Marketing To Children

Beware the Plot of Positive Marketing

We live in a world where corruption is evidently present in the business practices of big corporations, especially the ones who market to minors. The level of deception they implement into their advertisements makes you think about the irony of promoting your product to an audience with little to no means of purchasing it. Yet the amount of influence these children have on their cash carrying parents is so immense, it is almost as if they are in on the venality.

While exploring the ethical issues of marketing to children, most would agree that it seems a bit perverse to prey upon the delicate and intimate relationship between a parent and a child. Instinctually, parents protect and provide for their children.

Afterall, children cannot yet provide for themselves. But, preying upon this natural instinct to exploit sales and line pockets seems to be corrupting one of the most pure bonds - the bond between a parent and a child; however, that is exactly what corporations do.

It is referred to as the power of pestering since children pester their parents to buy them various products. Unfortunately, children cannot understand the deception of marketing. According to Sharon Beder, children cannot understand the intent of marketing to manipulate people, and they even struggle to differentiate between reality and what is portrayed in ads, making it undeniably unethical to market to them. Although, if we are going to consider children’s ability to comprehend this blatant trickery, then we cannot forgo exploring the parents role. Parents are allowing corporations to influence their children and then allowing their children to influence them as well. Since parents have all the purchasing power, they really are the power players in the equation. They could easily put a stop to it because without sales and profit, corporations would go out of business. It seems like such an easy social issue to fix, but it has continued for decades. It is distressingly likely that parents have also been

victims of these underhanded ploys. These parents were the kids of the 70s and 80s who were probably brainwashed by marketing ads and grew up not realizing what was happening to them. As their lives transitioned into the role of being parents, they quickly fell into the trap of pester persuasion. Being brainwashed themselves by these ads for years, they foolishly think that giving into their children’s pestering power is a way to one-up the neighbors in the never-ending game of keeping up with the Joneses.
In an effort to continue to further manipulate the unassuming market of minors, corporations will cite David Benedy and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn to claim that pestering power can be positive.

They want people to believe that positive messages can be spread through deceptive marketing. But, positive pestering power is absolutely oxymoronic, as noted in Benedy, because it is a form of bargaining for these corporations so that the end result is the same - profit. The corporations want to sell their products and line their pockets. Suggesting that they can accomplish this in a positive way by also persuading kids “to eat healthy, participate in sport, and read books” (Benedy) is merely a bargain that purposes it is ethically acceptable to market to children so long as the child is persuaded into positive behaviors in the process. It seems absurd that parents or governing agencies would allow for such a trade-off. Even if we concede to the evidence touted in Brooks-Gunn that indicates positive social change can result from ads promoting awareness, we still have to evaluate the danger of allowing corporations to decide what is valued as positive social change and whether we can trust ads promoting social changes when the only goal from the marketers is to make money. From a standpoint of social behavior, it can be encouraging to know that children can be influenced into more positive lifestyle habits, since there does not seem to be ethical conflicts with ads that pester kids to promote

social change, but when the ads cross the line into seeking profits in order to make some people rich, then the true desired outcome is polluted. The ethics of promoting good social behavior for the purpose of a sale becomes highly problematic. According to Debra Holt, children are subjected to fifty percent of the amount of food and nonfood ads as adults. Additionally, they are subjected to more than fifty percent of promos and public service announcements as adults. If the promos and public service announcements only seek to gain positive social change, then these types of ads should be increased while decreasing those seeking to make a sale because corporations should not be permitted to exploit the parent/child relationship nor should they be allowed to decide which behaviors are in need of positive social change. It would be almost comical if a tobacco company could be allowed to
glorify smoking while teaching kids the value of reading a book. The tobacco company of course intends to sell more tobacco products, but so long as they encourage kids to read, we are supposed to allow this so-called power of positive pestering.
Because there is no way to regulate how corporations would use positive pestering, then it should be considered just as unethical as using the power of pestering to sell goods and services to young consumers. Until legislation can force companies to stop this unethical practice, we are forced to rely on parents, hoping they can withstand their pestering children and make educated choices. Moreover, we hope parents will educate their children on the marketing ploys of these corporations so that they do not become victims of the inherent corruption.

Works Cited
Beder, Sharon. “Marketing to Children.” University of Wollongong. University of Wollongong, n.d. Web. 17 May 2012
Benady, David. “The Positive Power of Pestering.” Marketing Week. Centaur Media, 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 17 May 2012
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, and Elisabeth Donahue, eds. “The Power of Positive Marketing.” The Future of Children: Children and Electronic Media 18.1: n.pag. Princeton University and The Brookings Institution, 2008. Web. 17 April 2012
Holt, Debra J. et al. “Children’s Exposure to TV Advertising in 1997 and 2004: Information for the Obesity Debate.” Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission, 1 June 2007. Web. 17 April 2012.
“Interagency Working Group Seeks Input on Proposed Voluntary Principles for Marketing Food to Children.” Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission, 28 April 2011. Web. 17 April 2012.
Wilcox, Cathy. Untitled cartoon. “Food Marketing to Children.” Cancer Council NSW. Cancer Council NSW , n.d. Web. 17 April 2012.