Proposed. Advertisers should have unlimited rights to target children.

[JackRiddler]

Businesses selling goods legal for consumption by children, including McDonald's and cereal makers, should have unlimited rights to target their marketing efforts at children, using whatever means of advertising they have developed, including toy promotionals, commercials on children's shows, billboards, ads in schools including on report cards, etc.

Corollary. Any negative fallout from such practices is the fault of irresponsible parenting.

[The Straight Story]

1. You mean like the parents do? (nt)

[JackRiddler]

2. If I may check what you mean by that...

Are you saying that parents of children and businesses who wish to sell products for children should have equal rights in "messaging" to the children?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Proposed by who?

[JackRiddler]

5. Proposed by me.

As an ironic commentary on those who react to actions by San Francisco to limit Happy Meals (and a new suit from an LA mother to do the same) by shifting the focus to "irresponsible parents who can't say no to their brats."

And as a way to shift the focus instead to the fact that advertisers of anything may freely spend billions of dollars a year to target the most vulnerable and helpless group with whatever manipulative techniques they can devise.

[rucky]

4. smoke up, Johnny!

it would make for some interesting ads.

Maybe Joe Camel could get his own animated series?

[blogslut]

6. Sigh

This topic was more fun yesterday when it included the word "porn".

[JackRiddler]

7. That was a rhetorical version of the same point from someone else.

This is about asking more clearly and in neutral terms: Should advertisers should have the unlimited right to target children?

By the way, noticing your subject line: I'm totally for e-cigarettes, so please don't try to shoehorn me into the "nanny state" corner. I'm not for a nanny state. I am against predatory business, especially when aimed at the most vulnerable and helpless.

[Llewlladdwr]

8. I agree 100%

As long as the products are legal, what's the problem? The constitution guarantees free speech after all. And yes, any negative fallout is the responsibility of the parents. Parents are adults and have a responsibility to say no to things not in their children's best interests. And yes, I'm a parent (two children of my own and three step-children).

[superduperfarleft]

9. And what if the parents abdicate that responsibility, as so many of them seem to do?

What then?

[Llewlladdwr]

11. Then they're bad parents. NT

[superduperfarleft]

12. So what does that mean practically for the kid? n/t

[Llewlladdwr]

15. That they have crappy parents and will probably suffer for it.

Restricting advertising of legal products isn't going to change that or give those children any better chance at success. Why not just have the State take over childrearing completely instead?

[superduperfarleft]

25. "Why not just have the State take over childrearing completely instead?"

Why the need to go that far? How about we just prohibit businesses from marketing potentially harmful products to children? :shrug:

[Llewlladdwr]

27. Because that doesn't solve the problem.

How in the world do you intend to identify, let alone prohibit, every product that is 'potentially harmful' to children? Are you going to set consumption levels for every food? Carrots are bad for you if you eat too many, should we ban the sale of carrots to children? Maybe apples too? The problem is the lack of responsibility on the part of the parents and that's what needs to be addressed, not advertising.

[superduperfarleft]

43. I think you're missing my point.

I offered absolutely no examples of new laws, and only a vague defense of existing ones. I was more responding to the idea that a responsible society would basically throw up its hands and say, "Well, too bad for the kids, but the parents are awful and we can't do anything about it." That attitude does nothing to punish the irresponsible parent, just the child, and their crummy upbringing will eventually become the rest of society's problem.

Banning cigarette and alcohol manufacturers from advertising directly to children is a good thing. However, while the "banning" of Happy Meals (which isn't even close really to what happened) is one of those gray areas that can be debatable, the idea that society can wash its hands of a child should not be.

[WolverineDG]

36. there's already a ban on marketing cigs & booze to kids nt

[superduperfarleft]

42. There are people arguing in this very thread that those bans should be lifted. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

22. Then, according to you, the vast majority of U.S. parents are bad parents.

I don't buy that.

http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/speaker_pres/data/3005
"According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the average child watches about four hours of television a day and sees more than 20,000 commercials each year, often for high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt snacks and foods.(2) By the time American children finish high school, they have spent nearly twice as many hours in front of the television set as in the classroom. (3)"

See also:
American Psychological Association

"A recent study found that a majority of all U.S. children have televisions in their bedroom."

[Llewlladdwr]

26. You hit the nail on the head.

I do believe that most parents in the US aren't doing a good job of raising their children. I think your comment on hours of television watched bears that out.

I also believe most people in the US (or the world, for that matter) aren't all that smart either. Think about where we find ourselves and tell me if you don't see some merit to that.

[Luminous Animal]

28. So, then we do nothing and put the burden on the least able to defend themselves...

The children.

And I do not believe that most parents are doing a lousy job. I think that they are overworked with not enough time to devote to family life.

[Llewlladdwr]

29. Why does doing something that doesn't solve, or even address the actual problem...

make you feel better? Is it just a need to feel virtous, or what?

The parents are the problem. Advertising restrictions do absolutely nothing to solve that, so what is their utility?

[Luminous Animal]

35. And people were using lead paint for decades before the government made selling it illegal.

Lead paint was a public health issue (and still is due to corporate influence on our government regulators). Advertising to children is a public health issue.

[JackRiddler]

44. You know, luminous, it's the parents' fault...

if they choose not to live in a gated community with no billboards, gardens and an organic food co-op, day-care, little genius courses, etc. What is wrong with people who choose to live in dumps and work two jobs for minimum wage?!?!?

[Luminous Animal]

46. I have to wonder at the negative attitude that people have towards their fellow citizens.

There are millions laboring for well-below a living wage and families that are under a great deal of time stress. (The freedom to enjoy leisure time is the greatest luxury of all.) What used to be the blue collar class is now the working poor with 2 parents working. I've little doubt that most of the people on DU are doing okay. And it shows. Poor people don't have a lot of time for idle chat on political discussion boards. The contempt that a lot of people here have for the average person and how they live their lives is depressing...

Your cheap day care uses TV as a baby sitter? Why work two jobs and get a better one!

Your crappy part of town is blighted with billboards? Why work three jobs and move!

Your underfunded public school programs are funded by McDonalds? Why work 7 jobs and send them to Andover!

And remember, no matter how difficult it is. No matter if you are lucky to have an hour of genuine free time with your children. Just remember that it is your duty to spend that precious free time together saying no. Otherwise, you are a bad parent.

[WolverineDG]

49. They do what parents have done from time immemorial

Say "No" & mean it.

:eyes:

dg

[WolverineDG]

37. If they are unwilling or too lazy to say "no"

they are.

dg

[Mz Pip]

20. There are steps

that are taken for bad parenting. It's called Child Protective Services. However, I don't consider an occasional Happy Meal grounds to call someone a bad parent.

Kids are exposed to plenty of things that may not be the best for them. It's always been that way, even before advertising. Advertising is just one of many things parents have to deal with.

[JackRiddler]

32. Why is advertising aimed at kids given the privilege of being "one of many things parents"

must deal with?

In many free countries, there are restrictions.

[Mz Pip]

34. Privilege?

I wouldn't use that word. That makes it sound like it's a good thing. It's just one of the realities we live with in this country.

where do you draw the line? what's okay and what isn't? Who decides?

[JackRiddler]

39. Who decides, indeed...

Apparently we as a society do, because many things are illegal, others are required, and some go untouched. It's a question of priorities. I'd say leave the pot-smokers alone and make the businesses stop marketing to children.

[JackRiddler]

10. Commercial speech is not free speech.

In many decades of rulings it has always been treated as a separate category subject to regulations that cannot be imposed on political speech as protected by First Amendment right.

For example, politicians can and do make false claims about what they intend to do in office, and there are no legal sanctions for this.

Businesses cannot make false claims about their products, at least under the law when it's enforced (which it sometimes is).

In the past, there were restrictions on TV advertising by lawyers, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. These were changed by lawmakers (i.e., not overturned by courts).

At present, there is a ban on TV advertising for cigarettes and restrictions for alcohol.

Do you wish to say these are unconstitutional? Would you like to see them overturned?

Again, regulations on commercial speech are for good reason and under long-established legal precedent not subject to the same protections as those on political speech.

[Llewlladdwr]

14. I certainly agree that one should not be able to lie or misrepresent...

one's goods or services in an advertisement. But as long as one is accurately describing their product I have no problem with it being advertised by any legal means including TV and magazine ads, billboards, promotional tie-ins, or whatever.

And frankly, yes, I would like to see the ban on cigarette advertising and the restrictions on alcohol advertising removed. I honestly don't see the utility in banning or restricting the advertising of goods or services legal for sale.

[JackRiddler]

17. Are Ronald McDonald and Mayor McCheese accurate descriptions of McDonald's products?

Funny, I thought they were designs to manipulate children, before they even know themselves, into froever associating McDonald's with fun, independently of the products McDonald's actually sells.

So, to take up your post: You'd have no problem with a Joe Camel Cartoon Show? "This report card brought to you by Cap'n Crunch?" How about a deal with Coke to give money for schools that put vending machines in the classrooms, or require the teachers to deliver a daily endorsement? How about, "Kids, when you grow up and get depressed, make sure to remember Prozac is the only happy pill that the Teletubbies like!" Hm?

[Llewlladdwr]

21. Are you suggesting that companies should not be allowed to use mascots in their advertising?

And why should it be illegal for a company to associate themselves with having a good time? Especially when one can go to one of the companies establishments and actually have a...good time?

As far as your other examples, yes I'd have a problem with a Joe the Camel cartoon show because cigarettes aren't legal to sell to children. I don't see an issue if a school wants to sell advertising space on a report card. Vending machines in a classroom would be a problem for me (I think they'd be a distraction), but not in the lunchroom. I'm ambivalent about teacher endorsements but would be inclined to go along with restricting that since teachers' primary duty is instruction and not advertising.

[JackRiddler]

31. No. Commercial enterprises shouldn't be allowed to advertise to children.

Specifically: on children's shows or in schools. Obviously some exposure can't be avoided. (The latter is also true of arsenic in the water, and yet some people think it's a good idea to try.)

[TexasObserver]

13. Disagree. Your approach is merely punitive toward parents.

It does nothing for the children. Our concern should be for the kids. Your concern is with holding their parents responsible. Their parents are already responsible, but that doesn't help the kids.

Instead of viewing this through the lens of one who merely wants to absolve those who promote their bad products to children and place all responsibility on their parents, accept that in today's world, those parents are not looking out for the child.

You know who pays for that? Not the lousy parent. We do. We pay with increased health care costs for that child for a lifetime.

In summary, your point of view is very short sighted. It accomplishes nothing good.

[Llewlladdwr]

16. But again, resticting advertising isn't going to make irresponsible parents better.

They're still going to be bad parents. You haven't done anything to resolve that issue by banning advertising to children. Those kids with bad parents will still suffer.

[TexasObserver]

19. It doesn't have to. The goal is restricting the marketers.

For example, prohibiting them from marketing sugar products to children or from excessive use of sugar in children's meals might help.

I'll let you worry about the parents. I'm more concerned about having policies which accept that many parents don't have the slightest idea of what is or isn't good for their kids.

[Llewlladdwr]

24. But won't the kids just go somewhere else for their sugar fix?

Again, banning advertising does nothing to stop parents from feeding their children all the sugar the kids want. All it does is give people a chance to feel virtuous without really fixing the problem. And honestly, policies that are 'for the children' scare the crap out of me.

[TexasObserver]

30. No.

[Luminous Animal]

47. Good and accurate answer.

Studies show that unhealthy eating habits increase the more children are exposed to advertising. Young children (ages 205) cannot distinguish between reality and advertising. For them, it is all the truth.

[JackRiddler]

53. Another thing people often dismiss out of hand is social science findings...

that indicate that parents are not completely in control and responsible for everything that happens.

Perhaps it undermines some parents' self-image, or wishful thinking?

[Scout]

23. spot on. n/t

[JackRiddler]

18. (Pssst... I agree with you. It's a "proposal" in the sense...)

of Swift's "modest proposal." (Look it up if you don't know what that is.)

Except, obviously, it's also a description of the present-day reality under capitalism. In fact, there is no need for it as a proposal. It is, for the most part, already the case.

[guitar man]

33. Intruguing

So that would mean no more restrictions on minutes per hour of advertising children's products during kids tv shows? No more prohibition of product placement? (ie, as it stands now, it is illegal to advertise a Dora the Explorer doll during Dora's show for example)

[JackRiddler]

38. Actually, it's a "modest proposal"

[guitar man]

40. Damn

I was hoping you'd get me out of some paperwork :P

[madinmaryland]

41. Interesting. I have heard that "second-hand advertising" can kill children.

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Yes, Yes, Yes, No.

All of the above except ads in schools/report cards.

[Karenina]

48. Can anyone support my rec that brings this thread to +1 after 47 replies?

Many of you need to research Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew, whose writings are like sacred text study to those of us who have been involved in PR, advertising and marketing.

[Odin2005]

50. Strawman. Happy Meals are not comparable to TV ads ained at kids.

parents can control where they bring their kids to eat, they can't control what commercials are on TV.

[JackRiddler]

51. I don't understand. Happy Meals are a promotional action.

They are in themselves advertisements (starting with the name) and then they're advertised in commercials pitched to children on children's shows... emphasizing the toy. So where do you see a difference?

[Odin2005]

54. The parent does not have to buy the Happy Meal.

but the parent cannot control the ads on TV, that is the difference, The ability of parents to control a situation.

[JackRiddler]

52. k

[JackRiddler]

55. & k