Teaching to Consume
Written by Katherine Kiefer
May 10, 2016
May 10, 2016
Americans have noticed a shift in values and attitudes in younger generations. Some people blame cell phones and the Internet for children’s “I want it all and I want it now!” behavior, as these new technologies play a big role in children’s development and behavior. But what is always paired with Internet and cell phones? Advertisements.
Advertisements are much more prevalent in our lives than we tend to think. They surround us every moment of every day: brand names on everything you lay your eyes on, movie and TV show characters printed onto kids pencils, notebooks, clothes, and food; product placement is everywhere. Children, however, do not have enough knowledge or experience to know that advertisements are deceiving. Marketers are teaching our youth that buying the coolest products makes you the coolest person.
Imagine lunchtime at grade school- going to school with brand new pink hair ties feeling pretty and proud. Another girl, Jane sits at the table and is wearing sparkly pink hair ties, and suddenly, the plain pink hair ties seem a lot less valuable. Now, the only way to get that feeling of beauty and pride back would be to get the sparkly pink hair ties. This is the marketer’s goal, to manipulate children into thinking that they need their product to be cool.
The founder of Center for a New American Dream, Betsy Taylor, says, “Marketers know they these kids are little sponges and want to get that brand loyalty for life,” referring to companies that market their adult products to children because of the purchasing power children hold in their families. Toyota uses this tactic to promote their Sienna minivan. In the commercial, a young boy turns down playing in a tree house to stay in the minivan. When his father tries to persuade him to get out of the minivan and into the new tree house, the boy asks, “Does it have leather seats and a 10 speaker stereo system?” and continues to play in the car.
Advertisements are much more prevalent in our lives than we tend to think. They surround us every moment of every day: brand names on everything you lay your eyes on, movie and TV show characters printed onto kids pencils, notebooks, clothes, and food; product placement is everywhere. Children, however, do not have enough knowledge or experience to know that advertisements are deceiving. Marketers are teaching our youth that buying the coolest products makes you the coolest person.
Imagine lunchtime at grade school- going to school with brand new pink hair ties feeling pretty and proud. Another girl, Jane sits at the table and is wearing sparkly pink hair ties, and suddenly, the plain pink hair ties seem a lot less valuable. Now, the only way to get that feeling of beauty and pride back would be to get the sparkly pink hair ties. This is the marketer’s goal, to manipulate children into thinking that they need their product to be cool.
The founder of Center for a New American Dream, Betsy Taylor, says, “Marketers know they these kids are little sponges and want to get that brand loyalty for life,” referring to companies that market their adult products to children because of the purchasing power children hold in their families. Toyota uses this tactic to promote their Sienna minivan. In the commercial, a young boy turns down playing in a tree house to stay in the minivan. When his father tries to persuade him to get out of the minivan and into the new tree house, the boy asks, “Does it have leather seats and a 10 speaker stereo system?” and continues to play in the car.
This style of marketing is very creative, but it is teaching children to obsess over a product, and that it’s more fun to play with a product than a family member or a friend. Youth marketer Nick Russell says that, “an antisocial behavior in pursuit of a product is a good thing,” having no regard for the impact antisocial behavior can have on a child’s development. The marketers’ goal is to, “convince our children that life is about buying, and that life is about getting,” says Enola Aird, the founder and director of Mothers for a Human Future.
Children’s advertising has not always been this way. Dr. Michael Brody, a child psychiatrist, uses a popular children’s television show in the 1950s, “Hopalong Cassidy” as an example that products, like a “Hopalong Cassidy” lunchbox, weren’t developed until after the show was successful, and today, we develop the toys first and the television show second.
The year after President Jimmy Carter signed the Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1980, the 10 best-selling toys were all characters from children’s television shows. This Improvement Act, strongly advocated for by Ronald Reagan, and was intended to limit government involvement in the marketing industry, but instead, it took away any power the FTC had to regulate children’s advertising, and gave it to children’s marketers. It was now acceptable to create a children’s television program just to sell a toy. Shows like “He-Man” and “My Little Pony” focused on making profits from their products rather than from their show. Gary Ruskin, Executive Director of Commercial Alert analyzes the power of these TV shows saying, “So many children’s character’s principle function is to hook kids on products and pull on kids’ heartstrings,” and these heartstrings are then given to the marketers to sell kids a wide variety of products. These marketers use the attachment that the child has to the character to sell a range of products. The movie “Frozen” did this very well, pasting its’ characters’ faces on placemats, food items, water bottles, clothes, school supplies, bed sheets, and more. This is why people like George Lucas have said, “I’m not a film director, I’m a toy maker,” referring to the immense amount of “Star Wars” merchandise available for children.
Children’s advertising has not always been this way. Dr. Michael Brody, a child psychiatrist, uses a popular children’s television show in the 1950s, “Hopalong Cassidy” as an example that products, like a “Hopalong Cassidy” lunchbox, weren’t developed until after the show was successful, and today, we develop the toys first and the television show second.
The year after President Jimmy Carter signed the Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1980, the 10 best-selling toys were all characters from children’s television shows. This Improvement Act, strongly advocated for by Ronald Reagan, and was intended to limit government involvement in the marketing industry, but instead, it took away any power the FTC had to regulate children’s advertising, and gave it to children’s marketers. It was now acceptable to create a children’s television program just to sell a toy. Shows like “He-Man” and “My Little Pony” focused on making profits from their products rather than from their show. Gary Ruskin, Executive Director of Commercial Alert analyzes the power of these TV shows saying, “So many children’s character’s principle function is to hook kids on products and pull on kids’ heartstrings,” and these heartstrings are then given to the marketers to sell kids a wide variety of products. These marketers use the attachment that the child has to the character to sell a range of products. The movie “Frozen” did this very well, pasting its’ characters’ faces on placemats, food items, water bottles, clothes, school supplies, bed sheets, and more. This is why people like George Lucas have said, “I’m not a film director, I’m a toy maker,” referring to the immense amount of “Star Wars” merchandise available for children.
Pairing characters with products that have nothing to do with each other is dishonest advertising. A doctor at the Boston Children’s Hospital, Michael Rich argues, “Characters like Clifford the big red dog and Mickey Mouse are constants in children’s lives, that children understand and feel comfortable with,” and so when marketers use those characters to sell products, they’re, “leveraging that very powerful attachment that child has to make money.”
An example of this is given by Susan Linn, the director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, in the documentary “Consuming Kids” when she shares the perspective of a 5-year-old she knows who told her father that Sponge Bob Mac & Cheese tastes better than the regular kind, before she had ever tried the Sponge Bob Mac & Cheese. This is dangerous for a child, because once the marketers can sell Mac & Cheese by using a character; they can sell almost everything to an unsuspecting child. If we are seeking to protect our country from censorship with the FTC Improvement Act, we must look at the effect that marketing has on our children’s development and well-being.
An example of this is given by Susan Linn, the director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, in the documentary “Consuming Kids” when she shares the perspective of a 5-year-old she knows who told her father that Sponge Bob Mac & Cheese tastes better than the regular kind, before she had ever tried the Sponge Bob Mac & Cheese. This is dangerous for a child, because once the marketers can sell Mac & Cheese by using a character; they can sell almost everything to an unsuspecting child. If we are seeking to protect our country from censorship with the FTC Improvement Act, we must look at the effect that marketing has on our children’s development and well-being.