Well, should we?
No. Is Congress or whoever actually discussing that?
Nope. They're the easiest to hook.
One question... HOW? Its impossible to stop advertising to children without keeping them in some sort of weird information vacum... which is pretty much impossible to do anyways.
Uh, simple. Prevent advertisements for items specified for certain age groups. Don't allow ads that are meant to appeal to children, like the McDonalds commercials, where they show off toys from a new Disney movie or something.
I think the age for people to be unaffected by advertisements is pretty debatable. Although I hate shameless advertising, removing any form of advertisement certainly won't inspire people to make new products.
Products should be thoroughly investigated before being advertised. I don't mind them appearing on billboard or commercials as long as the products are safe.
your problem is you give the advertising companies far too little credit. Advertising is an art. Its about apealing to people self concious, and thought process. Sure you could phase out all the blatan advertising, but the more subtle, and arguable more effective stuff would be difficult to catch
I'm just throwing it out there for discussion, you know, like a theoretical argument?
I do know places like Sweden are pretty restrictive about advertising during children's television programming. I think that may only extend to junk food adverts as opposed to, say, crappy toys.
I think there's definite merit in the idea of heavily restricting advertising to kids given what we know about psychological manipulation and kids' vulnerability. We've plenty of precedents in restricting what can and can't be advertising, and when, and how. And as far as junk food specifically goes, given a growing body of evidence that some sugars and other food compounds are actually pretty addictive and dangerous (for example, in suppressing the "I'm full" response that makes people stop eating) I wouldn't be opposed to keeping promotion of those things from vulnerable children.
Specops' argument about impracticality is kinda valid, but it's pretty easy to limit TV adverts and while we can't achieve an advertising vacuum, surely "less advertising" is better than "more advertising" if we accept that it's harmful.
Ban all adverts promoting /targetting things towards children, and ban them during normal children watching hours. Force them to target advertisments towards parents, who then can judge what's good or bad for their children. Their judgment can't be worse than a child's, unless they're especially stupid.
Personally I was never, as far as I can remember, heavily influence by advertisments as a youngster. I remember one time McDonalds was giving away Mickey Mouse gloves and I was determined to get them to be like Mario. So natrually I got a meal for the glove. And another one later for the other glove.
I don't really see any trouble with advertising for kids. A kids sees an advert for a toy and they want it. But who buys it for them? I'm certainly not going to buy my kid a toy when he only wants it because of the advert. A good parenting and teaching can kids understand adverts and what they do.
Adveriting for kids has become quite a debate over the years. What I dont understand is why people would rather disucss if adverts are good for kids, rather than discuss how bad parents are for letting kids do nothing but watch Tv all day long. Parents are quick to blame TV for faults rather than create other playtime ideas, which is arguably better.
EDIT: Then again I'm coming from a British Televsion point of view which is no way near the hostile low standards of American TV. Our adverts are much tamer buy yours...
As some form of adult, I don't want Spider-man's Halloween costume advertised to me so I can buy it for children. What will they do, make a serious advert and accompany it with beer or something? lol
I'm okay with advertising to kids. Just say no. :)
The other problem is that in our over-worked world, like it or not, TV's like a third parent to a lot of kids anyway... this ain't the 50s.
Its only a third parent for crap parents.
One of the main arguments against advertising for children is that children have very weak minds which can be manipulated easily. I think it's fair to say this is somewhat true e.g. Santa. But the idea that to avoid kids being 'corrupt' but preventing them seeing adverts targetted at them is flawed and it assumes adults are immune.
Firstly, how can you determine which adverts effectively target people? There is alot of theory and alot of support behind it but at the end of the day you cant guantee if one advert will appeal to one person or not. Advertisers are faced with restrictions all the time and growing. They can easily get around them. But at the end of the day you cant stop kids seeing adverts on the grounds it will force them to buy them, because not every kid likes the same thing.
Second, for advertising to be ruled out for children an age needs to be set. Is 7 too young too be targetted? 8? 6 maybe? The idea behind this is that by a suitable age a child's mind is strong enough to not be maniplauted by advertisments. But thats where it falls flat on its face because age doesnt stop you being manipulated; its knowledge.
This argument assumes that when children see an advert they automatically want the product, and that when you get older you question this or ignore it. This is not true because, shown with the different members on the board, everyone reacts differently to adverts depending on their interest. I didnt wank the Mickey Mouse gloves because I was 8 (or how old I was). I wanted them to be like Mario. Baz didnt want his toys because he saw the advert, he wanted them because he liked the movie. Adults do this all the time and recieve little critiscm yet kids get the most for doing the exact same thing. It's ageist is what it is.
Also consider this: if restricitons on adverts are enforced to prevent children seeing adverts (and for the sake of argument lets say its 8) then youll have children being exposed to adverts later in life with no pevious experience or understanding of what they are seeing, and perhaps no immunity to it. Then we're back to square one and debating whether adverts targetting early pre-teens should be allowed.
Do adverts manipulate people? Yes of course they do. Thats the point of adverts. It's what they are there for. If people are prepared to isolate children from advertisements why not adults? At the end of the day the only bad thing coming out of childrens advertisments is the decrease of a parents bank account. If a parent can teach a child about adverts, possesions and advertisements, with perhaps less dependance on TV then we wouldnt have parents marching demanding no adverts for kids.
Crap parents are quick to blame the 'media'.
[quote=Iris] Don't allow ads that are meant to appeal to children, like the McDonalds commercials, where they show off toys from a new Disney movie or something.
Let's all do the Mario Challenge!
You got to admit, those commercials were somewhat funny...
Also banning advertisements for children will cripple childrens media. Alot of stations running childrens programmes require advertising to survive. Market research shows that some parents do watch shows with their kids, but kids moslty watch by themselves. Anyone's perents gotten them a present they didnt want? Parents make bad choices. Children have the choice of the next Disney film they want to see based on the trailers they have seen, not the ones their parents are taking them to see.
Ban the advertising!
Let us never force parents to actually...be parents!
No advertising to children?
There goes toy companies.
And also, children are just wells of money supplied by their parents. It'd be one of the biggest losses of money in history if we stopped. And no person in the American government wants to lose money.
[quote=Misoxeny]Actually, it's not. You always can, and always will be affected by advertisements. Why? Adverts are meant to inform about, rather than sell, a product. All they want you to do is spend time thinking about the product, positive or negative; it doesn't matter. Seeing a Pepsi commercial and thinking "Pepsi tastes like varnish, **** that ****." is the same as thinking "Oh, I'd rather enjoy a spot of Pepsi with my crumpet." So, really, the only way not to be "affected" by advertising is to live in an information vaccuum.
What I mean is to take impulsive action based on the advertisements. Young kids with no major preference might see a Pepsi commercial and think "Maybe I should try that next time I go to the store" and ask their parents to buy them some. It's whether or not you'll be drawn into wanting to buy it based on what's said and done in the advertisement. When it comes to adults, they're generally less impulsive when it comes to wanting to buy an advertised product. That's probably because they've already developed a personal preference to their foods, drinks, cars, and stuff, and have a stronger sense of whether or not they'll enjoy a product.
I say that parents should take the course of action my parents took upon me: Deny the little shits access to TV except for two hours on Saturday. Alternatively, if they throw a tantrum over the coolest Fischer Price truck that they'll love forever and completely need, they obviously need sense knocking into them. I'm never going to have kids, but if I did I'd sure as hell make them aware of the fact that they don't need this crap.
However, if it's something via which they'll be completely ostracised from their school community for not owning, then I say they ought to get what they want. I wouldn't wish that on any kid of mine. And hey, once it goes out of fashion take it away and put it on ebay :)
Mmm. When I got my N64, I was only allowed to use it on weekends in the morning up until I was nine or ten. There was bugger-all to do outside, so I just sat around in my room reading.
On another subject, there was some controversy in the UK last year over food advertising to children - Should kids be exposed to as many junk food ads as they're currently seeing? Hell no. I say ban ALL junk food ads to kids - I've yet to see a single under ten who isn't the size of a ****ing house. And hey, that's another thing I was never allowed as a kid. My mother brainwashed me into believing that sweets were even worse than drugs or alcohol, and they gave you brain damage. I believe I wound up getting some at a birthday party when I was ten, had a screaming match with her and that was the end of that era. Now my teeth are falling out of my head.
So, basically, kill all morally damaging fun for kids, and you'll have a nation of people just like me in no time.
Yeah, everyone knows kids who grow up playing more than three hours of video games a week turn out like ****. Why do you people keep bringing that up? Different children do things different ways. I know plenty of people who spent most of their time playing games yet turned out fine. To say we should stop letting kids watch tv, play games and such is stupid. I think rather than only showing kids one option, they should be shown both, but be...pushed in one direction based on the child.
[quote=Kodachi]Yeah, everyone knows kids who grow up playing more than three hours of video games a week turn out like ****. Why do you people keep bringing that up?
Either we're hate-fuelled bitter people or we believe that too much of that **** can distract a child from actually growing a brain. In my case, it's a bit of both.
Blacks vs. Mexicans.