Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood

[nfotiu]

I am a parent and don't really understand why I should be outraged. Sure my kids have some brand awareness, but my 7 year old has already pretty much outgrown being swayed to want anything in tv commercials. I don't mind advertising help footing some bills to pay for tvs, movies, sports, etc. I make no effort to shelter my kids from ads, but they seem to have healthy, balanced lives, spending most of their free time outside playing with friends, playing sports, mixed with a little time on their kindle fires, tvs, etc.

I also don't get this anti-consumerism attitude either. Seems like there are a lot of self righteous people who want everyone to just hoard their money and spend none. If everyone did that, where do you all think we'd get our paychecks to put away? It's hard to think of too many jobs out there, or businesses that don't depend on people spending their money. Ads are part of what makes that wheel turn, and I am failing to see why they are evil.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I am a parent and don't really understand why I should be outraged. Sure my kids have some brand awareness, but my 7 year old has already pretty much outgrown being swayed to want anything in tv commercials. I don't mind advertising help footing some bills to pay for tvs, movies, sports, etc. I make no effort to shelter my kids from ads, but they seem to have healthy, balanced lives, spending most of their free time outside playing with friends, playing sports, mixed with a little time on their kindle fires, tvs, etc.

I also don't get this anti-consumerism attitude either. Seems like there are a lot of self righteous people who want everyone to just hoard their money and spend none. If everyone did that, where do you all think we'd get our paychecks to put away? It's hard to think of too many jobs out there, or businesses that don't depend on people spending their money. Ads are part of what makes that wheel turn, and I am failing to see why they are evil.

Because bad parents who babysit their kids with the TV/helicopter parents who wont let their kids play outside want to make sure that 5 hours of Junior's day are spent ingesting wholesome television, and that after a week of cartoons, they won't be begging their cheap parents for the latest toy du jour.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Came into this thread looking for recipes

Left disappointed.

I think theres something wrong with your hat.
Watch the movie or dont comment, your not funny or interesting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Is it corporations' right to profit? Or is it just basic capitalism, freedom to operate their business?

Look closely...semantics.

Saying it's semantics doesn't make it semantics. There's no "right to profit", because rights are prescribed by the obligations of others. Meaning that if companies have a right to profit then there's a social obligation to ensure that companies profit. This is clearly not the case because companies run without profit and fail all the time.

Whereas just having the basic freedom to operate their business is what there is now, which in general is a consequence of having a free society.

That a group of people operating providing goods and/or services can attain a profit is simply a consequence of that freedom.

So no, not semantics.

Originally Posted by vektor

This is missing the point of the entire documentary. The point is that the companies attempt to subvert the parents ability to censor their kids exposure by literally going around the parents. There was a part in it showing how schools accept money in exchange for advertising opportunities.

I can't watch the documentary at this time.

People do things to other people that have negative impacts, it is known, and isn't surprising.

In that instance the fault should lie with the people deciding that advertising in schools is a good idea, and with the people that decided that education wasn't enough of a priority that the funding wasn't adequate.

Originally Posted by drhu22

I suggest that government has safeguards built in to prevent corporate influence from preceding the rights of the general populace. Ie: profit over the health of the consumer mental or physical

In general I have no problem with that, there are already lots of laws and standards along those lines.

Could be easier to say than do though, in the case of advertising in schools is the good of not having advertising sufficient to offset the bad of having a worse education as a result of less money for the school?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I am a parent and don't really understand why I should be outraged. Sure my kids have some brand awareness, but my 7 year old has already pretty much outgrown being swayed to want anything in tv commercials. I don't mind advertising help footing some bills to pay for tvs, movies, sports, etc. I make no effort to shelter my kids from ads, but they seem to have healthy, balanced lives, spending most of their free time outside playing with friends, playing sports, mixed with a little time on their kindle fires, tvs, etc.

I also don't get this anti-consumerism attitude either. Seems like there are a lot of self righteous people who want everyone to just hoard their money and spend none. If everyone did that, where do you all think we'd get our paychecks to put away? It's hard to think of too many jobs out there, or businesses that don't depend on people spending their money. Ads are part of what makes that wheel turn, and I am failing to see why they are evil.

Busybody communists are annoying aren't they?

Cowperson

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Busybody communists are annoying aren't they?

Cowperson

I'm pretty sure libertarians can be terrible parents as well.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I am a parent and don't really understand why I should be outraged. Sure my kids have some brand awareness, but my 7 year old has already pretty much outgrown being swayed to want anything in tv commercials. I don't mind advertising help footing some bills to pay for tvs, movies, sports, etc. I make no effort to shelter my kids from ads, but they seem to have healthy, balanced lives, spending most of their free time outside playing with friends, playing sports, mixed with a little time on their kindle fires, tvs, etc.

I also don't get this anti-consumerism attitude either. Seems like there are a lot of self righteous people who want everyone to just hoard their money and spend none. If everyone did that, where do you all think we'd get our paychecks to put away? It's hard to think of too many jobs out there, or businesses that don't depend on people spending their money. Ads are part of what makes that wheel turn, and I am failing to see why they are evil.

From my experience you are in the minority. What do you think you're doing different? Do you place limits on their internet use, tv watching, video game playing or anything like that? Do your kids beg over and over for something if they want it and if they do what happens? All the children I have met since I was 18 are completely spoiled with constant product overload and over stimulation.

As far as the anti-consumerism goes I think it's grounded in reality, the documentary showed for the first time kids life expectancies are less than their parents' because of the garbage products they subject their bodies to. I really don't think it's about the right to profit here, it's about the right to profit trumping the moral obligation to raise healthy people with brains that function critically. You seem to be looking at it from a micro-economic viewpoint where the documentary in question takes a more macroeconomic approach.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by photon

Saying it's semantics doesn't make it semantics. There's no "right to profit", because rights are prescribed by the obligations of others. Meaning that if companies have a right to profit then there's a social obligation to ensure that companies profit. This is clearly not the case because companies run without profit and fail all the time.

Straight Hohfeld in this thread!

[Russic]

Originally Posted by vektor

From my experience you are in the minority. What do you think you're doing different? Do you place limits on their internet use, tv watching, video game playing or anything like that? Do your kids beg over and over for something if they want it and if they do what happens? All the children I have met since I was 18 are completely spoiled with constant product overload and over stimulation.

As far as the anti-consumerism goes I think it's grounded in reality, the documentary showed for the first time kids life expectancies are less than their parents' because of the garbage products they subject their bodies to. I really don't think it's about the right to profit here, it's about the right to profit trumping the moral obligation to raise healthy people with brains that function critically. You seem to be looking at it from a micro-economic viewpoint where the documentary in question takes a more macroeconomic approach.

I'm in the same boat as nfotiu... I just don't believe some of these problems are as serious as many make them out to be. Kids whining for stuff is a thing they all do. Some parents give in and trade off short term reward for long term pain in the ass, while others maintain boundaries about that sort of thing. Regardless of how the kid is parented, I don't see where advertising plays a huge part.

It's not McDonald's fault our kids are fat, or Pixar's fault our kids don't play soccer. Those decisions ultimately fall to parents, and if things go sideways for a child health-wise, it isn't because the creepy McClown told them to solve their problems with a happy meal.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Russic

It's not McDonald's fault our kids are fat, or Pixar's fault our kids don't play soccer. Those decisions ultimately fall to parents, and if things go sideways for a child health-wise, it isn't because the creepy McClown told them to solve their problems with a happy meal.

It isn't quite as black and white as it appears to be.

Is the company pouring money into research or lobby groups which supports their business model? I.e. Transfats aren't that bad for you or Aspertame isn't dangerous or Drug X is good for you because a Pharma company told your doctor how amazing it was with their own funded study(I am not making a claim one way or another, but you see my point).

Consumers are flooded with a lot of misinformation and sometimes the truth isn't out there to be found because it is clouded by money.

[CaptainCrunch]

I believe that there are barriers that need to be discussed. For the most part its not up to the government to dictate marketing campaigns and advertising strategies with the exception of truly harmful products. IE smokes and Liquor. But they didn't limit how they advertise they dictated who the ads were created for and to an extent the content of the ads.

With Cigarettes they limited the medium that they could be advertised in and that there had to be warnings in the ads.

Same with Liquor.

But for fast food for example its far different.

Its up to the parents to say no for example, not the government.

Its not up to the government for the most part to dictate the use of media for marketing.

I get that people complain and I get that people sit there and b5tch about advertising in schools or mobile phones or via viral videos on the net, but as a parent and as a child the only real freedom we have is to choose. Asking the government to step in and in reality restrict that right to choose is actually really wrong.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Russic

I'm in the same boat as nfotiu... I just don't believe some of these problems are as serious as many make them out to be. Kids whining for stuff is a thing they all do. Some parents give in and trade off short term reward for long term pain in the ass, while others maintain boundaries about that sort of thing. Regardless of how the kid is parented, I don't see where advertising plays a huge part.

It's not McDonald's fault our kids are fat, or Pixar's fault our kids don't play soccer. Those decisions ultimately fall to parents, and if things go sideways for a child health-wise, it isn't because the creepy McClown told them to solve their problems with a happy meal.

It isn't close to as bad as some make it out and kids are much better off now than the BS "good old days" argument you here all the time.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Russic

I'm in the same boat as nfotiu... I just don't believe some of these problems are as serious as many make them out to be. Kids whining for stuff is a thing they all do. Some parents give in and trade off short term reward for long term pain in the ass, while others maintain boundaries about that sort of thing. Regardless of how the kid is parented, I don't see where advertising plays a huge part.

It's not McDonald's fault our kids are fat, or Pixar's fault our kids don't play soccer. Those decisions ultimately fall to parents, and if things go sideways for a child health-wise, it isn't because the creepy McClown told them to solve their problems with a happy meal.

I think the key delineation is that the documentary is 100% about the U.S. I don't have TV and in Canada it probably is a lot easier to avoid the advertisements simply because of lower population densities. The major international companies aren't going to permeate out senses when there's only 30 million of us. I maybe saw 20 commercials all of last year, something that's probably near impossible in the U.S. That being said for some reason all the young people I meet are completely absorbed in consumerism and their self-worth is often tied to the newest best things, maybe just a misnomer.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Russic

or Pixar's fault our kids don't play soccer.

Come now, even Pixar had their PSA for not turning into a fatty:

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

It isn't quite as black and white as it appears to be.

Is the company pouring money into research or lobby groups which supports their business model? I.e. Transfats aren't that bad for you or Aspertame isn't dangerous or Drug X is good for you because a Pharma company told your doctor how amazing it was with their own funded study(I am not making a claim one way or another, but you see my point).

Consumers are flooded with a lot of misinformation and sometimes the truth isn't out there to be found because it is clouded by money.

Except that we do see a lot of educational bits that transfats are bad for you and Aspertane can be dangerous.

The advertising of Drugs is actually a poor example because those ads are forced to lay out potential side effects.

On the counter balance of these products with "dangerous" Ads we see the effects of the courts.

The government shouldn't limit, it should however enforce and educate.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The government shouldn't limit, it should however enforce and educate.

where is all this logic in government?

[Devils'Advocate]

I've always thought that for every dollar a company spends on advertising, they should have to give a dollar to a NGO that will dispute whatever they have to say in their advertisement. If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the company/product, the NGO couldn't find anything.

At the very least, there should be stricter laws about what a company can imply that their product does. Every second ad on TV suggests that their product will get them sex.

As for those that say "oh, the ads don't impact ME, I'm NEVER swayed by advertisements", well there is a reason that companies use them. You may not think that they influence you, but most of us, subconsciously, will pick up a product only on brand recognition. You want to buy an air freshener and you see Glade and some brand you've never seen before.... you pick up the one you saw an ad for yesterday without even thinking about it. They don't plaster our lives with ads because they want to throw money around for no good reason.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by vektor

All the children I have met since I was 18 are completely spoiled with constant product overload and over stimulation.

Huh. So, since you became an adult (at least in the legal sense) you've started to notice that "today's kids" are spoiled and lazy?

You should ask your dad and your grandfather about this phenomenon. I bet they know a thing or two about it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I've always thought that for every dollar a company spends on advertising, they should have to give a dollar to a NGO that will dispute whatever they have to say in their advertisement. If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the company/product, the NGO couldn't find anything.

Is this what we call "Guilty until proven innocent"? I think it is!

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

At the very least, there should be stricter laws about what a company can imply that their product does. Every second ad on TV suggests that their product will get them sex.

There are laws regulating what they can say their product does.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As for those that say "oh, the ads don't impact ME, I'm NEVER swayed by advertisements", well there is a reason that companies use them. You may not think that they influence you, but most of us, subconsciously, will pick up a product only on brand recognition. You want to buy an air freshener and you see Glade and some brand you've never seen before.... you pick up the one you saw an ad for yesterday without even thinking about it. They don't plaster our lives with ads because they want to throw money around for no good reason.

It absolutely does work. People can be influenced to buy stuff. Creating an even larger army of bureaucrats to sift through it all before it reaches the consumers, which is what you appear to be suggesting, isn't going to change that.

[The Yen Man]

Love the "in my day" arguments. Growing up in the 80's and 90's, kids were subjected to just as much advertising, albeit through less channels. Sure the internet wasn't publically available, but there were a ton of ads on TV and on billboards. Kids begged to go to MacDonalds. Every kid wanted the latest Transformers, NES, and Super NES. We were just as materialistic back then as kids are now.

In fact, I would argue kids today are more informed than we were. They have a wealth of info right at their finger tips. Myths are instantly debunked, and there are consumer reviews of just about every product you can imagine.