alternet.org— Marketers spend billions attracting kids to junk food they hope will become a lifelong brand attachment. But the effect on kids' health can be costly.
May 3, 2010View in Crawl 4
That would be awesome if parents would actually do their jobs and act as the obstacle between kids and massive amounts of junk food. You can market to them all you like but if the parents actually say 'no' then the kids likely won't have access to it.At least not while they're sitting at home in front of the TV or computer screen all day.
We went into a debate about this in one of my classes. One girl said that parents should take most of the responsibility to deal with advertising. She then went on about how her parents always made sure she only watched non-commercial shows and didn't watch cable networking, and how other parents should step up and not blame the industry. Yeah, tell that to my immigrant-working class parents that don't know what the hell advertising can do, who weren't home most of the time, while kids I went to public school with brought all these snacks that are advertised. I begged my parents to buy me this crap because all the other kids were doing it too. Even before we had cable, I heard kids talking about these cool shows and stuff, and asked if we can have those channels. I just wanted to fit in.Of course parents have responsibility, but look who's also affected the most; parents who can't be there all the time, parents who are uneducated about these things and their children. Is it a coincidence that these groups are usually more likely to be overweight and have lower income?
"The idea that the government should get in the mix and somehow arbitrarily define what constitutes acceptable advertising is absurd."Seriously?
If the companies are simply selling a product that there's demand for then there would be no need for advertising. In many cases marketing creates the demand. Bottled water is a great example of this. It is an overpriced product that has no benefits over tap water. Many of the brands are just bottled tap water. Yet demand for a product that no one in America actually needs exploded in no time.What is absurd is that we allow companies to market anything directly to children. Children are not savy enough to understand marketing. It is not acceptable for adults to manipulate those below the age of consent. Advertising is very effective on adults, but children really don't stand a chance.
Here's a handy tip: if it comes in a plastic wrapper, cardboard box, can or some other combination or variant of this then it's probably not good for your kids. Pretty much all processed "foods" contain mountains of sugar, preservatives, additives and god knows what else. Avoid them.Using that basis as a starting point, it's a pretty simple process to research which processed brands are acceptable and then filling in the rest of their diet with, you know, real food. Fresh fruit, vegetables and meats. Any parent who can't find time to do that is probably a pretty s**tty parent anyhow.
I think it's a combination of marketing and parenting that's making kids susceptible to food ads. I was raised in a vegetarian home, and although I have seen countless ads for "delicious juicy hamburgers" I've never felt the need to eat one. It's about teaching kids to eat healthy AND make independent decisions about consumer spending, especially as the funding towards marketing to children (be it fast food or toys or electronics) grows.
I grew up watching McDonald's Ads - very entertaining and persuasive targeting effectively at children. But at the end of the day, it's still the PARENTS who decide and teach their kids about healthy eating habits. I do bring my kid to KFC once in a while but she doesn't crave for it. She doesn't even like burgers preferring to rice & pasta.
Closed AccountMay 3, 2010
That would be awesome if parents would actually do their jobs and act as the obstacle between kids and massive amounts of junk food. You can market to them all you like but if the parents actually say 'no' then the kids likely won't have access to it.At least not while they're sitting at home in front of the TV or computer screen all day.
Closed AccountMay 3, 2010
We went into a debate about this in one of my classes. One girl said that parents should take most of the responsibility to deal with advertising. She then went on about how her parents always made sure she only watched non-commercial shows and didn't watch cable networking, and how other parents should step up and not blame the industry. Yeah, tell that to my immigrant-working class parents that don't know what the hell advertising can do, who weren't home most of the time, while kids I went to public school with brought all these snacks that are advertised. I begged my parents to buy me this crap because all the other kids were doing it too. Even before we had cable, I heard kids talking about these cool shows and stuff, and asked if we can have those channels. I just wanted to fit in.Of course parents have responsibility, but look who's also affected the most; parents who can't be there all the time, parents who are uneducated about these things and their children. Is it a coincidence that these groups are usually more likely to be overweight and have lower income?
flamekebabMay 3, 2010
"The idea that the government should get in the mix and somehow arbitrarily define what constitutes acceptable advertising is absurd."Seriously?
johndiMay 3, 2010
If the companies are simply selling a product that there's demand for then there would be no need for advertising. In many cases marketing creates the demand. Bottled water is a great example of this. It is an overpriced product that has no benefits over tap water. Many of the brands are just bottled tap water. Yet demand for a product that no one in America actually needs exploded in no time.What is absurd is that we allow companies to market anything directly to children. Children are not savy enough to understand marketing. It is not acceptable for adults to manipulate those below the age of consent. Advertising is very effective on adults, but children really don't stand a chance.
diggeradoMay 4, 2010
Sure... because every parent has time to know exactly what's going on in each particular part of the food industry...People like you are so simple.
champcarMay 4, 2010
Don't have kids.
asdfrewqMay 4, 2010
Here's a handy tip: if it comes in a plastic wrapper, cardboard box, can or some other combination or variant of this then it's probably not good for your kids. Pretty much all processed "foods" contain mountains of sugar, preservatives, additives and god knows what else. Avoid them.Using that basis as a starting point, it's a pretty simple process to research which processed brands are acceptable and then filling in the rest of their diet with, you know, real food. Fresh fruit, vegetables and meats. Any parent who can't find time to do that is probably a pretty s**tty parent anyhow.
cawpinMay 4, 2010
"People like you are so simple."Thanks for the compliment. It isn't a complicated matter so there shouldn't be a complicated solution.
ssimhanMay 5, 2010
I think it's a combination of marketing and parenting that's making kids susceptible to food ads. I was raised in a vegetarian home, and although I have seen countless ads for "delicious juicy hamburgers" I've never felt the need to eat one. It's about teaching kids to eat healthy AND make independent decisions about consumer spending, especially as the funding towards marketing to children (be it fast food or toys or electronics) grows.
westiesinJun 15, 2010
I grew up watching McDonald's Ads - very entertaining and persuasive targeting effectively at children. But at the end of the day, it's still the PARENTS who decide and teach their kids about healthy eating habits. I do bring my kid to KFC once in a while but she doesn't crave for it. She doesn't even like burgers preferring to rice & pasta.