Support NeoGAF

[CrankyJay]

So, all this proves is that people in general have become weak pussies in the last 2 decades. If you fold to your CHILD nagging you every time they want something then your kid will be like....well will be like every other little punk brat out there right now.

It's a science that marketers effectively use to manipulate sales. You don't think this is unethical?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

But what does that have to do with anything? When I was a kid, up until I could drive, it was extremely rare that any meal that I ate was not known by my parents. I mean, I can totally see the point if McDs was bringing double quarter pounders in middle schools and selling them for cheaper than the healthy food. That would be crossing the line completely, but for crying out loud the amount of babysitting that people want is retarded. No one takes responsibility for their own actions anymore and it shows. 40 years ago this conversation would have been embarassing.

My high school sold papa johns and pizza hut pizza and breadsticks on certain days. It wasn't cheaper than the school lunches (which probably weren't that healthy either), but nobody gave a shit. And this is in a pretty affluent suburb where parents were pretty involved in their childrens' lives. Throw that into a poor neighborhood where parents aren't as involved, for good or bad reasons. Fast food companies are still doing this. Maybe not McDs straight up, but it's still more or less fast food. So there, anecdotal evidence, which anyone can throw up. Yet I still haven't seen any real evidence for the other side.

 

[blame space]

So, all this proves is that people in general have become weak pussies in the last 2 decades. If you fold to your CHILD nagging you every time they want something then your kid will be like....well will be like every other little punk brat out there right now.

this doesn't make the advertisements any less shameful.

 

[CrankyJay]

edit: I worked at a grocery store and there wasn't a day that went by without a kid asking mom or dad to buy them "Lunchables" that were in the bright yellow packaging. It was placed on purpose at children height in the refrigerator case, because companies pay extra money for product place.

Fuckin' A.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

what the fuck

this thread should now be about how weird that is

 

[WanderingWind]

It's a science that marketers effectively use to manipulate sales. You don't think this is unethical?

No, because once again, the kids are not directly buying anything. If they were, then perhaps you'd have a point.

 

[daw840]

God...I just cant even talk with the people on this board about some things. Ridiculous.

Anecdotal I know, but when we were kids and nagged the shit out of our parents to buy a cereal with the cool toy you know what happened?!? They bought that cereal, but we actually had to finish the cereal before they would buy a new box. You know how nasty BooBerry was?!?

 

[blame space]

suggesting that advertisements targeting children should be illegal is a very real threat to my personal freedom..

what's next, laws against false advertising?

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

A childs nutritional intake is entirely the responsibility of the parent.

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

Ding!

Winner.

 

[SolKane]

So, all this proves is that people in general have become weak pussies in the last 2 decades. If you fold to your CHILD nagging you every time they want something then your kid will be like....well will be like every other little punk brat out there right now.

Do you have anything meaningful to say other than baseless claims about the "pussification" of the current generation? You've done nothing but spew that same line.

 

[Staccat0]

The subject is more complicated than McDonald's is Evil vs. Paren't have a choice.

Kids with bad, stupid or just poor parents maybe deserve a chance... I don't know. I'm conflicted on the subject. Haven't really found a good place to land.

 

[daw840]

Do you have anything meaningful to say other than baseless claims about the "pussification" of the current generation? You've done nothing but spew that same line.

It really fits this particular topic now doesn't it? I mean, parents obviously can't control their kids since this evil advertising apparently controls both the kids and parents.

 

[CrankyJay]

Ding!

Winner.

Not really. Billions of dollars have been poured into this. Children more often than not can manipulate their parent's purchasing habits. They have more influence than everyone in this thread who is saying "try parenting" is giving them credit for.

 

[Pelydr]

Parents buy food, not children.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes, parents should be strong. No, many parents these days are not. So rather then blather about how things should be, what can we do about how things are?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I wonder if people would change their mind if it was found that heavy child oriented advertising for fast food was associated with significantly higher obesity rates when compared to a group with minimal advertising. Not that such a study is even possible to carry out, but I wonder.

Yes, parents should be strong. No, many parents these days are not. So rather then blather about how things should be, what can we do about how things are?

That is more or less my position, which I feel argues for more regulation.

 

[daw840]

Yes, parents should be strong. No, many parents these days are not. So rather then blather about how things should be, what can we do about how things are?

Well, stop blaming the victim and start targeting the source with education obviously.

 

[CrankyJay]

I wonder if people would change their mind if it was found that heavy child oriented advertising for fast food was associated with significantly higher obesity rates when compared to a group with minimal advertising. Not that such a study is even possible to carry out, but I wonder.




That is more or less my position, which I feel argues for more regulation.

A video trying to link advertising to children under 12 and obesity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exZqqd8f87A&feature=related

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Well, stop blaming the victim and start targeting the source with education obviously.

I think this is also important, but would take longer, cost more, and might not be effective. Advertising regulation might not be effective either. I think the ad regulation would be faster to push through, but the education initiatives would have to be a very long-term program.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, stop blaming the victim and start targeting the source with education obviously.

Who's blaming the victim? This whole thread is predicated not on blaming the victim, but the people who manipulate them. Education is also very important, but the idea of this thread was to look at the second head of the hydra: advertising.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Let's just cut to the chase and have the government ration food for us and put a nanny-chef in every home that has children. This shit is getting ridiculous. I could care less what fast food ads my kids see on TV. Nor do they. We eat it only on rare occasions. And why stop at fast food advertising? It makes no sense. There are many foods aimed towards kids that are just as bad if not worse than fast food.
Besides, the Hamburgler needs to make a living too. Haters.

 

[daw840]

Who's blaming the victim? This whole thread is predicated not on blaming the victim, but the people who manipulate them. Education is also very important, but the idea of this thread was to look at the second head of the hydra: advertising.

You absolutely are. Because apparently they are too stupid to make smart decisions and are slaves to advertising.

I am so glad I have a DVR. Jesus, what things I would buy if I had to watch those god damned ads.

 

[CrankyJay]

Who's blaming the victim? This whole thread is predicated not on blaming the victim, but the people who manipulate them. Education is also very important, but the idea of this thread was to look at the second head of the hydra: advertising.

These videos are really quite compelling, and the fact that there are marketing people admitting that they are straight up manipulating the children in order to get their parents to buy is shocking. And they know it works. They spend billions on psychological studies. Science is on their side, and they're playing the numbers. As a scientist I think it's fascinating, but as a citizen of a society I think it's probably unethical.

 

[teh_pwn]

There is a lot of emerging evidence strongly suggesting that certain mixtures of fat, sugar, and salts drive a habit forming behavior in some people. The smell, color, taste, and social association with the food is much like the addiction that forms with cigarettes (nicotine is not physically addictive without the cues for the brain). The studies I've looked at have brain scans of the prefrontal cortex showing that people impacted by this go into a craze and won't get proper dopamine activity until they get their fix.

So I think there may be a need to prohibit advertising from children for the same reasons that we don't allow advertising of recreational drugs.

However, the low hanging fruit here is how these foods are so inexpensive due to government subsidies. If you want to make America healthy in an efficient way, you shift the market forces in favor of healthy food. Stop subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat. Start subsidizing green vegetables, low sugar fruits, and some meats (simply removing corn would be enough to fix beef - grass fed cattle make extremely nutritious meat and dairy), and herbs (for flavor instead of just using salt).

By simply changing what we subsidize you make things like apples, vegetables, pastured meat cheaper than taco bell, twinkies, ho hoes, cake, lunchables, various varieties of liquid sugar, soda, pizza, etc. You don't have to tax people, shout at people, or do anything to coerce them to eat healthy. They will because it will save them money.

 

[SolKane]

Well, stop blaming the victim and start targeting the source with education obviously.

But education does not always work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eatingwell/is-posting-calorie-counts_b_837463.html

A study conducted by Stanford researchers in 2008 at Starbucks in New York City found that calorie labeling led to an average 6 percent reduction in the number of calories purchased (247 to 232 calories) for all customers. However, people who bought more than 250 calories prior to calorie posting cut their calories by 26 percent—or 65 calories. While these changes in purchasing habits aren’t overwhelmingly different, over time small adjustments like these can potentially lead to healthier weights.

Another study, published last month in the International Journal of Obesity, found no change in the buying patterns of 266 teenagers and parents of young children patronizing Burger King, McDonald’s, Wendy’s and KFC in New York City (the first city to require restaurant calorie labeling) compared to what 83 teens and parents in nearby Newark, New Jersey, purchased—where calories weren’t listed on menu boards.

A third study, published in the journal Health Affairs in 2009, collected 1,156 receipts from the same fast-food restaurants two weeks before and four weeks after calorie labeling took effect in NYC. Again, the researchers found no significant difference in what customers purchased before and after labeling.

People do not make rational choices as consumers. I think this above all speaks to effectiveness of advertising and branding; we consume the products we are familiar with, i.e. those which advertise to us, those which we are familiar with. You've seen how one poster mentioned that Ronald McDonald was a part of his childhood, right?

 

[The Technomancer]

You absolutely are. Because apparently they are too stupid to make smart decisions and are slaves to advertising.

So people are stupid because marketing people have figured out how to exploit common flaws in human psychology?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

You absolutely are. Because apparently they are too stupid to make smart decisions and are slaves to advertising.

I am so glad I have a DVR. Jesus, what things I would buy if I had to watch those god damned ads.

Again, they have been repeatedly shown in studies which I have linked to (directly or indirectly) that children are incapable of understanding the motives behind advertising. Nobody in this thread has posted any evidence otherwise. Children may not be capable of buying their food personally but they are undoubtedly capable of influencing parents to buy them things.

 

[slidewinder]

How about religious groups specifically proselytizing to children without their parents' permission, maybe even by running heavily-researched ads during prime kiddie viewing hours? Would that ever be potentially objectionable?

 

[SolKane]

There is a lot of emerging evidence ...

I was waiting for you to arrive in this thread, thank you.

 

[WanderingWind]

So people are stupid because marketing people have figured out how to exploit common flaws in human psychology?

No, but we are all responsible for how we spend our money - regardless of marketing. Not the government.

 

[CrankyJay]

Again, they have been repeatedly shown in studies which I have linked to (directly or indirectly) that children are incapable of understanding the motives behind advertising. Nobody in this thread has posted any evidence otherwise. Children may not be capable of buying their food personally but they are undoubtedly capable of influencing parents to buy them things.

It's easier for GAF to say parents should parent and wash their hands of it.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

There is a lot of emerging evidence strongly suggesting that certain mixtures of fat, sugar, and salts drive a habit forming behavior in some people. The smell, color, taste, and social association with the food is much like the addiction that forms with cigarettes (nicotine is not physically addictive without the cues for the brain). The studies I've looked at have brain scans of the prefrontal cortex showing that people impacted by this go into a craze and won't get proper dopamine activity until they get their fix.

So I think there may be a need to prohibit advertising from children for the same reasons that we don't allow advertising of recreational drugs.

However, the low hanging fruit here is how these foods are so inexpensive due to government subsidies. If you want to make America healthy in an efficient way, you shift the market forces in favor of healthy food. Stop subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat. Start subsidizing green vegetables, low sugar fruits, and some meats (simply removing corn would be enough to fix beef - grass fed cattle make extremely nutritious meat and dairy), and herbs (for flavor instead of just using salt).

By simply changing what we subsidize you make things like apples, vegetables, pastured meat cheaper than taco bell, twinkies, ho hoes, cake, lunchables, various varieties of liquid sugar, soda, pizza, etc. You don't have to tax people, shout at people, or do anything to coerce them to eat healthy. They will because it will save them money.

Also this. I feel like the companies that produce lots of cheap grains have a lot more sway than companies that produce leafy veggies and fruit though, so that is probably a difficult initiative.

 

[WanderingWind]

It's easier for GAF to say parents should parent and wash their hands of it.

Because it's true. The capability of something to be influential does not necessitate it being regulated. Or that said regulation would be effective.

 

[CrankyJay]

Also this. I feel like the companies that produce lots of cheap grains have a lot more sway than companies that produce leafy veggies and fruit though, so that is probably a difficult initiative.

They have sway because their food is cheaper due to subsidies. I'm interested to see how this corn ethanol thing stirs things up, because without corn subsidies you wouldn't have the proliferation of corn-based snack foods and high fructose corn syrup.

 

[The Technomancer]

No, but we are all responsible for how we spend our money - regardless of marketing. Not the government.

If it wasn't an issue of money, but say...manipulative propaganda pushing people to enlist in a war, would you hold the same opinion, and not hold that anything should be done about said propaganda? Honest question.

 

[Zoe]

Birthday parties held in their restaurant, etc. This was possible in the U.K. back in the 90's. No one every did this in America?

I did. The playground was based off the characters too.

 

[CrankyJay]

Because it's true. The capability of something to be influential does not necessitate it being regulated. Or that said regulation would be effective.

Idealism. I get it, but it's not practical.

 

[blame space]

Idealism. I get it, but it's not practical.

Pshhh, maybe not for you! I know that it works great for me and that's all that matters.

 

[teh_pwn]

Also this. I feel like the companies that produce lots of cheap grains have a lot more sway than companies that produce leafy veggies and fruit though, so that is probably a difficult initiative.

That's a problem with US government all around that sorely needs a constitutional amendment. We're going to end up defaulting on our debt because our government is basically bought out by businesses.

In the case of the debt, banks buy votes in Congress to deregulate, the Fed gives them 0% interest loans, the SEC doesn't enforce obvious fraud with fantasy credit ratings on crap mortgages, and taxes are lowered while we keep spending more on military contractors, meds, and social programs. Both parties basically do the same thing when it comes down to voting.

In the case of food, the USDA is heavily lobbied by the status quo of agriculture and the food industry. The USDA should be composed solely of scientists focused on controlled nutrition studies and have absolutely 0 people that ever worked with any food business.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Because it's true. The capability of something to be influential does not necessitate it being regulated. Or that said regulation would be effective.

Just because it's true (yes, parents should be good parents) doesn't make it the only solution to a problem.

 

[Mortrialus]

Wow dude, you can fuck straight off calling me a creationist.

Once again, you resort to strawmaning me. I didn't call you a creationist. I said you were acting like one.

No reasonable discourse can be had with you as you obviously are a complete fucktard unable to control yourself. If your dumbass thinks that advocating some personal responsibility means that I am way off base then I don't know what to tell you.

I find this amusing coming from the person whose only valid contribution to this thread is. "Y'all are pussies. Back in my day..."

If you don't have the willpower to have children and stop them from buying every new gadget and toy that is the new hotness, then you don't need to be having children. Hell, if you let your kids watch that much TV that they are so out of their minds about the advertising then your kids should be taken away from you if you have them.

I like how you assume advertising is just about what is on television. Look at the growing amount of advertising in public schools for example. Targeting captive audiences is simply unethical.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

How about religious groups specifically proselytizing to children without their parents' permission, maybe even by running heavily-researched ads during prime kiddie viewing hours? Would that ever be potentially objectionable?

I'm sure some bible-toting Ezekial the Chimp character will have my kids pulling my arm to church every day. And I won't be able to resist. I love chimps. Who doesn't.

 

[Ickman3400]

Not really. Billions of dollars have been poured into this. Children more often than not can manipulate their parent's purchasing habits. They have more influence than everyone in this thread who is saying "try parenting" is giving them credit for.

A child cannot manipulate an adult who mans up and says "no" and increases the punishment if the kid doesn't sit down and shut the fuck up.

If it worked for every other generation ever it will work now.

 

[CrankyJay]

A child cannot manipulate an adult who mans up and says "no" and increases the punishment if the kid doesn't sit down and shut the fuck up.

If it worked for every other generation ever it will work now.

No, but they can't manipulate the millions of others that don't. It's been done over and over...

 

[The Technomancer]

A child cannot manipulate an adult who mans up and says "no" and increases the punishment if the kid doesn't sit down and shut the fuck up.

If it worked for every other generation ever it will work now.

Except of course that the the last few generations of adults are increasingly overworked and overstressed, to the point that the home life suffers. Some people still manage to be strong. My parents were. I've seen a lot more who weren't, almost all of my friends growing up got whatever they asked for that their parents could afford.

True, but all you can really do is worry about your own kid and how he/she is brought up.

From that perspective your opinion makes more sense, but those of us arguing are saying that we do worry about other people, because we have to share a world with them, and they're going to be a huge part of our future.

 

[Ickman3400]

No, but they can't manipulate the millions of others that don't. It's been done over and over...

True, but all you can really do is worry about your own kid and how he/she is brought up.

 

[WanderingWind]

If it wasn't an issue of money, but say...manipulative propaganda pushing people to enlist in a war, would you hold the same opinion, and not hold that anything should be done about said propaganda? Honest question.

Idealism. I get it, but it's not practical.

Well, which is it fellas? Are we discussing what is, or isn't actually happening? Because the reality of the situation is there is no proof that removing advertising would do anything, and common sense tells us that even if regulations would be passed they'd be wildly ineffective due to the very nature of advertising.

Once again, the marketing juggernaut is all powerful, until it has to be stupid to fit the other side of the point. The reality of the situation is that it's easy to pass a law and feel like you've done something. The reality of the situation is that it would not affect anything whatsoever, because as has been stated, the big companies have more or less figured out the whole "advertising" thing.

Passing useless regulation (and sorry, OP, but your noble intentions notwithstanding a petition from a house meeting is the very definition of that) serves only to curry political favor with the reactionary crowd or to make a person feel that they've done something without having to actually do anything.

 

[Plumbob]

anybody advertising to children is unsettling but it's a part of life at this point

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, which is it fellas? Are we discussing what is, or isn't actually happening? Because the reality of the situation is there is no proof that removing advertising would do anything, and common sense tells us that even if regulations would be passed they'd be wildly ineffective due to the very nature of advertising.

Once again, the marketing juggernaut is all powerful, until it has to be stupid to fit the other side of the point. The reality of the situation is that it's easy to pass a law and feel like you've done something. The reality of the situation is that it would not affect anything whatsoever, because as has been stated, the big companies have more or less figured out the whole "advertising" thing.

Passing useless regulation (and sorry, OP, but your noble intentions notwithstanding a petition from a house meeting is the very definition of that) serves only to curry political favor with the reactionary crowd or to make a person feel that they've done something without having to actually do anything.

Okay, I can actually agree that anything passed would be most likely useless, the current system is just that fucked. I'll admit to being an idealist as well in terms of "we can change the world from its currently state to a somewhat less crappy state"

 

[siddx]

Fast food isn't the problem, a tendency to eat more than we need to and a lack of exercise is. Even if children in the US stopped eating fast food all together, it wouldn't stop health issues.