Marketing to Children Should Be Banned Essay

Introduction

Today, all the people are exposed to catchy advertisings that promote various goods and services. Children can be regarded as one of the most vulnerable populations whose perceptions largely depend on the impact of media. In this connection, some scholars and practitioners believe that marketing to children should be banned to protect them (Smolin, 2015), while others argue that such marketing cannot be eliminated, but it can be properly regulated by governments and involved companies (Kasser and Linn, 2016; Kraak et al., 2016). Since food and toys marketing is the most widespread for the children’s segment, this paper will focus on these areas to discuss the identified issue.

Examining Reasons for Banning Child Marketing: Food and Toys

Marketing is a significant part of commercialisation, with the purpose of promoting goods and services to gain profits. Being attached to the TV, the Internet and various gadgets, children face tons of advertisements: more than 60% of children and adolescents use online resources on a daily basis (Lapierre et al., 2017). The statistics show that every third child in the US and Europe has overweight or obesity, which pose additional health concerns and associated costs (Kelly et al., 2015). In particular, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular problems, anxiety and depression are among the major adverse consequences (Kelly et al., 2015). The potential role of marketing in this situation is explored by a range of studies, which point to child behaviours regarding food and beverage consumption. According to Barquera et al. (2018), marketing creates an obesogenic environment in elementary schools and lower-income communities, which was established on the sample of 60 schools in two Mexican cities. The study indicates that food marketing strategies were not consistent with the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) recommendations.

While obesity and overweight compose one reason for banning or regulating child marketing, there is a link with movies as entertainment. The study by Dixon et al. (2017) found that movie tie-in premiums (MTIPs) shape the preferences of children, making them choose unhealthy options. The participants of the investigation were more likely to choose McDonald’s Happy Meals compared to healthier meals, when the former were shown on videos. At the same time, children selected healthy foods in the case when only healthy meals were presented in the video. The authors claim that food marketing to children should be restricted, and practices encouraging healthy nutrition should be promoted. Similar suggestions are provided by Kasser and Linn (2016), who propose policy adjustments to reduce child exposure. According to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of development, the economic system impacts children; for example, corporate capitalism underestimates child nutrition and prioritises profits (Kasser and Linn, 2016). To address the negative impact, businesses can reduce and make their advertising less lucrative, and governments can issue special policies (Taillie et al., 2019). For instance, fast food billboards should be located at a certain minimum distance from schools.

Food marketing pressure on children and adolescents is complicated by the tendency of this population to underestimate their vulnerability to its influence. Elliott (2017) emphasises that public health and ethical questions are transcended by teenagers’ self-identification needs. The recent study that asked the views of 12-14 years old participants regarding the ban on marketing shows that the majority of them are opposed to it (Elliott, 2017). These results point to the need to engage and educate children when it comes to banning marketing and improving media literacy.

The gendered nature of marketing to children is another critical issue that justifies the ban of such advertisings. In terms of the ethical assumptions, child marketing violates gender equality and corporate social responsibility principles (Fine & Rush, 2018). The parents, politicians and other interested parties declare that gendered toy marketing fosters gender socialisations, acting as a powerful influencer. For example, girls are usually given pink toys and dolls to play with, while boys use superheroes and cars. As suggested by the Consumer Affairs Minister of the UK, Jenny Willott, “who has never had a sewing kit might never discover his talent for design and a girl who has never had a Meccano set may never discover she has real potential as an engineer” (Fine & Rush, 2018, p. 770). In this context, toys are understood as cultural artefacts that translate norms and values to children. Considering that childhood is a period when a person learns primarily by a trial and error method, marketing especially is critical to his or her perception.

The opponents of banning marketing to children state that a lack of these advertisements would not change the situation. For example, there are other sources of gendered socialisation, such as school, TV, social media and so on. Another argument that is provided by those who are resistant to the mentioned ban is that it is the responsibility of parents to control their children’s behaviour. However, it is quite difficult to manage the interactions of children with marketing (Dixon et al., 2017). When a 7-year-old boy plays Minecraft, and the ad offers to purchase new equipment, the boy presses “yes”, and his mother automatically receives a charge since her Apple ID is connected. In addition, it can be claimed that marketing to children helps them in learning and adapting to the environment. Nevertheless, it seems that ads use the behaviour patterns of children to sell them their products, which is not ethical and harmless (Watkins et al., 2016). The solution to the given problem can be to ban certain categories of advertisings by introducing new policies and increasing media literacy among children.

Conclusion

To conclude, marketing to children is a complicated topic that requires further research from scholars and practical steps from policymakers. On the one hand, it should be banned since it is one of the factors that promote child obesity by showing fast food advertisements, while also serving as a source of gendered socialisation and stereotypes. On the other hand, it should not be prohibited as there are positive practices that market milk or fruits and strengthen cultural norms. Based on the opinions that are discussed in this paper, one can assume that marketing to children should be better regulated by governments, and businesses should be encouraged to pay more attention to corporate social responsibility.

Reference List

1. Barquera, S. et al. (2018) ‘The obesogenic environment around elementary schools: food and beverage marketing to children in two Mexican cities’, BMC Public Health, 18(1), pp. 461-470.
2. Dixon, H. et al. (2017) ‘Food marketing with movie character toys: effects on young children’s preferences for unhealthy and healthier fast food meals’, Appetite, 117, pp. 342-350.
3. Elliott, C. (2017) ‘Knowledge needs and the ‘savvy’ child: teenager perspectives on banning food marketing to children’, Critical Public Health, 27(4), pp. 430-442.
4. Fine, C., and Rush, E. (2018)’“Why does all the girls have to buy pink stuff?” The ethics and science of the gendered toy marketing debate’, Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), pp. 769-784.
5. Kasser, T., and Linn, S. (2016) ‘Growing up under corporate capitalism: the problem of marketing to children, with suggestions for policy solutions’, Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), pp. 122-150.
6. Kelly, B. et al. (2015) ‘New media but same old tricks: food marketing to children in the digital age’, Current Obesity Reports, 4(1), pp. 37-45.
7. Kraak, V. I. et al. (2016) ‘Progress achieved in restricting the marketing of high-fat, sugary and salty food and beverage products to children’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94(7), pp. 540.
8. Lapierre, M. A. et al. (2017) The effect of advertising on children and adolescents’, Pediatrics, 140(2), pp. 152-156.
9. Smolin, D. M. (2015) ‘Surrogacy as the sale of children: applying lessons learned from adoption to the regulation of the surrogacy industry’s global marketing of children’, Pepperdine Law Review, 43, pp. 265-344.
10. Taillie, L. S. et al. (2019) ‘Governmental policies to reduce unhealthy food marketing to children’, Nutrition Reviews, 77(11), pp. 787-816.
11. Watkins, L. et al. (2016) ‘Public and parental perceptions of and concerns with advertising to preschool children’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(5), pp. 592-600.