Would You Be Willing To Limit/Regulate Advertising To Children?

[KittyWampus]

In Europe, various countries have varying degress of limitations towards what and how things are advertised to kids.

In the US, there is very little governmental regulations limiting corporations from targeting children.

Here in America, it's 100% on the parents to withstand the onslaught of ads
which focus on shaping children's buying habits.

Do you think there's a case to be made for limiting ads geared for kids? At least ads with the intention of getting kids to spend money?

[TAPat]

1. In a heartbeat - Even though my kid almost never asks for the

crap they're peddling. At 6 she already knows what kind of lecture she'd be in for... :evilgrin:

[SoCalDem]

19. When my son was about 3 he made a salesman about bust a gut, laughing.

we were at the grocery store, and he saw a guy stocking the Hostess section.. He said in that little squeeky 3 yr old voice".. "Mom there's the stuff that rots your teeth..does that man know those are bad for you?"

[MADem]

2. Kiss those children's programs goodbye, then

They pay for the program content.

There's a move afoot of late to limit junk food ads...who knows how far that will go?

[ReadTomPaine]

7. Quite a bit of children's programming is shown free of commericals...

already, at least for the preschool crowd. Disney, Sprout & Noggin all do those programs commercial free. They run promos for their own content and website, along with PSA style breaks, but no commercials.

[KittyWampus]

8. Isn't there a new 'Baby Einstein' Channel or something? No commercials

[ReadTomPaine]

14. Not sure, but cable On Demand services carry them...

along with a bunch of others including So Smart, Baby Genius, 1st Impressions, Baby Bumblebee and more. They also carry Noggin & Sprout. Note that these aren't pay-per-view, but come with the cable package standard.

Seems all the major players in young children's education/entertainment already do commercial free content.

[MADem]

21. Well, those are cable venues

I'm thinking of the poor little snotnose in a shotgun shack with a tee vee antennae on the roof. If they don't get a PBS signal, that little shit is outta luck on Saturday morning.

[ReadTomPaine]

33. "Snotnose" .. "shotgun shack" .. "little shits"

Came to the bell tower with your language rifle fully loaded I see. Stop taking potshots at children. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much, but it's a moot issue. People without cable or a good signal generally utilize DVD/videotape content, and that's also free of commercials.

The overwhelming majority of preschool programming is already commercial free, and the major providers seem to be doing fine. In fact, children's programming is one of the few bright spots in recent years. There are many fine shows available from each of the venues I've described.

They do just fine commercial free already.

[MADem]

39. Jesus Christ on a bike, aren't YOU sensitive?

My point is this...all of these rich so and so's who tout their cable or dish programming (like you did in your post) don't seem to understand that there are a whole bunch of kids who will be 'left behind' because their parents CAN'T AFFORD IT. If it doesn't come over the airwaves, via ABC, CBS, NBC or one of the shitty, local doubledigit channels, they are NOT watching.

And if advertising doesn't pay the bills, those kids don't GET children's programming. Unless they can get a PBS signal, which isn't uniformly available.

READTomPaine. READ. You describe venues that people have to PAY FOR. Cable on Demand? Ah, that's just the answer for someone who doesn't have the dough to pay the car note or the light bill reliably.

So cut with the elitist bullshit and excessive, whining dudgeon. And get off that high horse and read what I actually wrote. I'm not taking potshots at children, but you're looking at the world through moneyed, rose-colored glasses, without a clue as to how some people actually LIVE.

[ReadTomPaine]

44. So now you suddenly care about "snotnose" "little shits"?

Those were your hyperbolic phrases, not mine. Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling here. A person who gave a damn about children wouldn't use the loaded language or the contempt you've displayed. This has clearly become a matter regarding your discussion board ego, not any issue you suddenly care about.

As far as whining elitism, I wouldn't dare step on your territory. That's your beat and you can keep it, along with the strawman, shifting arguments of yours. The fact remains that like it or not, the vast majority of this programming is already commercial free. No amount of stamping your feet or red faced profanity on your part will change that, thank goodness.

[MADem]

46. Look, I call kids snotnoses because they have snotty noses

I call them anklebiters and rugrats too.

And if you don't like it, hit ignore, or piss off--whichever you prefer. But try reading the thread before you get all shitty and superior--you're the one with your head lodged firmly in a dark, tight space, telling that single mom on welfare and food stamps to tune into CABLE ON DEMAND for their little kiddies...what, should they stop by the BABY EINSTEIN shop too on their way back from the free clinic? Perhaps they should buy their clothes at the place where Britney Spears gets hers, instead of from the Salvation Army?

That's the sort of advice an elitist ignoramus would push. Again, read what YOU wrote. And take a reality pill.

[ReadTomPaine]

47. The only person here displaying ignorance of reality is you.

Those preschool & toddler disks/tapes (yes even the excellent Baby Einstein content you ridicule) and many more are available free of charge to low income parents across the country. DVD players & VCRs cost 50$ or less. Anyone with a TV can afford them. Basic cable or dish packages are commonplace even in the poorest of trailer parks, just look at roof next time you pass one.

You likely already know all of this (or should, since it's part and parcel of your arguments) but since I don't think bringing educational materials to low income children is more important to you than maintaining the ego trip you’ve displayed here, I doubt that you care.

All of this is beside the point, of course, since your main contention is that these programs couldn’t possibly be made without commercials. Well guess what, they are already made that way. Don’t shift to nonsensical arguments or blame me for your offense at this reality. If you are really passionate about this issue, give the people over at Disney, Noggin etc. a call and demand those advertisements. Spread the love.

[MADem]

52. Roll down your limo window every so often and have a look at how the

other half lives.

You display your profound ignorance every time you try to justify your stumbling, rambling justifications.

First, you have no idea how many kids I have, or how many kids or grandkids I have raised. Yet you boldly make assumptions that I don't care about kids because you don't like a term I used. Guess you're one of those clairvoyants, eh? You aren't very good if that is the case.

That's where you first fucked up, yet you kept on.

Then, you go on about CABLE programming, which I point out isn't viable for people who can't pay the light bill. You blow that argument off by INSISTING that YES, they CAN afford it. Why? Because YOU say so.

I got news for you--I volunteer amongst some very, very poor folk. They CAN'T afford cable, and they don't HAVE it. You are WRONG. But hey, that likely won't stop you!!!

And STILL, you persist--suggesting that these poor folk scamper out (in what, the family car? The one they DON'T HAVE?) to the nearest big box store (tons of THOSE in blighted neighborhoods) and spend a precious fifty bucks on a VCR, because, "according to YOU" they "MUST" be able to afford one--give me a BREAK. When a mother needs groceries, she isn't going to spend fifty bucks on a goddamned VCR. Or tapes. Or DVDs. We're talking hand-to-mouth living here. The kind of hand-to-mouth living that gets a TV from someone who is moving and doesn't want to haul the thing walking to their new apartment. The kind of hand-to-mouth living that buys a shitty old non-cable-ready TV at the Salvation Army for six bucks as a Christmas present for all the kids. The ONLY present. For ALL the kids.

But I guess you've never seen that sort of thing in your elite little world.

And these wonderful programs are available free of charge? OH REALLY? Where? The 'good' library, as opposed to the shitty one that they closed that used to be in the ghetto? Does the bus go there? How many changes would one have to make? And then, there's the issue of bus fare.

All this IS beside the point, because apparently you don't watch network Saturday morning programming. You know, the shit that they broadcast over the air, with commercials. The stuff that kids WITHOUT cable watch.

The rich are different, ah reckon.

Spread the love, indeed. Look around--there isn't much love in the poorer neighborhoods of America. But if you don't look, you don't know. And it's clear to me that you DEFINITELY don't know.

[ReadTomPaine]

53. That’s right, it’s called a library.

How ironic that you’ve been admonishing me to read and you don’t seem to have a clue about what’s inside most libraries. Moreover, these materials are also available from most schools and many low income programs on a lending basis, so even if you don’t have a car you can pick them up via the teacher from your child, when they come home from school by bus, etc.

You’ve whittled down your arguments until the list of qualifiers you’re using to describe this example family of yours belongs in a Christian Children’s Fund commercial. A family in such circumstances has larger problems than a specific flavor of TV programming, so again this is a dead end argument.

I can't believe that you're still nosing around this bone, but largely for the benefit of the few people reading who haven't dismissed you already, I'll break it down.

You: "Kiss children's programming goodbye without advertising"

Fact: High quality commercial free programming for young children already exists for virtually all incomes and circumstances across the country.

You are incorrect. I’m sorry, but there is nothing else to say.

[MADem]

54. And how many of them are in blighted neighborhoods?

If you read, as you admonish me, you'd note I pointed out the libraries aren't IN those shitty neighborhoods with those network-watching, rabbit ears TV kids.

And if you knew much about some of the shitty schools these kids go to (but not in summer, so they're shit out of luck, aren't they?), they have to lock the library because it gets vandalized. There aren't any nice videos and DVDs, and damn few books. The teachers bring in books, paper, pencils that they buy themselves because the school district can't afford that stuff. But hey, you live in Perfectville, and that's not YOUR reality, ergo, it doesn't exist.

But here's the REAL point, which you seemed to have missed. The OP was discussing PROGRAMS WITH ADS, and inquiring as to the benefits of regulation on these very programs--not these wonderful little DVD and bits of "cable on demand" fluff that you want to keep bringing up, as if by continuing to repeat the same crap, you'll make it true. You keep touting your little privleged world, insisting that everyone else lives in it, when they don't, and you continue to ignore the salient, simple fact that ADS DO APPEAR on network children's Saturday morning television programming. Even if YOU don't like it, those ads DO appear. And if they don't appear, those network shows go away.

And if that happens, why, you can feel good and smug. And those kids in the shitty neighborhood will have nothing to watch on Saturday morning, unless you buy them a satellite dish and pay the subscription for them. Which you won't do, because these kids don't exist in your world, because you say so.

FACT: The original post discussed regulation of ads on children's programs.
FACT: Network TV children's programming show ADS.

Simple enough for you? Did I break that down enough for you to get it?

[ReadTomPaine]

55. I’m sorry, but I’m not feeding your Commedia dell'Arte any further

Perhaps if you could find someone either more eloquent or in better charge of the subject to argue in your stead we could continue, otherwise I’m afraid everything that needs to be said I’ve already written above.

If you have a problem with that, talk with my Limo driver.

[MADem]

56. As well you shouldn't. But hey, turn on that limo TV tomorrow and

check out the ads on the network cartoon shows. Maybe you can drive into a crappy neighborhood and let some of the poor kids without cable watch along with you.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. No. And I say that as a mother of young children.

Because

#1. I have no problem telling my kids "no" when I need to do so;

#2. My kids need to learn how to deal with the onslaught of advertising and not get a sudden exposure as a teen;

#3. I don't want the government defining how much is enough in this area because it opens the door for further involvement via regulation of other aspects I deem personal choices.

[nosillies]

10. Agreed

In many ways, I would love to say yes. Not for my children, but for the children of parents too ignorant to teach them better.

But on principal, I couldn't stand someone deciding what was and was not "dangerous" for my child.

[Ron Green]

13. We, as a society, make those decisions regularly.

From DDT to flammable pajamas, the news breaks all the time that something the Free Market wants to sell us is harmful or otherwise not a good idea. I hope our government can stay independent enough from its corporate masters to do a good job, using real science, to know what is and is not dangerous for you and your child.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Tricky question.

I would say yes, but I wonder if watching advertisements during youth is anything like playing in mud- it builds up the immune system.

I'm all for banning that shit in schools though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Absolutely Not. Unless It Is Dangerous Then The Marketers Have The Right.

I see no reason whatsoever why there should be limits. Children are a huge target market and as such businesses have every right to market towards them.

I also agree 100% with BurgherHoldtheLies comments above.

[Ron Green]

9. I think it IS dangerous, in ways that are not widely understood.

Marketing targeted to children seeks to develop brand awareness during a formative age, replacing what (before the electronic media environment) consisted of folk songs, Sunday school stories, fairy tales and nursery rhymes. In other words, the literary experience of children is being privatized. I consider this dangerous in the extreme, to replace myth and allegory, building blocks of meaning and critical thinking, with brand loyalty.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Let Me Clarify. Dangerous As In Sticks Of Fucking Dynamite LOL

Just wanted to make sure the context was clear.

[Ron Green]

15. As I said, some dangers are not well understood.

The Libertarian market-monkeys would have us believe that a toxic culture is the result of a nanny-state government that tries too hard to make peoples' decisions for them, and that's an attractive argument that's endorsed by ditto-heads nationwide. Less well-known, however, is the agenda for addiction, and it's fueled by advertising, corporate control of the government and the replacement of citizenship with consumerism.

People with plenty of education can usually figure out what's best for themselves and their families, but a great number of people are led by advertising into all sorts of "instant fixes" for the pain of life. In the case of children, indoctrination at a very early age has become more sophisticated and carefully controlled.

I'd almost rather take my chances with the dynamite. At least you can pinch off the fuse.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. To Each Their Own. I Think The Advertising Is Fine And Also Feel That I

have far more pressing matters that warrant my attention.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

26. But you can "pinch off the fuse"....don't have a TV in the house

I respect parents who make the choice to not have any TV's in their house. But, it's the choice of the parents, not the government.

[Ron Green]

30. Perfect! It's individual choice! This is what the advertisers want.

They want you to keep saying that corporations are not responsible for public health, but only parents are. That way it's always about "freedom of choice." Whether children start to smoke, or young girls get eating disorders, or kids are more brand-aware than politically aware.

Notice how, rather than talk about public health issues, some people always get into anecdotes of their own childhood? This completely ignores the responsibility of our government to regulate HARMFUL activities of the corporations, including advertising to children. This Libertarian la-la land is where DUers and Freepers come together.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

37. And the regulate everything mindset gives the fundies their opening

They make up their own "science" to support their point of view and we end up with government intrusion like Schiavo, morning-after pill delay, and denial of stem cell research.

I, as a parent, can "regulate" what goes on in my home and do not want the government deciding.

[nosillies]

42. I don't trust this "government" to regulate jack-shit

[Ron Green]

49. You think the Fundies are more scary than the advertisers?

Do some checking on their respective budgets and number of households reached. Fundies are nothing compared to the multinationals in their manipulation of science and their influence on the culture.

You can keep your children away from Jerry Falwell, but not from Ronald McDonald.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

51. Hint: SpongeDob, Patwa Robertson and Tinky Winky Falwell are corporations

And, yes, I find them more controlling, zealous and frightening than any company advertising.

Companies eventually yield to public opinion via the market pressures...fundies don't compromise because their blind faith makes them absolute in their crusade.

[KittyWampus]

18. Also, children's brain development doesn't get to critical thinking til

a certain age.

Very interesting point you made about symbolism and imagery they're getting being privatized. As in, Disney holds the copyright to kids image of Cinderella.

[nosillies]

20. Like 22

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

24. I'm 40something and still working on it...

[Ron Green]

25. I agree. Old MacDonald and Aesop were always in the public domain,

but marketers, through the electronic environment, have captured the rights to children's archetypes. It's an easy step from there to tobacco, or even more insidiously, the addiction to shopping for a certain brand for the rest of their lives.

The marketing psychologists know what the hell they're doing.

[MADem]

23. Baby's First Gun!! Baby's First Gin Bottle (comes with free popinjay)

:rofl: :rofl:

Lawdamercy, one could have some fun with this concept!!!!

[Warpy]

6. I want to ban it completely

because no child has the facts to make an informed decision about buying any product, whether it's food or toys.

Pushing products at children is unethical.

[KittyWampus]

22. They also lack the brain development

[benEzra]

36. Young children also don't have MONEY...

unless their parents give it to them, and allow them to spend it on useless crap that's bad for them.

My personal view is that it's better for a child to learn the hard lessons about hucksters and materialism while still a child, than to have to learn those lessons as a young adult, when they are a LOT more expensive and the consequences are more longlasting.

Commercials aimed at kids can do no more than get them to nag their parents to buy them useless crap.

Our kids watch PBS and DVD's. No commercials, and little to no advertising.

[calico1]

11. No.

Parents need to make the decisions and also make it clear to kids that they are the ones deciding what goes in the cart and what doesn't. My parents did... much to our dismay at having to eat the "junky" Cheerios instead of the "much better" Fruit Loops or Lucky Charms. They were in charge and we knew it. Why do we feel so intimidated by little children today? Since when did they become in charge? Besides, kids need to be taught to deal with the real world. How long are we going to be able to protect them? Sooner or later they will be exposed to things we have no control over because we can't be with them 24/7. Not as they get older. And it's good for them to hear "no, you can't have that" once in a while.

[nosillies]

17. LOL...we LIVED for Saturdays because we sometimes got Lucky Charms

instead of eggs or oatmeal on Saturdays.

It is much easier if that "training" starts early. I can remember hearing "you want McDonald's, fine, you're outside for an hour running it off afterwards." To this day, fast food = treadmill to me. Lessons learned young stick.

I just feel for those children who don't get taught many lessons. But then again, I sure wouldn't want someone else deciding that the lessons I teach my child are "bad" and that they should take over for me. (Thinking of my fundie neighbors who are probably so disturbed because I want to teach my child that it's not OK to hate people who are different from us.)

This is a tough one!

[Amy6627]

32. I agree in principle with you, but reality is totally different. Do you

have kids? Children's shows are already one long commercial, and the ads are just bomarding them. I think the question was limit not eliminate. I tell my son no all the time. Most of the time I lay out the rules for the shopping trip before we go in. Like we are just going in for xxxx, do not ask me for any toys or whatever. Sometimes I say you can pick out one thing today under x amount of dollars. I'm all for limiting advertizing.

[nosmokes]

27. Absolutely! kid's brains aren't developed and pointing ads to them at ages

when they are in they are in crucial development stages is setting them up to be lifetime over consumers. shopping should never be a pasttime or a hobby FCOL. every time we buy something we've depleted the planet of something. if anything we need to be raising anti-shoppers, despite what the vice president wants us to do to help the war effort.:P

[nosillies]

28. I love shopping!!!!

I just rarely buy. I'm thinking of starting a fantasy shopping league, if anyone's interested.

[KittyWampus]

29. sometimes I window shop like I'm looking at museum displays

Early 21st century kitsch.

[nosmokes]

34. as long as you leave your wallet at home and take mass transit i spose ya

ain't harmin anyone but yourself. it's a victimless crime so to speak so i reckon you get a hall pass.:hi:

obviously i don't have that gatherer chromosone so i guess it's easier for me to get all self rrighteous about it too.

[Amy6627]

31. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!! Oh God YES!

[breakaleg]

35. Absolutely!

I lived for 5 years in a country with no commercials on tv, or at least kids programming. And we come back here and in 5 minutes I've got a little victim on my hand of all of the advertising! The change in my child is startling.

[Rosemary2205]

38. Children don't have "buying habits"

They bitch and scream and act up until Mom and Dad fold like a cheap suit. Yes, I think there has to be a few rules on marketing to children but in the end it's Mom and Dad that control the remote, the magazine purchases and the internet use.

[annabanana]

40. (sigh) There USED to be rules about that.

There also used to be "truth in advertising" laws.

If there are any strays still on the books, they are More honored in the breach.

[havocmom]

45. Yep, I remember rules re ads in kids' programming

and the world did not end because there was some regulation. In fact, things may have been a bit better back when the Public Air Ways were treated as public resource lent to corporations based on rules and requirements.

I recall a big stink in the early 60s about sound levels for commercials too. Many stations/advertisers got penalized for commercials that were louder than programs.

Ah, the good ol days, when people regulated corporations, not the other way around. x(

[fed-up]

41. "I" did-I disconnected satellite dish almost 5 years ago-son was 12 n/t

[OhioBlue]

43. I would support some regulation

As I read through the thread, and we focused on TV commercials, I tend to agree with those that make the point that parents can find alternative media or simply tell their children "no" when they beg for a brand of cereal, fast food, etc. I would however be in favor of limiting content of such commercials - companies can run a regular advertisement showing children playing with or eating their product... but make sure there are boundaries on what type of products and/or tactics such advertisers can use.

I also read the comments regarding the "privatization" of child hood.... I think we need to be very aware of marketing tactics. It is not only TV commercials, but embedded commercials, school sponsorships, (Pepsi recently paid 1/2 of the local HS football field's new astroturf) and make sure we don't head down a path that has our teachers looking like NASCAR drivers b/c public funds were cut but Cheerios bought new text books on the condition the teacher wore a patch and thanked them at the end of every school day, or Exxon donates some gasoline/diesel for the school buses if each school bus is painted with their logo....

So... yes, I support regulation of marketing tactics aimed at children, but not an outright ban.

[Red Right and BLUE]

48. So far I'm inclined to say 'yes'

Kids don't have jobs or money. I do understand the idea that they should be exposed to the way things really are and to being told 'no'. But I think I can do a good job at that with or without ads aimed at children. I resent advertisers who basically use children as nag machines to hock a product. I think it's a disgusting practice. McLibel, anyone?

[MazeRat7]

50. I would be inclined to limit children.... (n/t)