Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Conspicuous Little Consumers

By Kelly Sharp, Texas Observer. Posted February 13, 2006.


A new book explores the effects of marketing on children. Is it making them more autonomous, or turning them into depressed, obese mega-consumers?
imagedb
Born to Buy
Advertisement

Juliet Schor's latest book, Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture, represents the culmination of many things: her training as an economist and sociologist, her ongoing analysis of consumer culture in previous books (The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure and The Overspent American: Upscaling, Downshifting and the New Consumer), and her own experience as a mother.

Born to Buy examines the increased involvement of children in consumer culture, specifically as targets of advertising, and the resulting effect on their well-being. Schor balances her well-researched presentation of rather alarming data with a voice that is not alarmist, but practical, informative, and readable.

In many ways her conclusion comes as no surprise. Readers may be surprised, however, by her data -- namely, the sheer volume of marketing to which children are exposed. According to Schor, the advertising industry spent $100 million on marketing to children in 1983; by 2004 that amount had increased to $15 billion. Advertisements saturate television, radio, and print media. More disturbing, however, is the extent to which marketers have infiltrated schools, the Internet, airplanes, restrooms, and essentially every other public space available.

These ads are the product of some of the finest anthropological research and creative thinking in the marketing business. Techniques such as anti-adultism, which pits children against adults in the struggle for marketed goods, and age compression, which targets children of younger and younger ages, combine with all the traditionally manipulative advertising techniques to create a culture in which children do not merely consume, but also find their identity in consumption.

The effect on children's psychological, physical, and social health is, predictably, deplorable. Schor notes the dramatic increase in incidences of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, obesity, and psychosomatic disorders.

With their characteristically underestimated precociousness, children are not wholly unaware of this trend. Before I spoke with Juliet Schor, I ate lunch with children at the school where I teach. I explained to them that I was interviewing a woman who had written a book saying that children today saw more commercials than ever before. I asked them if they thought it was true.

"Well, yeah," they shrugged. "They're everywhere on the television and the computer." They went back to their lunch: chips in flashy containers, yogurt with movie characters on the package, and sweets upon sweets.

What is it, compared to children's advertising in the past or to adult advertising, that makes marketing to children so dangerous now?

Juliet Schor: Well, there's the volume. The sort or extent of media and ad exposure has increased enormously, along with the amount of stuff that kids have. It's taking over a greater and greater volume of kids' time use, activities, mental space, and physical space. It's the shift towards getting into very basic processes of identity and social connection and esteem, which is new.

Who is responsible for regulating this marketing phenomenon?

A lot depends on the ad. If it's going on television, the network has an office within it. There's a so-called self-regulation, a set of industry guidelines that companies say they adhere to, but in fact compliance is not that great and there's a very limited apparatus for enforcement of those guidelines. In any case, they're not binding.

I saw a study from the CARU, Children's Advertising Review Unit, which is part of the Better Business Bureau, showing that CARU claims they have 97 percent compliance, which is bogus. There are no penalties for not complying, the companies say they're complying and they're not. Sham may be too strong a word, but there are some sham aspects to it, particularly recently when you've had a lot of changing practices and a lot of competition in the industry. Television ads are the most regulated part of [children's advertising]. When you start getting out of TV, although CARU is nominally covering it, it has a small staff, and the volume of kids' ads is enormous. They basically are reacting to complaints that are brought to them. But there are not that many complaints because there's no formal body that's reviewing all these ads.


Digg!

Kelly Sharp is an intern at the Texas Observer in Austin.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A master of understatement, I see...
Posted by: mazur on Feb 13, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--
My answer to that is no; but it's easy to get kids to want stuff that's not good for them and you need a balance between that empowerment and the messages and products [themselves] and I think that balance is missing.
--

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Growth
Posted by: Colin on Feb 13, 2006 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an excellent essay on the internet written by Jonathon Rowe & Julia Silverstein that broaches a very similar question to this one. Actually, that's a stretch - it specifically deals with the over-arching issue of continual growth of G.D.P. of which this particular subject of children and advertising would fall under.

It might sound off-topic but when you'll read the essay you'll see it isn't. In fact, it's more relevant than any comments I could make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Feb 13, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm with Juliet Schor. I first became aware of this "brain-washing" of not just children, but all of us, with Vance Packard's HIDDEN PERSUADERS back in the 50's, and am still impressed by people like Kalle Lasn and his CULTURE JAM and his ADBUSTERS magazine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having read the book "1984" and "The Time Machine"
Posted by: NDnative on Feb 13, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't tell you how horrifying enough it is that our own society is stooping this low in accepting the notion, perhaps to the extreme extent, that the "economy" is driven by consumer spending.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's true. Posted by: Artkansas
Gilbert Youth Research-1948
Posted by: bleacher preacher on Feb 13, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first company that realized the value of teen age marketing was Gilbert Youth Research in the late 40's.
He use to rent Univac to find trends in the youth market.
GE wanted to know what colors teens might want to market their new transistor radios. Yes, Phillip Morris also wanted to
know the smoking habits of teens when a pack of cigarettes sold for a quarter! Like the article said, in those days the kids market was estimated in $ Millions, today they are in the Billion$. Another creation of GYR was College Campus Packs that included samples of everything from after shave to no-doze for the future money earners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» College Campus Packs Posted by: BlueTigress
Solution: Turn the effing boob-toob off and bring your kids home from labor camps.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Feb 13, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each person and family unit is independent of "consumer marketing", by virtue of the firing of their own neurons within that object resting on their shoulders. If they aren't, a failure of the elder(s) to understand that they have the power of choice has occurred. That is why this statement irks me so much:

But there are not that many complaints because there's no formal body that's reviewing all these ads.

Parents? Hello? Suggest you exercise the ultimate "complaint" button: the effing OFF switch on the appliance that keeps you/your kids tuned into whatever NBC/CBS/ABC are broadcasting from the stupid cam. At least the author throws us a bone of independence:

Can consumers make those complaints?

Yes, yes.


Gee. Thanks. But why--EXACTLY--should I give a hoot whether a government agency approves/disapproves of boob-toob programming? Why should I surrender parental responsibility to Mother Gubbamint?

If you don't know what your children are watching, shame on you.

Shame on you.

Does your "Entertainment Center" resemble a shrine to the TV god? Do you worship your TV? Do you offer it DVD's in hopes of a few hours of bliss? Is it hooked up to a satellite, that you may commune with the Mother Ship? Do you meditate in front of your shrine for hours? Are you depressed that J.R. was shot? Are you happy that "celebrities" can dance? Are you angry that a fat, naked, bald guy is the Ultimate American Survivor? Do you allow your kids to emulate this behavior? And finally, do you love Raymond? DO YOU LOVE RAYMOND, MOM AND DAD? Of course! Everybody does!

...For the boob toob tells us that it is so.

Turn it off! Cut the cable, and put that money (tithes to the TV god?--I missed that analogy above) in an IRA, or for Pete's sake, an Education Savings Plan for Junior and little Missy. They will thank you THREE TIMES when they mature: once for the education savings, once for not making them "little consumers", and the third time is special: they will grow up and MOVE out, and have a great shot at being successful! It will not hurt you to cut the Cable. The Cable is NOT an umbilical cord, nor is it a babysitter!

If you insist merely on adjusting the stupid cam--adverts or otherwise--write the station (if the ad is local), write the corporate office (if the add/program is national), buy some stock in the company and voice your opinion--as a stakeholder in the company--to the board of directors, etc.

The yammering about how "consumers" aren't getting exactly the brand/type/package of stupid that "consumers" feel they and children need to be bombarded with is ridiculous. We have the power to change that for ourselves and our children.

Finally, this little problem with "little consumers" is EASILY solved. We have laws against child labor in this country. Therefore, if you are sending your kids off to work at age, eight, you MUST make them quit their jobs. No checking account, no unchecked consumption. Period. Cubicles are bad for kids, anyhow. And don't get me started on the evils (drive through, anyone?) of letting your little professionals lease their own SUV's...

Are "Regulatory Bodies" the answer? Absolutely. Our very own regulatory bodies will suffice quite nicely, in my opinion.

A people empowered is what we are. Realize this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I Concur Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: I Concur Posted by: esactun
» RE: I Concur Posted by: NowYogi
» T.V. is a unique medium Posted by: ABetterFuture
further reading
Posted by: wartmanm on Feb 13, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anyone is interested in further reading on the effect of the media on children in a school setting, I recently wrote a paper on Channel One News in the classroom and the negative forces it brings in the classroom. If anyone is interested in reading it e-mail me at wartmanm@wabash.edu.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ARE YOUR KIDS OVERWEIGHT? A LAWSUIT COULD BE THE ANSWER
Posted by: reugen on Feb 13, 2006 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CALL: 1 800 I AM A LAZY PARENT for your free consultation

(the above is not a real number)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An 'expert' speaks
Posted by: YogiBear on Feb 16, 2006 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If kids are such suckers for advertising, and parents feel helpless about it, there's one thing I want to know: Where the heck are kids getting the money to buy things? If their parents are giving it to them, there's the spigot right there. Limit his allowance, but let him spend it as he pleases. He'll soon learn the value of money and the true value of transitory pleasures. If the kid gets demanding, reduce the allowance. That should nip the nagging in the bud.

I'm no parent, but I am an expert -- I was a kid with an allowance once!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An 'expert' speaks Posted by: NowYogi