Tuesday, September 23, 2008
11. Advertising to Children
Both Jean Kilbourne and Nadya Labi discuss the practice of advertising to young people from preschool to high school. According to these writers, what makes this demographic (or group) so tempting for advertisers? What is the role of schools in this phenomenon? How do you think that advertising affects young people? Due Wednesday, 24 September.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
According to Kilbourne and Labi, advertising to young people is very easy because advertisers actually spent time and money researching about a specific age group and what they are interest in. Young childern doesn't know any better about commerical of a flying superman action figure. Now days, it is transformers and brats dolls. Little girls and boys doesn't know any better. They see it and thinks that it is actually true to what is advertise and begs mommy and daddy to buy it for them. Kids in middle and high school goes for the good looks. For example, jeans that slims your body to have a sexy look and mid-rise low waist pants. I remember that almost every girls go crazy for them in middle and high school. Advertising in schools is so much more popular than it use to be. Pepsi and Coca Cola companies wants to make money off of young adolescents. Sometimes they hold stuff like look under your soda cap for a winning number and get such items for free. They know that we want cool stuff so they do plan items such as ipod or mp3 or downable cards for young teens. Schools allow companies to advertise because schools need mone y to help support and buy extra items. Schools makes it a public store for big companies to come and advertise their products.
There are many reasons why companies are more egger to target children rather then teenagers and adults. When a child sees something they want they automatically assume their parents will buy it for them and do not take the cost of an item into consideration; however the case is much different for adolescents and adults. Producers recognize the fact that the majority of parents give into their children’s desires and are more likely to spend the extra money they earn on their children. If a company targets a child at such a young age then that individual is hooked for multiple years, and in some cases for life. The principle of getting children hooked on a certain brand in at such a young age is not always a good thing because there are substances out there like cigarettes and alcohol that may very easily get an individual hooked for life. Some companies interview thousands of children a day just to analyze how a child acts and what they will easily be tricked into. The schools give into temptation because ultimately they are not out for the children’s education, they just want to run a successful business and earn a profit. Coke machines were distributed throughout schools and one particular principle knew that he should cut back on the amount of soft drinks being available in the school but instead he made sure there was an unlimited supply because this allowed him to earn a significant profit. There are all kinds of labels and brands in the textbooks and also, schools get restaurants and big companies to sponsor them at football games and such. The schools allow this because of the predicted increase of income and the companies sponsor because they are aware of what teens want these days. Negative advertising will affect young people because many are naive or they give into peer pressure more easily than an adult would. You don’t see fast food banners and malls fliers in a doctor’s office and that’s because everyone in this world lives for one goal and that is to make money. If targeting the most vulnerable group (children and schools) is the easiest way to make the most money then it will happen, and it does.
Both Kilbourne and Labi wrote about advertising to the children as easy targets because they are spoiling themselves by their parents into any toy and stuff that they think as best ones in the world. Most children easily get parents what they want by being sweetly or yell loud so their parents would give in their desires to make them be very very happy no matter what as long as they love their mommies and daddies. The companies like spoiled children better because they would cost more they can get in the store. The boys will go for monster or car toys to play. The girls will go for dolls and cute things as such as stuffed animals. The middle and high-school students are going for being the coolest, the most beautiful, or the popular ones so they would want something that look so good on them, for example, clothes!
For television shows and commercial, the children don't know any better about the true about the people are saying on television except for something that capture their attitudes on something amazing, wonderful things that can be shown to everyone and their minds are saying that we must have that and we will be cool like them on television! I remember when I was young, I used to wanting any toy that I saw from commercial but my parents didn't spoil me that much, they would give me when I deserved it as for school grades, better behavior or just for special occasions such as birthdays or holidays. So I learned to be not spoiled brat so I do not spend my money on worthless things for just for being special. However, there are still millions of children on this earth who would desire for anything to be happiest child on the world.
As for Pepsi and Coca Cola, the companies said that schools can have more money as students buy the soda from vending machines however more likely, the companies get more money than schools do. Schools just believe that can be helpful to get more money so they decide to set the vending machine for students to get a drink though they know the drinks aren't good for their health but they only think of money most.
Children have always played a dominant role in society, whether it was clearly identified or subtle implied. In America, children’s role is to influence their parents that they need brand name items for their clothes, their food, and their toys. In Kilbourne’s article she said that “most little children can’t tell the difference between the shows and the commercials.” Advertisements use similar colors and actions that children see in their television shows in the commercials. The reason being that whatever attracted the children to this particular show (usually the colors and constant movement) is what will draw the children’s attention to the product. But product advertisement does not just stop at the television. Advertisers have learned to take their product to the school. Labi stated in her article “‘Advertisers realize that schools are the perfect place to develop new markets. Kids can’t switch the channel.’” Which is completely true, students to do not have the option of saying no to school, and if the school has advertisements strewn across the halls and in the classroom it is hard to refuse the temptation. Both Kilbourne and Labi showed prime examples of how influenced children can be by making reference to “the Coke Dude.” A man whose school signed a contract with Coca Cola, who gave the school money as the school was prompted to sell 1.8 million cans of coke. However when the numbers came low in the amount of Coke the “Coke Dude” said that the students should drink more Coke and allow Coke products to become more accessible. However Coca Cola knew that the schools would react in that way, because the schools need the money to run their programs and the children are susceptible to commercials. School allows various product groups to ‘aide the school’ knowing that the ‘aide’ offered comes at a price. And that price is the children. Children don’t see a down side to the products, products like soda that affect their health. Children do not see the fact that soda and sugar affect their health, they merely see happy children drinking soda and those looking at the advertisements want to be that happy. The schools advocate the use of these advertisements without thinking about how the children will react. Advertisers know that the young children will beg their parents to purchase whatever they have seen in the advertisement. And eventually the parents will give in and get the child what they wanted…what they saw in school. But who should be punished for such a problematic issue. The companies that endorse the school systems to get their product seen by younger viewers, the school systems that all such endorsements to continue, or the government for not assigning enough money to the schools so the schools must turn to other avenues for money. What the children view is a world issue; some countries have banned advertisements to be aimed at children. Why hasn’t everyone joined that cause rather than ignoring it and not noticing the negative effects there are on future generations.
According to Kilbourne and Labj the reason advertisers prey on young children is because they have yet to be influenced and they want to obtain their loyalty as quick as possible. Kilbourne states “kids also spend $8 billion of their own money. That makes these little consumers big business.” That being said, why wouldn’t they want to target children? It’s easy money for any business. Also, another advantage is the need of funding in schools. Labj makes a great point when stating that “schools need money.” By teaming up with corporations, schools are making sufficient strides in obtaining money. However, corporations also get the advantage by getting the easy money.
Schools are playing a prominent role by allowing such things. By allowing Coke or Pepsi sponsor a school, they are allowing their products to become an important part of a child’s life. They believe they are benefiting their students by providing the latest and greatest updates. However, is it really helping the children? If it is making a child more dependent on a product that could eventually hurt them, what good is it doing?
I think advertising has a huge affect on young people. These days its not rare to see a young child recognize a McDonald’s billboard. Also, many teenagers are very hooked on brand items because they advertise it as “better.” The effect of advertising on children these days is so huge, I am sure that even my generation has been impacted. It’s so normal these days, it’s just harder to notice.
Advertisers target people at such a young age because it's easy to persuade young children and also if they are hooked on a certain product at a young age then they are less likely to switch to a different product. Jean Kilbourne says, "Children are easily influenced." Since almost all children can be found in a school, many advertising companies have found ways to persuade school officials to broadcast their brands. Also in Kilbourne's essay, schools without TV's can receive them as long as their students watch a broadcast from that company each day. Nadya Labi says, "...Channel One began offering schools free video equipment in return for showing kids a daily TV newscast filled with commercials." I personally don't think advertisements that I use to see in middle or high school were that bad. The most common ads were of famous celebrities sponsoring the "Got Milk" campaign. I understand the fear of children becoming accustomed to tobacco product ads but most ads viewed during school aren't of that sort. Schools will always be targeted because there are so many individuals concentrated in one area for a lengthy amount of time each day. If you were an advertiser wouldn't you take your business there?
According to these writers, what makes this group so tempting for advertisers is that the need for you to buy their product. A lot of people buy someone else's product because they've seen it in a magazine, article, television, or computer. If the buyer's like the product, then they will continue to keep buying that product. Young kids are good targets because they are still learning in life and trying many new things such as new kinds of sodas, new kinds of shoes, new kinds of clothing materials, etc. The role of schools in this phenomenon is that you will get suspended from school if you wear a product of some sort that you saw on television, a magazine, or newspaper. For example, according to the writer of Jean Kilbourne, she said that "a guy name Mike Cameron, a senior at Greenbrier High School in Evans, Georgia was suspended from school because he wore a Pepsi shirt on a school-sponsored Coke day, an entire school day dedicated to an attempt to win ten thousand dollars in a national contest run by Coca-Cola." People buy Coca-Cola because the brand name is more popular. I think advertising affects young people because especially with soft drinks, more people drink soft drinks more than milk. Kilbourne said "Twenty years ago, teens drank almost twice as much milk as soda. Today they drink twice as much soda as milk." It is becoming a problem now because that's how young people are breaking bones and later in life have osteoporosis.
Children are so tempting to advertise to because they're so easily influenced. Also, children are naive and don't think before they spend. They, or their parents, might buy something for them to play with and be done with it in just a few days because it loses its appeal, when in reality the child might not have been that interested in the product to begin with, but just got suckered in by advertising. Schools aid this by allowing companies to advertise in school for exchange for athletic or academic equipment. Sources like Channel One "news" are also filled with tons of commercials and advertisements aimed towards a younger audience. Advertising can greatly influence young people from the clothes they were to what they eat and drink. On the other hand, if a young person just simply doesn't like what's being advertised, no matter the effectiveness or the persistence of the advertisement, they're probably not going to go for it.
According to Kilbourne and Labi, the demographic of young persons is so appealing because of a few things. One is the fact that they are developing brand loyalty and if they can be reached at a young age they can develop brand loyalty for a long time. Another reason is the fact that they are in school. Labi quotes Andrew Hagelshaw as stating "Advertisers realize that schools are the perfect place to develop new markets. Kids can't switch the channel." And schools are the perfect place to advertise because they are a large secluded area for name brands to be recognized. As referred to in both articles John Bushey, a district 11 administrator in Colorado Springs, is referred to as the "Coke Dude". The advertising in schools today definitely urges young people to join a brand and by loyal to it for a lifetime. These loyalties to certain companies effect the over all marketplace in a way that could create monopolies, if not for rules against that. The loyalties to sodas in schools today also is an influence with the major health problems in the U.S. today.
After reading the articles on Kilbourne and Labi, they both talked about how much advertising was being put around the schools. From preschools to highschools you could see advertisments on hallways, bathroom stalls, on Channel One and especially the textbooks. This group I imagine for advertisers is the most promised group to target because their so vulnerable and they have so much money to spend, their our next generation of consumers so why not start early with them. Advertisers are trying to "own a child" says Kilbourne in the title. I think that really makes sense because, advertisers are fighting their ways to get to one child before the other, so that child will become addicted to that certain ad berfore the next. Not only are our advertisers getting to our children, but so our the schools. Schools are letting these ads get posted everywhere on campus for example, Labi says, "Channel One began offering schools free video equipment in return for showing kids a daily TV newscast filled with commercials." So, schools develop these deals with companies in order to get basically something free. I see a right and a wrong in this whole deal thing. I think it's innocent to want better or more equpiment for our schools especially if their free, but the wrong is their taking advantage of our young children. I think this advertising is more appropriate for just high-schoolers rather than preschool children. At least, when your advertisting to students in high school they are more mature in knowing whats best for them rather than a child in preschool. Advertisting affects young people so much more, because their willing to try something even of no one else will. The young is so curious about what is going that their ignorant to the world, and advertisers so why not start with them?
In today's society advertisers are more tempted to focus on young children all the way from the time they enter preschool until they graduate from high school. Advertisers focus on this group because they are more easily influenced and they want to build "brand loyalty" at an early age and begin to intice these children to shop and spend money which may later become a habit. In Jean Kilbourne's essay she gives us the statistics that "Today's kids influence over $130 billion of their parents' spending annually. Kids also spend $8 billion of their own money. That makes these little consumers big business." So in all actuality these businesses are making a smart business move targeting young children rather than adults because these children influence a large part of the older generation's spending. In order for companies to get their advertisements to the children they go through the school system. In Labi's essay we find out that many companies, such as Coke, McDonalds, and General Mills, offer school systems large sums of money or educational or atheletic equipment to display their logos in the classroom. An example of this is how McGraw-Hill math textbooks reference large companies ,such as Volkswagen, in order to draw in the student's attention. I believe that since young children are easily influenced they will be greatly influenced by the advertisements they are exposed to. I also think that these could be smart moves on the companies behalf because young children influence a large sum of how their parent's money is spent and if the children are interested in a certain companies advertisement that they see in school and other places they are more likely to get their parents to spend money there which in turn brings in profit for the company.
Let us flash back to the year 1999 when I became a 6th grader. The lunch bell has just rung and everyone lines up to head for the cafeteria. All of us stand and await our turn through the lunch line. I approach the entrance and grab my tray of food, pay the cashier and turn the corner to pick my beverage; today’s choice: A 6 oz. carton of white or chocolate milk. Hmm, big decisions! I am going to go all out and get chocolate milk today, because I had white yesterday. But wait, my friend Samuel received an orange flavored drink instead because he is allergic to milk. We sit down at the table with our friends and Cynthia begins to unpack her lunch, a turkey sandwich, an apple, crackers, a pudding, and a Capri Sun.
Now, let us soar forward to the year 2008 when many children have become 6th graders. The lunch bell has just rung and all of the students line up at the door. Several children open their cell phones to check for messages; others grab their 20oz. bottles of Coca Cola to take with them to lunch. On the way to the cafeteria, Joey stops at the nearest vending machine to grab a red Powerade, and Sally stops right beside him to grab a Mello Yellow from the next vending machine. The students reach the cafeteria and wait in line, grab their trays and pay the cashier and turn to grab their drinks, a bottle of water or a carton of white milk. Yuck, they head for the vending machine to grab a soda instead. After grabbing a bottle of soda they sit down with their friends. Denise begins to unpack her lunch, a Hannah Montana featured pizza Lunchable, a Batman fruit roll-up, a bag of color changing Doritos, and a Mountain Dew.
These two stories are merely being told to do a comparison of the times. I grew up in schools that did not allow a soda on the school grounds, let alone in a vending machine being drank during class! Children in this modern time are prime targets for advertising because they are easily swayed with pretty pictures and fun characters and fad brands such as Coke. In order to catch the eye of a child for their product, the advertisers monitor and interview millions and millions of children to see what peaks their interest. Green ketchup, blue milk, and Spiderman backpacks are just a few examples.
The internet and television has played a huge part in aiding in the spending of many parents. Children are exposed to tons of media in all different forms; commercials, cartoons, movies, and educational programs. Jean Kilbourne says, “Children in America appear to have value as new consumers.” Children are prime targets for a new product because they are developmentally novice creatures. You can tell a child that if you sneeze four times in a row the sky will turn pink, and they will believe you. The same goes for the products that companies advertise. If you put their favorite cartoon character on a product, be it a box of cookies or a box of condoms, the child will know no different in product differentiation, only that their favorite character is on that box and they want it!
As far as schools are concerned with advertising, they are also prime targets for persuasion. “Schools need money”, says Nadya Labi. She tells of how public institutions are becoming salespeople in helping to promote products to children. Yes, they do need money, so, what better way than to sign a cola contract with a soda company and make money on vending machines? Or, go in on an offer that shows a 12 minute program to students each day in exchange for video equipment for the school. Marketers know their audiences inside and out, and use that to their advantage. They truly do not care about the children, their parents or the society as a whole, they are merely out to sell to you and make a dollar.
There are several reasons that Kilbourne and Labi introduce as to why children and teens are easy targets for advertisement. Kilbourne makes the point that "Children are easily influenced." (Barnet,Bedau,69) She says this because most younder children that are sitting around watching television cannot really distinguish the show they are watching from persuasive commercials that are shown. The toys and ideas in the commercials are appealing to the children and automatically they are begging their parents for whatever they see. Also, commercialist strategically advertise young children's toys during the shows that they watch. For instance, advertisers would not play a commercial for Barbie during a show that teens are more prone to watching such as Grey's Anatomy. Nor would they put a commercial for iPods during Dora the Explorer. Labi looks at advertising another way and shows how advertisers tend to prey on children in schools. She even shows a picture of a child sitting at a desk in a classroom with brands like Pepsi, Nike. Campbell's, and Ragu all around him. Labi feels that "Schools need money. Students have plenty of it to spend." (Barnet, Bedau,124) She brings up the popular television commercial, Channel One, which is shown in a huge number of schools. "They began offering schools free video equipment in return for showing kids a daily TV newscast filled with cammercials.(Barnet, Bedua, 125) Advertising effects young people in a huge way because it is they are easy to target and advertisers know how to appeal to children and teens. They know how to make things look fun and interesting and they know the right time and place to do it.
What makes this group so tempting to advertise towards has to do with the fact that children influence the way their parents spend money. Jean Kilbourne said that children "influence over $130 billion of their parents spending annually and kids spend $8 billion of their own money". This is a lot of money so its no wonder businesses are advertising to younger and younger age groups. They want this money for their own business.
Nadya Labi tells a little of how schools play a role in this phenomenon. While it is true that every school needs money to better childrens environment they have stooped to partnering up with businesses that want the kids money and could care less about the education that they receive. Schools are allowing brand-name companies to put their logos in school textbooks where the children will see them everyday. Children go to school to learn and get an education, not to be overwhelmed by logos and advertising that they see enough of on TV and in magazines.
I think advertising has an enormouse affect on kids because if most children see something that interest them then they arent going to stop until they get it and businesses know this. If you draw them in with something they want then they will keep coming back to see what new stuff you have. We live in a world that loves money and loves spending it so advertising has become a daily part of life, even for young children who may not know they are being reached out to.
Post a Comment