Support NeoGAF

[Mortrialus]

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

This comment has nothing to do with my views on marketers. Someone asked what kind of parent lets the buy and order food on their own. The idea that parents can provide 100% supervision is absurd. As I mentioned, this is just a growing reality based on the increasing number of single parents and the increasing number of hours required for American's to earn the cost of living to provide for themselves and children.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

In this thread: Taking away corporate privileges that have an arguably (meaning scientifically testable) negative affect on society is actually taking away personal liberties and responsibility.

Neat-o.

 

[alphaNoid]

Did you post this from a castle atop a mountain?

Would have felt more powerful if I had, sadly it was slumped over my keyboard at work lol

 

[FrenchToastDisciple]

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.

It's wrong because brand loyalty isn't logical, at least when it has been achieved through the use of advertising. Consumer choices should be based on quality and price, both of which are not emphasized in branding.

As for your example of Ford toy trucks, that is advertising, which can influence, but at least that has the primary function of being a toy. Advertising only has one function: influence, which means it's harder to defend in relation to children.

Primarily though, I'm concerned with advertising's effect of exposing children to the idea of consumption as a way of life too early in their development process to understand the emotional consequences. The association that buying=happiness rather than interpersonal relationships or imagination is troubling.

 

[WanderingWind]

Some of you have strange ideas about what marketing is or isn't responsible for. Or what it actual does. I hate to sound like a broken record, but some of you think marketing is an unstoppable force - that nothing, nothing can defeat a well-created advertisement.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

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.

Yeah there has been a general trend away from using the McDs characters to specifically sell food, which is good. Children still associate them w/ McDs though, which means they associate them with rewarding food. The R.M. house charities are good charities and important, but to me that is a small drop of public relations within a much larger problem. Now that the characters have been associated with socially positive things they are harder to argue into retiring. I think McDs has taken some steps towards a more positive role in children's lives, but there is always this insidious goal of branding with the overall goal of building a brand loyalty that will last into a child's adult life.

 

[WanderingWind]

..."insidious goal of branding." Good lord.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Some of you have strange ideas about what marketing is or isn't responsible for. Or what it actual does. I hate to sound like a broken record, but some of you think marketing is an unstoppable force - that nothing, nothing can defeat a well-created advertisement.

please stop it with the straw man arguments. the argument is that children are easily deceived by advertising and their lack of psychological development is easily manipulated by advertising. which is very different from "marketing is an unstoppable force". that statement is obviously untrue. but the original argument is very well documented to the point where it is factual.

 

[WanderingWind]

please stop it with the straw man arguments. the argument is that children are easily deceived by advertising and their lack of psychological development is easily manipulated by advertising. which is very different from "marketing is an unstoppable force". that statement is obviously untrue. but the original argument is very well documented to the point where it is factual.

First, that's not a strawman. At all. Learn the definition before using it, thanks.

Secondly, the argument is that PARENTS are unable to defend themselves against the tag team of marketing and whiny kids, and thus, companies should not market products for kids. I disagree with this premise wholesale.

 

[CrankyJay]

GAF loves to throw around strawman and tinfoil hats a lot.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

First, that's not a strawman. At all. Learn the definition before using it, thanks.

Secondly, the argument is that PARENTS are unable to defend themselves against the tag team of marketing and whiny kids, and thus, companies should not market products for kids. I disagree with this premise wholesale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

proposition 1 (mine): kids vulnerable to marketing
substitute proposition (yours): marketing is unstoppable

even your second argument is a straw man. in no point in the OP did i say that parents are unable to defend themselves. i do think that most children have the ability to influence most parents, but even your second argument has presented a similar but unrelated point, that they are unable to defend themselves, which is true, and refutes your point, but is ultimately different than mine.

secondly, you didn't even refute anything, because you have presented no evidence against any of my assertions beyond personal belief.

 

[Flo_Evans]

It's wrong because brand loyalty isn't logical, at least when it has been achieved through the use of advertising. Consumer choices should be based on quality and price, both of which are not emphasized in branding.

As for your example of Ford toy trucks, that is advertising, which can influence, but at least that has the primary function of being a toy. Advertising only has one function: influence, which means it's harder to defend in relation to children.

Primarily though, I'm concerned with advertising's effect of exposing children to the idea of consumption as a way of life too early in their development process to understand the emotional consequences. The association that buying=happiness rather than interpersonal relationships or imagination is troubling.

Well I think it is more complex than that. I don't think you can blame advertising solely for the problem of rampant consumerism. Certain brands have a status associated with them, marketing actively tries to tap into this and associate owning certain products with superiority. I don't believe that advertising is the cause of this kind of society, rather the symptom.

 

[WanderingWind]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


proposition 1 (mine): kids vulnerable to marketing
substitute proposition (yours): marketing is unstoppable

even your second argument is a straw man. in no point in the OP did i say that parents are unable to defend themselves. i do think that most children have the ability to influence most parents, but even your second argument has presented a similar but unrelated point, that they are unable to defend themselves, which is true, and refutes your point, but is ultimately different than mine.

secondly, you didn't even refute anything, because you have presented no evidence against any of my assertions beyond personal belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


proposition 1 (mine): kids vulnerable to marketing
substitute proposition (yours): marketing is unstoppable

even your second argument is a straw man. in no point in the OP did i say that parents are unable to defend themselves. i do think that most children have the ability to influence most parents, but even your second argument has presented a similar but unrelated point, that they are unable to defend themselves, which is true, and refutes your point, but is ultimately different than mine.

secondly, you didn't even refute anything, because you have presented no evidence against any of my assertions beyond personal belief.

I assume you're not so stupid as to be unaware that I probably was not responding directly to your OP (which could possibly make it a fallacy) considering the thread is now over 300 posts long and I did not quote the OP.

Like has been said. GAF loves to throw around strawman. Usually in an attempt to end any actual discussion and just score "points" or whatever. Don't do that. We're having such nice chat here.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I assume you're not so stupid as to be unaware that I probably was not responding directly to your OP (which could possibly make it a fallacy) considering the thread is now over 300 posts long and I did not quote the OP.

Like has been said. GAF loves to throw around strawman. Usually in an attempt to end any actual discussion and just score "points" or whatever. Don't do that. We're having such nice chat here.

Even if you weren't responding to the initial argument, I still don't recall any posts in this thread proclaiming marketing an unstoppable force. Even against FrenchToastDisciple's argument, which is that advertising builds connections between consumption and happiness that persist into adulthood and make people more vulnerable to advertising is a far cry from 'advertising is unstoppable!' Which would still make your argument a straw man.

Besides, you haven't posted any real evidence against any of the arguments, only hearsay and conjecture. But those are kinds of evidence... Look I have posted plenty of evidence both for and against, the least you could do if you expect a reasonable debate is post some of your own.

 

[WanderingWind]

Even if you weren't responding to the initial argument, I still don't recall any posts in this thread proclaiming marketing an unstoppable force. Besides, you haven't posted any real evidence against any of the arguments, only hearsay and conjecture. But those are kinds of evidence...

And you've posted evidence that shows that stopping companies from marketing children's products would be effective? Perhaps I missed that? Or maybe, just maybe, we're discussing something that has little to no evidence on either side.

I could go on, but for some reason you're in "I wanna win" mode. So, you know. You win. Mind if we actually go back to discussing the actual issue now?

EDIT: Nice edit. You still don't understand it though. Keep trying.

 

[blame space]

i forgot what the issue is

 

[Flo_Evans]

i forgot what the issue is

All I know is I want a big mac now.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

i forgot what the issue is

fat kids make fat adults

 

[WanderingWind]

All I know is I want a big mac now.

OH NO! The insidious marketers got to you! Purge yourself with fire! It's the only way to be sure!

 

[Devolution]

OH NO! The insidious marketers got to you! Purge yourself with fire! It's the only way to be sure!

Is this necessary? Why can't we talk about just how influential advertising is without a bunch of people talking like this?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

And you've posted evidence that shows that stopping companies from marketing children's products would be effective? Perhaps I missed that? Or maybe, just maybe, we're discussing something that has little to no evidence on either side.

I could go on, but for some reason you're in "I wanna win" mode. So, you know. You win. Mind if we actually go back to discussing the actual issue now?

EDIT: Nice edit. You still don't understand it though. Keep trying.

I'm also not really sure that stopping companies from marketing childrens products would be effective. I didn't say it would be, I am saying it could be. It would be kind of difficult to have evidence of that without trying it. There are studies that find that increased attention to commercials are linked with increased demand for snacks (Ref), but that's probably the best kind of evidence one can get on this. I'm not sure if the results after regulations in scandinavian countries are really studied or anything.

I've posted plenty of evidence for my initial assertions, that children do not understand advertising. You're right in that there is little evidence on both sides, but we should both be producing evidence if we expect there to be a debate.

 

[WanderingWind]

Is this necessary? Why can't we talk about just how influential advertising is without a bunch of people talking like this?

I agree. Using gross hyperbole like "insidious" when describing advertisers of hamburgers and toy trucks is completely unnecessary.

I'm also not really sure that stopping companies from marketing childrens products would be effective. It would be kind of difficult to have evidence of that without trying it. There are studies that find that increased attention to commercials are linked with increased demand for snacks (Ref), but that's probably the best kind of evidence one can get on this.

I've posted plenty of evidence for my initial assertions, that children do not understand advertising. You're right in that there is little evidence on both sides, but we should both be producing evidence if we expect there to be a debate.

And I haven't disagreed with you on that. I don't think anybody has. So...yeah.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

I agree. Using gross hyperbole like "insidious" when describing advertisers of hamburgers and toy trucks is completely unnecessary.

well i was just talking about the hamburgers

and i think insidious, defined as 'beguiling but harmful', is probably a pretty accurate word.

 

[Simplet]

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.

I can't believe this argument is still about fucking responsability. We're talking about children here, not a car or a playstation. You don't get to see the parents when their kids are 15 and morbidly obese and mock them : "See? I told you you should have had more responsibility, and now your kids are all broken muahahaha, should have taken better care of it".

Basically by making this strictly about parent responsibility, you're just making an argument for more birth inequality. Born to a rich caucasian suburbian family that buys grocery and cook food? Congrats, you won the life lottery, and besides all your money you'll get a functioning liver. Born to an inner-city single mom that doesn't have the time to make food or plain don't give a shit? Tough luck son, prepare yourself for a life of debilitating pain and reduced mobility.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

OH NO! The insidious marketers got to you! Purge yourself with fire! It's the only way to be sure!

Dude. We are all victims of the shadowy, insidious, corporate, marketing boogeyman. Look at all of us with our iPods, xbox's and underoos. We don't want these things. They've taken away our free will.

 

[WanderingWind]

well i was just talking about the hamburgers

and i think insidious, defined as 'beguiling but harmful', is probably a pretty accurate word.

Only if you think all advertisement for anything short of apples is "insidious." Again, is going to McDonald's once or twice a year harmful? Most reasonable people would argue no. Is going an excessive amount? Most reasonable people would say yes. Are advertisements responsible for children being aware of McDonalds? Probably in most cases. Are they responsible for children actually ingesting McDonalds "food?" Nope.

So, I disagree that insidious is anything less than hyperbole.

 

[Devolution]

I agree. Using gross hyperbole like "insidious" when describing advertisers of hamburgers and toy trucks is completely unnecessary.

Advertising is insidious and I say this as someone who is basically going to work in it later. Have you ever sat in on a marking meeting? Designed a brand for an establishment? Do you know where you start? The first thing you target is the heart and minds of people. You choose colors, images, themes based on getting a person to choose your company above all others. Even something as simple as a logo is at its core, hours of work of pinning down a story you want to sell to people. Most people won't even see it overtly, it will be mostly be a subliminal message.

You can tell by the questions posed to people, most of the time they can't pinpoint what about a certain brand specifically makes them purchase it but they can tell you the feelings they get when they see it, or how much the advertising appeals to how they view themselves.

When people downplay the role of advertising or branding they're not really doing anyone a service, and instead trying to make themselves feel superior or something.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Only if you think all advertisement for anything short of apples is "insidious." Again, is going to McDonald's once or twice a year harmful? Most reasonable people would argue no. Is going an excessive amount? Most reasonable people would say yes. Are advertisements responsible for children being aware of McDonalds? Probably in most cases. Are they responsible for children actually ingesting McDonalds "food?" Nope.

So, I disagree that insidious is anything less than hyperbole.

I'd argue that they're partly responsible, just as parents are partly responsible.

 

[JGS]

please stop it with the straw man arguments. the argument is that children are easily deceived by advertising and their lack of psychological development is easily manipulated by advertising. which is very different from "marketing is an unstoppable force". that statement is obviously untrue. but the original argument is very well documented to the point where it is factual.

To stay focused, it is totally irrelevant how duped kids are to advertising since they don't make the choices even if they totally control their parents who make the choices. This means at the end of the day, advertising doesn't matter.

The parents like McDonald's too (& they tend to not mind that their kids are as portly as them) and they have a far, far greater influence than advertisers. The only way to stop McDonald's is to kindly ask them to shut down or become a salad shop which is basically the same thing as asking them to shut down.

 

[Trent Strong]

please stop it with the straw man arguments. the argument is that children are easily deceived by advertising and their lack of psychological development is easily manipulated by advertising. which is very different from "marketing is an unstoppable force". that statement is obviously untrue. but the original argument is very well documented to the point where it is factual.

Where is this documentation?

 

[Suburban_Nooblet]

I like the poster with the "give a fuck" meter.


I ate chicken nuggets as a kid... now I'm a 25 year old badass.

 

[blame space]

let's find common ground

both sides seem to agree that advertising and marketing are not a form of alien mind-control.

 

[CrankyJay]

Where is this documentation?

There are a few links on the front page. But the gist of the studies are children under a certain age do not know the difference between a television program and a commercial trying to sell them on the idea of something.

 

[Zoe]

There are a few links on the front page. But the gist of the studies are children under a certain age do not know the difference between a television program and a commercial trying to sell them on the idea of something.

So does that mean cartoons shouldn't make toys that are exact replicas of something that appears in a show? Cause that's really why it's there.

 

[SolKane]

Interesting how debate threads just end up repeating themselves every two pages. Is anyone getting anywhere here?

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Where is this documentation?

I've posted links to both an AAP policy statement ( http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;118/6/2563 ) which references a few books/studies on this, as well as linking to a study abstract ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21349621 ) that found that children did not understand the concept of 'selling' in a commercial until the age of 7-8, and did not understand the 'persuasive' intent until the age of 11-12. Another study finding that watching the commercials during kids' programming is associated with an increase in demand for snacks http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307822 which I posted on this page.

These are also pertinent:

Literature review suggesting that tv experiences are linked to unhealthy vs. healthy diets, and that perceived taste had the most direct link to diet type: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20183373

Also this Oxford literature review which more or less recommends a ban on all kids advertising. There are interesting arguments both for and against in there + refs: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/7.full.pdf+html

I don't necessarily agree with everything in that last one, but I do think it makes good points on both sides, especially regarding a definition of 'unhealthy' and a proposal to outline what exactly could be regulated. Also, the Oxford lit review makes the point that data on market research is very difficult to come by, because the vast vast majority of it is performed by commercial companies with no interest in allowing access to the results. So it's difficult to get a marketing perspective on the advertising campaigns.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

So does that mean cartoons shouldn't make toys that are exact replicas of something that appears in a show? Cause that's really why it's there.

Well originally this wasn't supposed to be about advertising to children in general. While I do think it's wrong, it's not a harm to children's health, and I don't think that all of it needs to be regulated. The initial debate was over advertising fast food to children, which is arguably harmful more often than not.

 

[blame space]

how would u guys feel about advertising gangster rap on nick jr

 

[bggrthnjsus]

how would u guys feel about advertising gangster rap on nick jr

only if they do not promote an east vs west coast beef

 

[Trent Strong]

There are a few links on the front page. But the gist of the studies are children under a certain age do not know the difference between a television program and a commercial trying to sell them on the idea of something.

That's a long way from the idea that advertising to children will make them believe, as adults, that happiness can only be achieved through constant consumption of material goods instead of through personal relationships and family.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

That's a long way from the idea that advertising to children will make them believe, as adults, that happiness can only be achieved through constant consumption of material goods instead of through personal relationships and family.

I didn't make that argument, so I don't have any links for that. Though I bet some of the stuff I linked to earlier talks about it in some indirect way that is not enough to make a decision in either direction.

 

[Trent Strong]

I've posted links to both an AAP policy statement ( http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;118/6/2563 ) which references a few books/studies on this, as well as linking to a study abstract ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21349621 ) that found that children did not understand the concept of 'selling' in a commercial until the age of 7-8, and did not understand the 'persuasive' intent until the age of 11-12. Another study finding that watching the commercials during kids' programming is associated with an increase in demand for snacks http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307822 which I posted on this page.

These are also pertinent:

Literature review suggesting that tv experiences are linked to unhealthy vs. healthy diets, and that perceived taste had the most direct link to diet type: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20183373

Also this Oxford literature review which more or less recommends a ban on all kids advertising. There are interesting arguments both for and against in there + refs: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/7.full.pdf+html

I don't necessarily agree with everything in that last one, but I do think it makes good points on both sides, especially regarding a definition of 'unhealthy' and a proposal to outline what exactly could be regulated.

Interesting. I'll have to read those when I get the time.

 

[Shanadeus]

It's not a matter of turning it into a moral question when people say that ads are insidious.

They just are.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

Interesting. I'll have to read those when I get the time.

There's also an FTC document regarding this in the OP, plus another AAP statement. The AAP one is pretty anti-advertising to children. The FTC one makes interesting points on both sides of the argument, especially regarding to concerns that regulating advertising is regulating speech. They ultimately concluded that there were more alternatives which should be pursued first such as educational initiatives. Though that pretty much put the ball in somebody else's court.

 

[BorkBork]

Interesting how debate threads just end up repeating themselves every two pages. Is anyone getting anywhere here?

There doesn't have to be an end or a unanimous solution to these sorts of things. If things are repeating that means we're circling something of interest to most people that are participating in the discussion.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

only if they do not promote an east vs west coast beef

Yeah. Both suck. Midwest is where its at.

 

[CrankyJay]

There doesn't have to be an end or a unanimous solution to these sorts of things. If things are repeating that means we're circling something of interest to most people that are participating in the discussion.

That, or people just want the last word.

 

[CrankyJay]

BTW, why is every one of Shandeus' posts say "Removed" within the last 24 hours?

 

[SolKane]

There doesn't have to be an end or a unanimous solution to these sorts of things. If things are repeating that means we're circling something of interest to most people that are participating in the discussion.

But we've reached a stalemate when the same links are being reposted and people still aren't reading them. The same points were made in these two pages as the first two pages. I'm not looking for a conclusion, but some kind of gesture of good faith that people are willing to readjust their views, rather than remain recalcitrant. The problem with these threads is that no one reads the front end.

 

[tubgirlsplumber]

Unless you're a shareholder in a large corporation, I have no idea why people are happy with the amount of ever increasing advertising there is these days.

Surely less adverts or better standards regarding advertising is preferable?

Or are people so used to seeing products thrown at them all the time, that they have developed a 'Stockholm Syndrome' type of symbiont relationship with it?

Wait ... I read something like this recently ... Maybe most of the posters here are actually bots programmed by Mc D. Oh my God!