Marketing to children - a learning opportunity

Are children at risk of being unduly influenced by advertising? Yes.

Does it follow that we should therefore regulate marketing to children to prevent the nefarious advertisers from taking advantage of children's  vulnerabilities?

 

In general, my view is no!

That children are especially vulnerable to the temptations offered by sellers of sugar frosties seems indisputable. However, I do dispute the arguments that this implies we ought to block marketing to children. Let me explain why.

 

One of the most common arguments for supporting restriction and regulation of marketing to children runs along the lines that children are exposed to enormous amounts of advertising. Advertisers spend billions of dollars in marketing stuff aimed at children (http://www.care2.com/greenliving/and-they-are-marketing-to-children-too-imagine-that.html). Betsy Moore (2014, "Should marketers be persuading our children" in Marketing and the Common Good) tells us that children are exposed to 25,000 to 30,000 television advertisements each year.

So? 

They are also exposed to thousands, perhaps millions of instances of the letter 't' each year as well. Exposure does not equal influence. The letter 't' is the central brand of the various Christian churches, that is the cross. But no-one is likely to argue that this enormous exposure in some way influences our children to take up the Christian religion.

(It may be noted that the intentionality of the advertiser is irrelevant. It is no matter whether the advertiser - commercial or religious - intends to influence the audience. Vast exposures does not equal influence).

No, the strongest argument is that children are vulnerable, but isn't this part and parcel of being young? Moore (2014, ibid) observes that children "may learn to be unduly materialistic and impulsive". What! Outrageous! Just like vast swathes of the Western consumer landscape, just like us, just like their parents. Oh!

Yes, children need to learn to distinguish messages with persuasive intent from persuasive intent - but this should be broader than simply training them to distinguish commercial from non-commercial messages. Marketers are just one of multiple sources that engage in communications with persuasive intent. Others include politicians, public servants, priests, police, public interest groups, teachers - and parents! 

Of all of the various persuasive messages that people are exposed to, the persuasive intent of marketers is the least disguised. There is no secret that marketers are trying to get people to buy their stuff. Children of course, may not understand that. But that is what learning is all about. Children need to learn that marketers make things look attractive because they want them to buy what they're selling. And of course, this is the first step on a path whereby children develop an understanding that others who are less open about their intent are trying to "sell" them stuff too. Even their parents. 

There is a tendency here to equate the marketer's intent to make a sale as inherently evil. This seems to be unlikely. We are against marketers, only those that deceive or dupe their customers to make their sale. For this reason, we are especially tuned to the vulnerability of the young. However, just because someone is vulnerable does not mean that they are exploited.

Are marketers exploiting children and their vulnerabilities? The literature seems to be surprising quiet on this issue. I suspect that the reason for this is that companies that do dupe and exploit are quickly revealed. No-one likes those kinds of marketers - whether they prey on the young, the elderly, or even we supposedly more wise and careful consumers of the middle-age.

However, this kind of thinking does lead us to consider something important. We appear to be putting up barriers, rules, regulations, when there is no apparent crime. It is like putting up cast iron grills on our window even though we may be living in a safe, well-to-do neighborhood where crime is absent.

However, this analogy highlights another difference. The rules to prevent crime, breaking and entering are in place in all neighbourhoods, but in those neighborhoods where the risk of such crime is high, the residents put up the grills.

Aha! Yes, children are vulnerable, but we really should be helping them erect grills and grates to block the entry of the unscrupulous intruders who cannot be blocked with rules and regulations. All the rules in the world will not block those who are immoral. And arguably, blocking children from exposure to advertising simply deprives them from important learning experiences.

Children of age 2-7 are arguably not much able to buy things for themselves. Their decisions have to be mediated by a parent. And isn't it one of the important roles of a parent to help the child negotiate the real world Persuasive messages - from both commercial and non-commercial sources - are an important part of life. And the child needs to learn to identify persuasive intent, and needs to learn to make decisions for him or herself.

Without such training, then children would grow up to become adults who are themselves vulnerable to the offers of highly processed, sugar-laden foods - and other forms of snake-oil.