Upon reading the material at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood [CCFC] (2013) I found much of the material to resonate with me as I share much of the same opinions.
The dilemma is essentially that advertising affects children in a few ways, the first is obviously the implications of salesmanship on children, but the other more important issue is that advertising does more than convince our children to make a purchase, but it in effect helps establish their behaviors (CFFC, 2013). The concern is that all of the advertising for sexy clothes or violent movies teaches our children how to act. I completely agree with this argument, but I think the major challenge is how to regulate this material as this does not just involve TV ads, but ads that can be seen anywhere in public. I think the first amendment protects advertisers, which while a good thing, also means that there is abundance of questionable material in public places. I think that as a society we should consider the implications of advertising on children and reconsider what we think is ok to publish. I don’t think regulation is the answer, but rather a commitment as a society to improving the content in our lives. I think it would be completely unreasonable to say that violence should not be shown on TV or that sexy clothes manufacturers couldn’t promote their products. I do think that some discretion could be taken on how the promotion is shown and consider whether children would see that content as well as adults. I think the responsibility of this change is on us as consumers as well as on advertisers. If we purchase products based on this form of advertising we are essentially saying that the manufacturer did a great job with promotion, thus encouraging the behavior. If we choose to make a statement about the promotion by not purchasing the products, the advertisers will change their methods. Naturally this is only a concern for parents, but society in general should take note as this is how we are raising the next generation.
The dilemma is essentially that advertising affects children in a few ways, the first is obviously the implications of salesmanship on children, but the other more important issue is that advertising does more than convince our children to make a purchase, but it in effect helps establish their behaviors (CFFC, 2013). The concern is that all of the advertising for sexy clothes or violent movies teaches our children how to act. I completely agree with this argument, but I think the major challenge is how to regulate this material as this does not just involve TV ads, but ads that can be seen anywhere in public. I think the first amendment protects advertisers, which while a good thing, also means that there is abundance of questionable material in public places. I think that as a society we should consider the implications of advertising on children and reconsider what we think is ok to publish. I don’t think regulation is the answer, but rather a commitment as a society to improving the content in our lives. I think it would be completely unreasonable to say that violence should not be shown on TV or that sexy clothes manufacturers couldn’t promote their products. I do think that some discretion could be taken on how the promotion is shown and consider whether children would see that content as well as adults. I think the responsibility of this change is on us as consumers as well as on advertisers. If we purchase products based on this form of advertising we are essentially saying that the manufacturer did a great job with promotion, thus encouraging the behavior. If we choose to make a statement about the promotion by not purchasing the products, the advertisers will change their methods. Naturally this is only a concern for parents, but society in general should take note as this is how we are raising the next generation.
References
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. (2013). Marketing to children (overview). Retrieved from http://commercialfreechildhood.org/issue/marketing-children-overview
No comments:
Post a Comment