Support NeoGAF

[FrenchToastDisciple]

there is nothing inherently unhealthy about engendering a connection between food and pleasure, though. saying "consumption = happiness" is directly attributable to advertising completely ignores the fact that we're biologically driven to enjoy eating anything that satisfies a physiological need, and that hamburgers and cheeseburgers and fries sold by mcdonald's fulfill that need and exploit human taste proclivities. to argue that the advertising itself creates the feeling of pleasure from consumption is a big misleading i think. it's fair to say that they connect "fun" to their food, but i see nothing particularly evil about that, since almost any product or service pretty much angles to make exactly that same connection. mcdonald's does nothing new here. they just have a product kids already want and the fun connection is therefore easier to make.

i could go on. of course parents need to be involved. but frankly when i was a tot i loved the advertisements aimed toward me, even though my parents didn't indulge me in every aspect of my desires; in my age, i've learned to appreciate the goofy advertising as its own unique form of entertainment.

i don't know. i just think that idea that mcdonald's is some pioneer in chilren's advertising doing something particularly unique or devious is silly.

Yes, but how are McDonald's hamburgers different from homemade hamburgers in the utility gained by eating them? Ideally, there shouldn't be a difference, but advertising to children increases utility for the consumption of McDonald's hamburgers relative to food that merely fulfills a human need. Advertising, especially to children, gives children satisfaction based on brand name and other factors. Advertising thus increases society's consumption of heavily advertised, branded food, which tends to be less healthy than other, less advertised food. Kids shouldn't want McDonald's hamburgers; they should just want hamburgers.

Yeah goofy advertising is entertaining, but it has it's consequences. I don't pretend to be able to weigh the costs of advertising against the benefits, but its negative side, especially when directed towards children, needs to be considered.

 

[beelzebozo]

their main advertising draw is a non-food item included in addition to food.

that's totally true that a lot of their kids' advertising is about toys, or celebrities, or--in the case of the 80s and 90s--characters that were colorful and fun. but again, if they weren't selling a main product kids wanted anyway, i just don't think kids would really give a shit. it's not just the toy that they obsess about: i can still remember the feeling of a toy in my greasy little french fry fingers when i was nine. it's the total milieu of going out for a little fast food treat. it was the most "kid friendly" dining out experience at the time. so i don't know really! i remember personally obsessing about getting the food because i thought the food was really good, not getting the toy, even though the toy was kinda cool.

if it's just "kids like toys, connect toys to food, kids will like the food," then why has this failed with so many other food products?

Kids shouldn't want McDonald's hamburgers; they should just want hamburgers.

it's not at all a fast food joint's job to create this reality. it's in their worst interest to do so, you know?

Yeah goofy advertising is entertaining, but it has it's consequences. I don't pretend to be able to weigh the costs of advertising against the benefits, but its negative side, especially when directed towards children, needs to be considered.

this much, at least, i agree with.

 

[Night_Trekker]

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

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

Yep.

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

it's not at all a fast food joint's job to create this reality. it's in their worst interest to do so, you know?

Well of course it's not a fast food joint's job to create this reality. My post is just an attempt to get people to understand the potential consequences of advertising to children. What I'm saying is that it's the parent's job to fight the current reality, and they're more able to do so if they know what's contributing to it.

Glad we agree on the most important part though.

 

[Devolution]

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

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

My mom refused to buy me lunchables and a number of things like fruit roll up, and made me lunches to take to school every day. Including a ham and mustard sandwich, along with real fruit snacks. I sucked it up and am probably better for it.

I would actually argue that it's not advertising that is causing kid's obesity but the amount of transfat, hfcs in processed foods which parents are buying. It's more complicated than just blaming the parents though since it takes time to find food products that aren't full of crap. Not to mention in an economy this shitty people are going to forfeit better options for cheaper processed food.

Then you have physical ed programs that are a joke. Which is a whole nother conversation unto itself.

 

[sonicmj1]

I know that it's true that, in the end, the parent has the ability to control their child's diet. But if that power were absolute, there'd be no point in advertising to children. Companies do it because it's effective.

If, fundamentally, we want to empower parents to choose how their children eat, advertising towards children should be pointless. It should accomplish nothing, because children have no direct buying power. So what's the point of allowing it to occur unregulated when it produces these negative consequences? What positive good is being achieved by allowing unregulated advertising towards a market that has no purchasing power, in this case?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I don't know why GAF is so pro-hard science anti-soft science when it seems like a good proportion of GAF doesn't understand basic concepts in science to begin with

Like 99% of the world, GAF relies on "If-it-fits-my-agenda-its-correct-science".

 

[slidewinder]

beelzebozo's like the wisest man on GAF. Look around for pictures of the guy's pizzas. They're fucking ridiculous. They're fucking beautiful. Just don't show them to your kids until they are ready.

 

[daw840]

Isn't it against the law to leave a child under twelve unsupervised?

 

[beelzebozo]

beelzebozo's like the wisest man on GAF. Look around for pictures of the guy's pizzas. They're fucking ridiculous. They're fucking beautiful. Just don't show them to your kids until they are ready.

flattery! <3

if you like making pizza let's mull it over in the cooking thread. it's easy. you'll outclass me in two weeks.

 

[captmcblack]

Nothing on this or any other planet will override my choices for my kids as long as I remain actively involved/interested in them. It's that simple.

I didn't get every toy/game/clothes/whatever that was advertised heavily to kids when I was growing up because:

- my parents wouldn't get it for me
- I'm a kid, what money am I going to have to use to undermine my parents by getting it without them

And that was in the golden age, where it was legal to advertise to kids like that and you could have cartoons that were basically advertising on big networks (so that they reach as many viewers as possible).

You don't want your kids to gorge themselves on McDonald's because Ronald told them to eat it on TV? Don't buy it for them. Of course, they may go on a school trip and the teacher buys them a Happy Meal once or twice a year, but if you're hung up on that you probably shouldn't be a parent anyway.

Parents: be parents to your kids. While you don't have perfect influence, you have the MOST influence. Be involved. Be active.

 

[LosDaddie]

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

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

This is correct.

We do everything we can to make sure our daughter eats healthy, but I still take her out for the occasional chicken nuggets & fries. So yummy

 

[beelzebozo]

This is correct.

We do everything we can to make sure our daughter eats healthy, but I still take her out for the occasional chicken nuggets & fries. So yummy

you are the kinda dad i wanna be. shared nugget joy.

 

[Marleyman]

Same way I felt about cigarette companies using Joe Camel.

 

[zoukka]

I would exercise free marketing to anyone unless your country wasn't the fattest on the planet.

Also what are the ADVANTAGES you get from companies marketing their shit to your kids?

 

[jorma]

I would exercise free marketing to anyone unless your country wasn't the fattest on the planet.

Also what are the ADVANTAGES you get from companies marketing their shit to your kids?

It's just another example of ideology > reality

 

[captmcblack]

I can see not having cigarette or beer/wine/liquor companies being allowed to advertise to minors; not only are those things specifically and particularly deleterious to the health of children, they are also illegal for them to consume until 18 to 21. That makes sense.

I can also understand not having some blatant advertising program, like a superhero cartoon about Skechers (which actually exists on Nicktoons Network RIGHT NOW; it's called Zevo-3) or a McDonaldland serial drama for kids. I get that, too.

 

[Simplet]

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

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

Everyone keeps high-fiving themselves over this post and I need someone to explain me WHY. Here's something irrelevant for you : let's say I'm 12 and weight 200 pounds, the fuck do I care about who's responsability it was not to let me become a diseased lump of grease? Unless I'm going to sue my own fucking parents, you placing this responsability on them, evil corporations, big government or space aliens changes nothing to the fact that I'm going to have to lose a leg not to die (and that you're going to pay for it).

One one side there is a problem A (child obesity), one the other a potential contributing factor B (advertising). The only thing there is to worry about here is establishing whether or not B influences A, and if so, whether or not you can act on B without violating someone's basic rights. All this talk of responsibility is neither here nor there.

 

[The Technomancer]

You don't want your kids to gorge themselves on McDonald's because Ronald told them to eat it on TV? Don't buy it for them. Of course, they may go on a school trip and the teacher buys them a Happy Meal once or twice a year, but if you're hung up on that you probably shouldn't be a parent anyway.

Parents: be parents to your kids. While you don't have perfect influence, you have the MOST influence. Be involved. Be active.

Okay, I'm noticing a common theme in some of the arguments in this thread. This isn't about our kids. I'm not worried that advertising will make my future kids fat. When I have kids, I'll be raising them healthy. This is about the statistical problems facing millions of kids in the country.

And before anyone says "you should just care about yourself and let other people be", I care about obesity and health problems facing other people for the same reason I care about homelessness or poverty or any other major social issue, despite not being poor or homeless.

 

[SmokyDave]

I'll just say this: The problem with advertising to children is much deeper than just a battle between the will of the companies and the will of the parents. Advertising to children is teaching them to link consumption with well-being. Children soak up everything from an early age, and if they see that buying a McDonald's hamburger will make them happier, they'll believe it. They lack the capacity to be critical. Yes, good parents will deny them their consumerist desires, but what happens when the kids become adults? The link in their head from their childhood (consumption=happiness) has been established, and although they can be critical of commercials and know their purpose, that doesn't stop them from consuming because they need to consume to be fulfilled. Good parents can mitigate this, but the end result is still a cycle where successive generations exposed to childhood advertising and they become more dependent on the work and spend lifestyle to find fulfillment. Corrupted adults are more likely to indulge corrupted children. Basically childhood advertising contributes to emotional disillusionment and personal debt crises. Just a little hypothesis of mine. Feel free to pick it apart.

Bosh. Great post.

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

How do you think children's programing would get funded if it were not for the huge amounts of money they receive from advertisers like McDonald's. I think of McDonald's like a candy store. I don't expect for the meal to be anything but trashy and maybe filling. Here is your post from a different point of view.

- Fire a clown.
- Keep children from getting a cheap toy.
- make commercials boring.

You just sound like anti-fun.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

How do you think children's programing would get funded if it were not for the huge amounts of money they receive from advertisers like McDonald's. I think of McDonald's like a candy store. I don't expect for the meal to be anything but trashy and maybe filling. Here is your post from a different point of view.

- Fire a clown.
- Keep children from getting a cheap toy.
- make commercials boring.

You just sound like anti-fun.

I'm more in favor of requiring happy meals to meet a basic nutritional requirement in order to include a toy. Also, clowns are creepy. I like the other McDs characters though and I would miss them. I think it's for the greater good though. For the record I don't really feel that all child-based advertising should be banned, just the ones that advertise for a product that will negatively affect a child's future health. I do think that advertising directed at children is inherently unfair/deceptive/wrong, but I don't think that all of it should be regulated. Also, if McDs wasn't funding children's TV, then somebody else would definitely step in to fill the gap. I'm ok with that, as long as it isn't for something that affects the health of children.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

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

Advertising, unless the parent is gloriously weak is irrelevant.

this

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Also I think it's pretty interesting to see the percentage of posters for/against this posting in the thread depending on the time of day, which I assume is related to peak GAF traffic in various time zones. So I would assume we'd get the more conservative end now, some west coast liberalism later in the day, the evening would be a mix, late at night would be Europeans, etc.

 

[The Technomancer]

this

Alright, find, lets approach it from that angle then, since everyone who quotes that seems to miss the point of what we're saying. Should we regulate parental responsibility even further? We already have laws against beating your kids, should we also have laws against pumping your kids full of crap food? Thats going to screw them up as much, if not more, later in life.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[JGS]

I haven't read any of the assumed heated discussion, but I have no problem with companies advertising to kids as long as they're not lying.

To get rid of the Happy Meal would simply push kids to more unhealthy choices and bigger portions considering that parents would lack the control to police it if they can't say no to a commercial now.

The Happy Meal is the most nutritional junk food a kid can have. Wmake the kids get milk/juice and, depending on the order, apples rather than fries.

 

[captmcblack]

Okay, I'm noticing a common theme in some of the arguments in this thread. This isn't about our kids. I'm not worried that advertising will make my future kids fat. When I have kids, I'll be raising them healthy. This is about the statistical problems facing millions of kids in the country.

And before anyone says "you should just care about yourself and let other people be", I care about obesity and health problems facing other people for the same reason I care about homelessness or poverty or any other major social issue, despite not being poor or homeless.

I get that too...but the thing is, those statistical issues aren't necessarily a function of insidious advertising insomuch as it's a function of the way we have allowed business to work and the way we've allowed society to function. We live in a society where it is cheaper to buy a McDouble and a Coke than it is to buy a loaf of bread. We live in a society where that same loaf of bread is made with material as cheap and potentially devoid of expensive nutrients as possible so that more profit is made by the producer of that bread...who of course is subsidized heavily by the govt because of grain/corn/agricultural subsidies. We live in a society where parents are asked to work more, longer hours for less money that they need to pay for more expensive basic needs, and have less and less time to prepare meals or facilitate/encourage the kind of activity that would help keep kids from becoming obese or suffering from poor nutrition. We live in a society where the schools cannot even afford to have nutritious food or too much time/too many activities that would encourage fitness.

There are many, many reasons why obesity and poor nutrition is a problem facing many of us - kids and adults alike - today, and as much as advertising has a role in it, the advertising can only affect so much.

At least as parents we can do stuff to control the consumption of the things being advertised. Really, that's all we can do.

 

[The Technomancer]

There are many, many reasons why obesity and poor nutrition is a problem facing many of us - kids and adults alike - today, and as much as advertising has a role in it, the advertising can only affect so much.

At least as parents we can do stuff to control the consumption of the things being advertised. Really, that's all we can do.

I agree with the first, but don't agree with the second. We should be able to do more, thats what society is for: to improve the lives of its members. Advertising is just one angle, health education is also very important, as is easy access to healthier options. But the manipulative nature of the advertising should be examined.

 

[Freshmaker]

Everyone keeps high-fiving themselves over this post and I need someone to explain me WHY. Here's something irrelevant for you : let's say I'm 12 and weight 200 pounds, the fuck do I care about who's responsability it was not to let me become a diseased lump of grease? Unless I'm going to sue my own fucking parents, you placing this responsability on them, evil corporations, big government or space aliens changes nothing to the fact that I'm going to have to lose a leg not to die (and that you're going to pay for it).

You'll get a big bag of M&M's for your birthday, so it's really going to be your cousin's fault.

 

[alexthekid]

If children cant handle advertising and cant see it for what it is, advertising shouldnt be directed to children. This is a problem for kids and not for parents and therefore you cant just say blame bad parenting and then be over with. If the society cant help children with bad parents we should, it is the kids that will grow up to be obese and not the bad parents that deserve it.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Everyone keeps high-fiving themselves over this post and I need someone to explain me WHY. Here's something irrelevant for you : let's say I'm 12 and weight 200 pounds, the fuck do I care about who's responsability it was not to let me become a diseased lump of grease? Unless I'm going to sue my own fucking parents, you placing this responsability on them, evil corporations, big government or space aliens changes nothing to the fact that I'm going to have to lose a leg not to die (and that you're going to pay for it).

One one side there is a problem A (child obesity), one the other a potential contributing factor B (advertising). The only thing there is to worry about here is establishing whether or not B influences A, and if so, whether or not you can act on B without violating someone's basic rights. All this talk of responsibility is neither here nor there.

Also a really excellent point

 

[Sofo]

As a kid I was never driven towards the supposedly "tastiness" of McDonald's that all my friends in school kept talking about. I guess it just didn't do it for me so I'm sure advertisement works to some extent but kids have brains too.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

As a kid I was never driven towards the supposedly "tastiness" of McDonald's that all my friends in school kept talking about. I guess it just didn't do it for me so I'm sure advertisement works to some extent but kids have brains too.

Like many in this thread this ignores all of the evidence against that - evidence that clearly shows that children under the ages of 8 or so are incapable of understanding the concept of advertising. Which is something the FTC even agrees with, and agrees that it is deceptive and unfair.

Obviously some children are more capable than others, but the vast majority are simply unable to understand those concepts, just like children below a certain age cannot comprehend the concept of death, or the concept of fairness. In one of the studies I cited, they found that children can understand the concept of 'selling' a product at about 8, but that is merely the understanding that an ad is trying to get you to purchase a product. It isn't until 10-12 that children understand that ads are trying to get you to connect emotional states with products/brands, which is the 'persuasion' element of advertising, and arguably the more insidious portion.

 

[BorkBork]

-Advertisement to children is a problem. Frenchtoastdisciple has the best summary on the power of psychology in the thread. Marketers pour billions and billions of dollars to get around parental resistance by empowering kids, and they done a LOT of research and employ effective psychological strategies on exactly how to do that. The power of subconscious urges over rational restraint is not something that should be dismissed.

-The design of fast food is a problem. These foods are specifically designed to appeal to our primal urges to acquire high fat and sugar, but don't really need anymore in our modern lives. Children are even more vulnerable to this, as anyone who's seen a three year old shoving pieces of candy into their mouths can attest to.

-Lack of parental responsibility is a problem. Yes, parents should be able to put their foot down, but they don't. Why they may not can be a whole range of cultural, social, and economic factors. They could try to appease their kids because they want them to be buddies, or they could be attracted to the low prices of keeping their kids fed, or they could see fast food as something safe and familiar, or they could even see fast food as something classy (in my own experience growing up in an Asian country, going to McDonalds was a special treat for the whole family). To dismiss all these potential factors as "bad parenting" seems disingenuous and thoughtless.

-Lack of health awareness is a problem. There shouldn't be any doubt nowadays that fast food in the form of overly fatty, sugary, and salty foods coupled with inexercise is leading to a whole range of obesity related health problems. Its strain on the healthcare system is significant. But what people know and what people do are often at odds with each other.

- Subsidies to shitty food is a problem. teh_pwn is right: price distortion in the form of subsidies is allowing the production of cheap, non-healthy food to continue. This is the key to how fast food companies are able to produce ever larger portions of fast food.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but to say that fault should be directed on one thing (adverts, parents, fast food, subsidies) seems too simple without taking into effect the whole picture. They are ALL relevant, and they ALL need to be at least taken into consideration when addressing this issue surrounding fast food, advertising, and health.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Alright, find, lets approach it from that angle then, since everyone who quotes that seems to miss the point of what we're saying. Should we regulate parental responsibility even further? We already have laws against beating your kids, should we also have laws against pumping your kids full of crap food? Thats going to screw them up as much, if not more, later in life.

Just throwing that out there.

Honestly, i do think parents should face child abuse charges when their children weight get way out of hand.

The other point is that children spend a lot of time on watching TV, instead of being active. I don´t blame the parents much for this, since parents work and then come back home to do dinner and clean etc...
My point is that if there is a balance on what children do with their time (school, play dates, taking them to the park, etc..) advertising will have little effect on them. This is a difficult thing to achieve though with parents being busy.

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

Just for the record, I think everyone agrees the primary responsibility of keeping a child healthy and choosing the right things for them falls almost entirely on the parent. It's just that their are other factors here. Children are being trained to be consumers before their critical enough to be consumers. There is a long lasting, social consequence to that marketing philosophy. Advertising in and of itself is not evil or bad, but its benefits are only had when being implemented on critical, informed consumers. By advertising to children, we're permanently affecting their ability to be critical for their entire lives.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Just for the record, I think everyone agrees the primary responsibility of keeping a child healthy and choosing the right things for them falls almost entirely on the parent. It's just that their are other factors here. Children are being trained to be consumers before their critical enough to be consumers. There is a long lasting, social consequence to that marketing philosophy. Advertising in and of itself is not evil or bad, but its benefits are only had when being implemented on critical, informed consumers. By advertising to children, we're permanently affecting their ability to be critical for their entire lives.

Adults are marketed to the same way. Effective advertising does not inform, it associates positive feelings towards a brand or product. The notion that adults are somehow "critical informed consumers" is somewhat laughable. They are manipulated just as much (if not more so) than children, because they have the actual purchasing power.

 

[beelzebozo]

there should be government mandated daily walks and weekly jogs.

 

[alphaNoid]

I still dont care what kind of advertising is out there aimed at my son, he gets only what I buy. There is no complex analysis to be had. When he has a job and his own income he can buy what he wants but until that day if I want to buy him a Big Mac or a stick of celery.. its my decision.

I dont really have a problem with advertising to children, and I dont really have pity for parents who cannot control their children. I'm perfectly ok with accepting 100% responsibility for my child, and dealing with the consequences that may cause.

It seems this has changed and suddenly people rely on the government to raise their children. Ya, no.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

-Advertisement to children is a problem. Frenchtoastdisciple has the best summary on the power of psychology in the thread. Marketers pour billions and billions of dollars to get around parental resistance by empowering kids, and they done a LOT of research and employ effective psychological strategies on exactly how to do that. The power of subconscious urges over rational restraint is not something that should be dismissed.

-The design of fast food is a problem. These foods are specifically designed to appeal to our primal urges to acquire high fat and sugar, but don't really need anymore in our modern lives. Children are even more vulnerable to this, as anyone who's seen a three year old shoving pieces of candy into their mouths can attest to.

-Lack of parental responsibility is a problem. Yes, parents should be able to put their foot down, but they don't. Why they may not can be a whole range of cultural, social, and economic factors. They could try to appease their kids because they want them to be buddies, or they could be attracted to the low prices of keeping their kids fed, or they could see fast food as something safe and familiar, or they could even see fast food as something classy (in my own experience growing up in an Asian country, going to McDonalds was a special treat for the whole family). To dismiss all these potential factors as "bad parenting" seems disingenuous and thoughtless.

-Lack of health awareness is a problem. There shouldn't be any doubt nowadays that fast food in the form of overly fatty, sugary, and salty foods coupled with inexercise is leading to a whole range of obesity related health problems. Its strain on the healthcare system is significant. But what people know and what people do are often at odds with each other.

- Subsidies to shitty food is a problem. teh_pwn is right: price distortion in the form of subsidies is allowing the production of cheap, non-healthy food to continue. This is the key to how fast food companies are able to produce ever larger portions of fast food.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but to say that fault should be directed on one thing (adverts, parents, fast food, subsidies) seems too simple without taking into effect the whole picture. They are ALL relevant, and they ALL need to be at least taken into consideration when addressing this issue surrounding fast food, advertising, and health.

Add in the fact that these foods are very addictive (though not to the point of ridiculous) and the fact that its harder than ever before for parents to parent due to people working a record of long hours, and you got yourself a perfect outline.

This problem reminds me of America's education crisis. The root of it is much more than one. And no it isn't solely the parents fault because:

#1 Parents can only do so much, especially due to the fact that parents now work longer hours than ever before.

#2 I don't buy into this "lazy post hippy generation" bullshit. I don't see how parenting has gotten significantly worse over the past twenty five years. What has really changed is that the culture we live in. Eating fast food use to be a rarity, today its the main course.

 

[caramac]

I was going to make this point about healthcare as well.

People on GAF don't give a fuck because they're perfect parents or not even parents at all so it's not their problem. Well..guess what...it's everyone's problem because the reality is most parents outside of GAF give in to their fucking kids, and it's going to cost all of us.

Do you really believe this? ...as in like, the whole population of the world outside of GAF are weak parents?

 

[zoukka]

I still dont care what kind of advertising is out there aimed at my son, he gets only what I buy. There is no complex analysis to be had. When he has a job and his own income he can buy what he wants but until that day if I want to buy him a Big Mac or a stick of celery.. its my decision.

I dont really have a problem with advertising to children, and I dont really have pity for parents who cannot control their children. I'm perfectly ok with accepting 100% responsibility for my child, and dealing with the consequences that may cause.

It seems this has changed and suddenly people rely on the government to raise their children. Ya, no.

Did you post this from a castle atop a mountain?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Do you really believe this? ...as in like, the whole population of the world outside of GAF are weak parents?

Very much so. We live in a post hippie revolution bullshit age. People are lazier than ever before. This is why people work longer hours than ever before and activism has never been more popular. So obviously parenting will reflect society.

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

Adults are marketed to the same way. Effective advertising does not inform, it associates positive feelings towards a brand or product. The notion that adults are somehow "critical informed consumers" is somewhat laughable. They are manipulated just as much (if not more so) than children, because they have the actual purchasing power.

Yeah, but why aren't adults critical informed consumers? Why aren't they able to separate the informational and manipulative aspects of advertising? Them being advertising to as children could be a factor. There are obviously other factors involved here, and people will always be manipulated by advertising no matter what their age, but advertising to children is especially effective because it wires a person's brain to consume for their entire life. If we introduce that manipulative aspect later in a child's life, we can mitigate the degree of manipulation.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Yeah, but why aren't adults critical informed consumers? Why aren't they able to separate the informational and manipulative aspects of advertising? Them being advertising to as children could be a factor. There are obviously other factors involved here, and people will always be manipulated by advertising no matter what their age, but advertising to children is especially effective because it wires a person's brain to consume for their entire life. If we introduce that manipulative aspect later in a child's life, we can mitigate the degree of manipulation.

I would agree the earlier you can expose someone to a brand in a positive way, the more effective that brand association will be. Is this wrong though? For a product that may pose health risks possibly. Would it also be wrong to allow Ford to sell toy Ford trucks to kids? That could influence them also.

 

[samus i am]

Given the amount of single parents and the increasing work hours as well as both parents working, a growing number.

Don't tell me you've never heard "Working late. Take some money and get some food."

That is not the restaurant's fault, that is the parent's fault. They should not be penalized for this.

 

[Mortrialus]

That is not the restaurant's fault, that is the parent's fault. They should not be penalized for this.

Given the increasing hours required for parents to make the standard of live required to raise children, how is it the parent's fault if it is an increasing reality and growing necessity?

 

[XNarte]

Does anybody actually know what Ronald McDonald does?

I personally know "Ronald McDonald" and Ronald McDonald may have been created to help sell burgers originally but Ronald McDonald nowadays follows a very, VERY specific set of guidelines including not being shown with food, never handling food, not handing out coupons at promotion events. Etc. The only reason Ronald exists still is because of the school, educational, food safety, an other great programs for children.

Then there is the Ronald McDonald House Charities which is a whole other initiative that has helped families across the globe.

While I agree the targeted advertising to children needs to see a dramatic overhaul, retiring Ronald is not the way to go about it.

I used to feel the same way until I got some real face to face experience with how McDonald's has been handling Ronald McDonald for the last 15 plus years and the joy that I have seen brought to kids faces from Ronald and the programs that he is a part of is something that I would hate to see go away. You may not have noticed, but the other characters (hamburglar, fryguys, etc) are no longer being used because they were only brought in to advertise the food, so McDonald's is starting to take the right steps towards doing their part, but Ronald has some deep roots in communities that should still stay in place.

I didn't get to read the whole thread yet, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in.

 

[WanderingWind]

Given the increasing hours required for parents to make the standard of live required to raise children, how is it the parent's fault if it is an increasing reality and growing necessity?

How is anybody else's fault? Especially the marketers or restauranteurs?

 

[samus i am]

Given the increasing hours required for parents to make the standard of live required to raise children, how is it the parent's fault if it is an increasing reality and growing necessity?

Make the food ahead of time and put it in the fridge. Show your child basic recipes that they can follow at home. There are always other options. If you send your kid to a fast food restaurant everyday, do not act shocked that your kid is a fatty.