their full cart and walk out of the store with their kid so they didn't give in, but the vast majority of the time they would buy the item their kid wanted. Why? Because they were either embarrassed at the scene their child was making or they didn't want to deal with it anymore.

That's learned behavior. Somewhere along the way, the parent gave in to the child having a tantrum teaching them that they way to get what they want is to wear mommy or daddy down and then you'll get what you want.

Real young, you lay the law down and never look back on that. My kids rarely ever throw crazy fits like that, they know it's not going to work. On the rare occasion they do, they still don't get what they want.

I have to watch kids tv and I don't see anymore food commercials than I did when I was kid watching cartoons. Yet, when I was young, there was one maybe two fat kids in class. Now it's about half the class that's wheezing after 10 steps. Parenting is the key.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Also, these are some of the american academy of pediatrics official recommendations regarding advertising:

Pediatricians should work with parent and public health groups to:
a. ask Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to limit commercial advertising on children's programming to no more than 5 to 6 minutes/hour, which would decrease the current amount by 50%;
b. ask Congress to implement a ban on cigarette and tobacco advertising in all media, including banners and logos in sports arenas;
c. ask Congress to restrict alcohol advertising to what is known as "tombstone advertising," in which only the product is shown, not cartoon characters or attractive women;
d. ask Congress to implement a ban on junk-food advertising during programming that is viewed predominantly by young children;
e. ask Congress to increase funding for public TV—the sole source of high-quality, educational, noncommercial programming for children;

note that they don't recommend specifically asking to ban advertising directed at children, Just ban advertising certain things when children are most likely to watch. so I think the AAP was probably split on this issue as well.

 

[Mortrialus]

It's a tempting fallacy, but a fallacy all the same until there's solid data to back it up. But even if it were true, the duty to parent is still on the parents, and not the government.

This isn't about parenting, this is about the deceptive ways corporations use advertising to foster lifelong brand loyalty in children well before the age of reason. And this isn't just a "Turn the TV off". There is currently no way for parents to shield their children from advertising. Advertising isn't just commercials, you know.

 

[Unknown One]

I don't think any commercials should advertise directly to kids. Kids are highly impressionable.

 

[SolKane]

You gotta hook 'em somehow on that tasty food. How about a free happy meal toy?

Or how about throwing up some McDonald's near the schools? Where are the parents at that point?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/23/business/fi-fastfood23

 

[CrankyJay]

Or how about throwing up some McDonald's near the schools? Where are the parents at that point?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/23/business/fi-fastfood23

I don't know. At work?

 

[WanderingWind]

I've read the thread, and read through the links provided in the OP (have you?).

Since childhood obesity is rising, it tends to indicate that parents aren't making very good choices for their children's well being. Parents also tend not to make very good decisions when their kids are constantly badgering them to buy them something. I can't tell you how many times I have seen parents at the grocery store I used to work at buy something to shut their kids up. Once in awhile I would see a mom or dad just leave their full cart and walk out of the store with their kid so they didn't give in, but the vast majority of the time they would buy the item their kid wanted. Why? Because they were either embarrassed at the scene their child was making or they didn't want to deal with it anymore.

I think all parents should say no, but they don't. Can you deny that there are many weak willed parents? Don't you want the society you live in to be healthy?

What is your plan to get parents to make better decisions for their children?

So, then you agree with me. Makes me wonder why you bothered to pretend this wasn't what we were talking about.

As to the rest of your post, you use anecdotal evidence to support your opinion, then cap it off with a weak strawman "can you deny there are weak willed parents" (No, because I already used those exact words. But you read the thread, right?) and then finished with a wonderful "Don't you want puppies to be happy?" type of question. No. No, I gave it some thought and I'd prefer our society to just turn to shit. Yup. That's what I want.

Stop playing silly games.

My point is as it was before. There are good parents and bad parents. More bureaucracy isn't going to change that. Again, it's not as if the kids are seeing the advertisement, taking their wallets out and buying Sugar Snax. The parents are the ones to say no. If they don't, I fail to see how it's the responsibility of the government to be the ones to prevent that from happening - or how they even could.

What would be banned? Bright packaging? All visual advertisements? Radio ads? What would qualify as something only for kids? Could the National Orange Association market OJ to kids, even though some factions say that's extremely unhealthy? Who would dictate what is or isn't healthy, and for what age groups? Do you think companies are so stupid as to not find ways around this regulation within seconds of it being passed?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

What would be banned? Bright packaging? All visual advertisements? Radio ads? What would qualify as something only for kids? Could the National Orange Association market OJ to kids, even though some factions say that's extremely unhealthy? Who would dictate what is or isn't healthy, and for what age groups? Do you think companies are so stupid as to not find ways around this regulation within seconds of it being passed?

This is another issue that I'm concerned about, and part of why I am not 100% on board with banning child directed advertising

 

[Deleted member 22576]

I think it's pretty fucked, but at the same time if we say it's not ok then ads telling kids not to smoke crack should also be considered not ok.

It just really falls back on the parents. Advertising doesn't mean shit if the parents control what goes into their kids bodies. 99% of all outrage about anything involving kids is no one's fault but the parents.

 

[WanderingWind]

This is another issue that I'm concerned about, and part of why I am not 100% on board with banning child directed advertising

That's the big issue, though. It's easy to get anybody on board with any regulation as long as it's "for the kids" (or against the terrorists, but that's another discussion) but nobody asks if it's feasible, effective or even logical. Any dissent or logical disagreement is met with "why don't you want kids to be safe?"

 

[SolKane]

Is there any evidence to suggest that parents are less responsible with their children these days? Or is this just the same generational cynicism we hear repeated throughout the history of society? People keep saying "parents need to be responsible," which presupposes the idea that parents are somehow not acting responsibly in terms of their children's diets.

 

[samus i am]

I don't think it is a big deal. It's what I grew up with so I am a little nostalgic about McDonalds commercials.

 

[CrankyJay]

That's the big issue, though. It's easy to get anybody on board with any regulation as long as it's "for the kids" (or against the terrorists, but that's another discussion) but nobody asks if it's feasible, effective or even logical. Any dissent or logical disagreement is met with "why don't you want kids to be safe?"

Sweden banned direct advertising to children during children's prime time television shows in 1991. There haven't been any reports of their government oppressing them.

 

[CrankyJay]

Is there any evidence to suggest that parents are less responsible with their children these days?

Childhood obesity rates have more than tripled in the past 30 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/

 

[samus i am]

Is there any evidence to suggest that parents are less responsible with their children these days? Or is this just the same generational cynicism we hear repeated throughout the history of society? People keep saying "parents need to be responsible," which presupposes the idea that parents are somehow not acting responsibly in terms of their children's diets.

Why did you jump to that conclusion? It means that kids don't have any money, the parents are buying them the food so they are to blame.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

That's the big issue, though. It's easy to get anybody on board with any regulation as long as it's "for the kids" (or against the terrorists, but that's another discussion) but nobody asks if it's feasible, effective or even logical. Any dissent or logical disagreement is met with "why don't you want kids to be safe?"

I think with fast food it could be pretty easy to outline specific regulations. Banning 'harmful' childrens advertising in general on the other hand would be more difficult. The AAP's stance on banning fast food advertising during certain times could be a reasonable middle ground.

Unfortunately it is also probably unfeasible to prove a direct link between advertising and childhood obesity since they are inherently indirectly related.

 

[SolKane]

Childhood obesity rates have more than tripled in the past 30 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/

But what does that have to do with parenting? Why could it not be attributable to the proliferation of fast food companies, mass subsidizing of cheap crops (corn, soy, HFCS sugar), "time crunch" of the standard family (both parents having to work, less time for preparing meals), loss of phys-ed programs? To me it seems pretty unsupportable to just say parents aren't as good any more.

 

[daw840]

Well, all of the things targeted at children are fine in moderation, so yes my kids can have a happy meal as a treat every now and again. No I don't think we should be restricting who is marketed towards. Do your kids have a job? Do they spend their own money? No? Then why do you care who markets towards them? Do you have no control over you kid?

 

[WanderingWind]

Sweden banned direct advertising to children during children's prime time television shows in 1991. There haven't been any reports of their government oppressing them.

Sweet. How was it implemented, what has changed for them since then, what other factors have changed, has it decreased children's food/toys/whatjits since, etc, etc. Then, take all that, apply a different government, a different country and several different cultures and let's see what shakes out.

I think with fast food it could be pretty easy to outline specific regulations. Banning 'harmful' childrens advertising in general on the other hand would be more difficult. The AAP's stance on banning fast food advertising during certain times could be a reasonable middle ground.
Unfortunately it is also probably unfeasible to prove a direct link between advertising and childhood obesity since they are inherently indirectly related.

Oh, it's real easy to create regulations. Whether or not those are useful in the least are another story. It's odd that we're both giving too much and too little credit to advertisers ITT. They hold too much sway! They must be regulated! No parent can compete! Ah, but let's slap down some laws and there is NO WAY they'll be able to market to kids! They're stupid all the sudden because my point demands it!

It's not that I'm for childhood obesity. I'm simply against needless, useless and reactionary government regulation. Especially when it's being championed under the "won't somebody think of the children?" banner.

 

[CrankyJay]

But what does that have to do with parenting? Why could it not be attributable to the proliferation of fast food companies, mass subsidizing of cheap crops (corn, soy, HFCS sugar), "time crunch" the standard family (both parents having to work), loss of phys-ed programs? To me it seems pretty unsupportable to just say parents aren't as good any more.

Well...the fast food companies aren't giving their food away to children. The parents are buying it for them...either because the parents themselves are lazy bastards or because they're being badgered by their parents because the kids are being bombarded by fast food advertisements.

Less exercise definitely has something to do with it as well. If you're letting your kid stay in to play video games instead of making them go outside to get some physical play, that's also bad parenting. You can't solely blame loss of phys-ed programs on kids not getting their exercise.