Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Absolutely not, otherwise the parent will have to buy the product for them, because they were manipulated.
If it's a kid's product then that is the way sell it. If my child sees a product they want then they can tell me. My children know their tastes better than I do so it's ok that they get to see what products are out there. I still get the final say as to whether they can purchase it or not. Parents don't have to buy the product if they don't want their kid to have it.
However, I remember seeing on television about McDonald's and how the company specifically marketed towards children. Do you agree with this?
Sure. McDonald's has a right to market how they wish and consumers can respond accordingly. Since parents are in charge of their children they an explain to the child whether or not they should eat at McDonald's. My daughter likes McDonald's, we just don't eat it every day, or even every week for that matter. It doesn't matter how much they "target" my daughter because 1) Her time in front of the TV, and therefore the commercials for it, is limited and 2) she eats what we say and where we say we are eating, like it or not.
You are a good parent then. However, there are some families whose parenting are weak and the kids are corrupted by the television.
I agree with both of you. It is tough being a parent today. Especially with all these new technologies. Personally, I love LeapFrog learning toys. I have twin girls, this means I have to buy two of each. Sharing is something I am still working on…they are 4 years old and that concept is still not in their vocabulary.
This parenting thing is a double edged sword. Right now, my twins do not ask for anything like toys, but when they do, I will have to final say. When it comes to food, fast food, if we do eat out, it is Wendy's. McD's and BK, IMO, is much more processed food that is not good for their developing brains.
Back to marketing learning products for kids..Lori is right, Madision Ave is being paid by these huge corporations to sell our children on stuff. It is sad though, a lot of kids have no idea how to be creative like I was in the 70s. Now, all the learning products are electronic. But like I stated before, I do like LeapFrog and Little Einsteins.
I used to work for a company that picked up cash from all those stores . . . You know, you have seen these armored trucks and vans.
We used to pick up money around the Christmas Season from the Toys R Us chain of toy stores. More than a Million bucks a day for about two weeks running from each store. Way much less now, though, because everyone now uses plastic to buy toys – and the toys cost way too much for to carry cash to pay for them.
However, now that I am a Grand Parent, I think that the toy ads should be aimed at parents and grand parents – Just because of the astronomical cost of some of these so-called "toys" . . . like the Wii system, cell phones that double as computers, and the like. I hear tell that pretty soon the Japanese will be marketing personal robots that walk and talk just like a Human . . . Can you say "Gotta lotta buckarooos?"
So much for Little Einstein . . .
Then they need to be better parents. The rights of others should not be infringed because some people are not making responsible or wise decisions.
This is an interesting topic. As a parent, I know that corporations will try to market their products to my children wherever they can capture their attention — not just on television. Marketing is everywhere, from character-driven clothing or breakfast cereal boxes to strategically-placed gum and candy in the drugstore checkout.
I'm not one to say that companies should be regulated in some way to avoid marketing to kids — unless their products are unsafe.
What I do try to do is point out to my children when and why they are being manipulated. If they have an interest in a toy they've seen on TV, we go to the store to check it out. We talk about the price. I include them on purchasing decisions. My elementary school age kids have become pretty wary of product packaging and placement and are starting to take the next step to evaluate the product itself, quality and pricing, before making a purchase — especially if they're using their own hard-earned (through chores) money.
I think parents have to teach their children to be thinkers and to operate in the real world. Part of that is teaching them how to make good choices in all areas — including good economic choices.
- Midwest Mom
Parents should always be involved. I don't agree that companies should market to children. They are children! I agree with Jared about television corrupting children's minds. Much like music, movies, video games, etc. It is the responsibility of the parent! __http://Groovybabyblog.blogspot.com
Most sensible.
Quite simply if advertisers or the companies that hired them did not think that targeting children as a market wasn't effective they wouldn't do it. They've always done it, for as long as there have been advertisements in things like radio and newspaper (and now internet and TV). We either have more disposable income to waste on silly things like fast food, children's toys and video games or parents exercise less control over what they buy for their children than they used to (or, worse, both). And this makes more of a market for advertisers to compete in.
If we want to be annoyed about it, the blame is our own, not the company trying to sell us something. We always have the final choice not to say no.
Great debating, Lori. Spot on.
That's the excuse for everything.
It happens to be more or less a principle of law, if conveniently ignored, and part of the basis for a philosophy of ethics. If it must be an "excuse", then it is a good one.
The problem is that children cannot just "get" better parents. You must remember that this is about the children not the parents. Children are being persuaded to lead unhealthy lifestyles by consuming unhealthy food and beverage products and they do not have the intellectual capacity to weigh the implications of such an unhealthy lifestyle (the don't even know what an unhealthy lifestyle is). You say, well, thats fine because the kids don't have the say-The parents do and they do have the intellectual capacity to make good decisions. But what if a kid has a parent who will give him cheetos and pepsi every time he asks just to shut him up? The reality is that many kids do not have the parental protection that you say makes marketing targeted towards children okay.
But that just leads back to harry's comment, not all kids have good parents and those that don't can't simply get new and improved ones, meaning that those selfsaid kids are completely subject to the wills of the companies that are advertising to them. Those kids, sadly, are common in our world, which means that a sizeable amount of our youth will grow up with bad life-styles, probable obesity/being overweight, diabetes, short lifespans, and corrupt views on economics (messed up values of things/items, and the act of buying)
That doesn't technically make it the companies fault does it? If the child's parent isn't monitoring things correctly, than it's the parent's fault, not the companies. If the parental monitoring is the defense behind the advertising, that is.
If a parent monitors and controls what the child is watching, the marketing isn't an issue, but if they don't care, then it is a big issue. It seems too cut and dry to me. If it is that way, than the "bad parents" are doing more than complying with companies, but corrupting the children themselves. Bad parents are bad parents.