Aug

Branded. Capitalising On Our Children

I’ve said this before, but being frugal isn’t just about saving a buck. It encompasses a whole set of values about sustainable living, community over commercialism, relationships and personal responsibility.

I recently watched a documentary called The Corporation. If you’re interested in the negative side to capitalism, then this is an extremely interesting documentary. You can watch if for free on Google video, or visit The Corporation website to purchase the documentary, learn more or support the project by giving a donation. I warn you, the documentary is three hours long, but well worth the watch.

This film looks at the role of the corporation in our everyday lives, and their role in the destruction of natural resources and the inequitable treatment of human beings all in the name of profit. The documentary raises many, many important issues worth exploring, but I wanted to look at one issue in particular, and that is marketing to children.

I admit that this isn’t an issue that I’m going to have to deal with for a few years yet, but it’s one that I’ve been thinking about lately and an issue, I think, that all parents face.

Marketing to children is big business. Companies and advertisers have researched, understand and exploit the “nag factor” and market not only children’s products to children but also adult products because children’s attitudes to products increasingly affect their parents purchasing decisions.

“One study estimated that children influenced $9 billion worth of car sales in 1994. One car dealer explains: "Sometimes, the child literally is our customer. I have watched the child pick out the car."” T. L. Stanley, `Kiddie Cars’, Brandweek, Vol. 36 (23 October 1995) from the University of Wollongong website.

Further, advertising to children is seen as a long term investment: get them while they are young, their minds not fully developed and they are vulnerable to manipulation, and they will be brand loyal for life. (for interesting info on the development of the child consumer see the article Marketing to Children on the Uni of Wollongong website.)

“…people talk about cradle to grave brand loyalty. You know if you don’t get a child by two or by six you won’t have them at all. Or if you get a child by six you’ll have them for life. So all of a sudden infants are now fair game. And it’s been discovered that six months old, children as young as six months actually respond to brands and recognize brands…The corporate message that children are being implanted with is that buying things will make you happy. Things will make you happy…And children are bombarded with corporate messages from the moment they wake up in the morning to the moment that they go to bed at night. And even in school. And they can’t escape them they’re everywhere.” Dr. Susan Linn, Prof. Of Psychiatry, Baker Children’s Center, Harvard (transcript from movie).

So how does a parent prevent the extreme consumerisation of our children?

One solution, explored on The Wisdom Journal is to protect children as much as possible from attempts at manipulation by marketers by limiting their exposure to marketing, in particular limiting TV time. While I personally believe that limiting TV time is beneficial anyway for everyone, maybe this is also a valid argument based on the premise that young children really don’t have the cognitive development to reason properly. I don’t know. I’ve never tried reasoning with a two year old, so I can’t say from experience whether this premise is valid or not. Ask me in another year or so. The book Affluenza: When Too Much is Never Enough describes how Coke actually affects the brain through branding, in it’s perception of taste, so possibly limiting exposure to advertising and marketing is valid at any age. Companies do, after all, employ psychologists to make manipulation as affective as possible.

My qualm with protecting children from marketing exposure is that by doing so, we’re not teaching them the necessary skills that they will need to make informed decisions as adult consumers. Are we by limiting their exposure, in the long run just making our children more vulnerable to marketing? I can imagine that it would probably be difficult and maybe not appropriate to make every request for something a life lesson. I imagine that it would take a lot of patience explaining why a child can’t have this or that. Further, maybe telling a young child that they can’t eat McDonalds because we don’t support companies that exploit other humans and the environment is way too intense.

Of course there is a middle ground, one that reduces exposure to marketing activities at a young age, and explores them objectively as a child grows older.

I have a feeling that parenting is going to be hard enough as it is without external factors like unethical marketing weighing in. But it’s certainly a concern I take seriously because the last few years have seen me explore for myself society’s worship of consumerism versus values that are more meaningful to me and a lifestyle that is more sustainable in the years to come. These are the values that I want to pass on to my children. As one man pointed out in the film, our lifestyle and choices today are like a compulsory tax that our children will have to pay tomorrow, in one way or another.

What are your thoughts? Are you concerned about this issue? What do you do with your children when it comes to marketing and the ‘nag factor’?