Parenting & Pregnancy >
Problems Parents Face
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre parents or the advertising industry to blame for consumerism in children?
Results so far:
| Advertiser | 37% | 248 votes | Total: 666 votes | |
| Parents | 63% | 418 votes |
Advertiser
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAs one might suspect, blame in this case is not entirely on one side or the other. However, I do think that a lion's share of the blame falls on the side of the advertisers. Let me explain why.
When I say that advertisers are to blame (at least in substantial part) for consumerism in children, I should be understood as saying that advertisers play a crucial role in causing or bringing about consumerism in children, and that this is immoral. I will defend both of these claims.
First, it seems quite clear that advertisers play an obvious and important role in causing or bringing about consumerist tendencies in small children. As we are all well aware, advertisers are very effective at what they do; children are exposed to literally hundreds of advertisements on a daily basis, and it is very difficult to avoid some forms of advertisements (e.g., those on billboards). Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that if advertisers stopped targeting children with commercial advertisements, children would be less prone to develop consumerist tendencies.
To be clear, this is simply a claim about the causal relationship between advertisers, advertisements, and children. Advertisers create and distribute advertisements; upon seeing these advertisements in sufficient number and with a sufficient degree of regularity, children desire to have the products advertised. Like adults, children learn to associate happiness with the possession of those products featured in commercial advertisements. Insofar as consumerism simply is the ideological view that happiness consists in the possession and use of material goods, it seems that the advertisers play an obvious causal role in bringing about consumerist tendencies and beliefs in children.
My second claim was that it is immoral for advertisers to cause or bring about consumerist tendencies in children. This is a complicated issue, but my basic line of reasoning is as follows. Advertisers seek to create artificial desires ("wants") in children, which will cause them to convince their parents to purchase the products for them. To this extent, then, advertisers use or exploit children for financial gain. It is my view that it is immoral to use or exploit children for financial gain; thus, it is immoral to create artificial desires in children via advertisements.
Let me point out another sense in which it may be considered immoral to advertise to children. Since sustained exposure to effective advertisements does in fact cause people to conceive of happiness in terms of the possession and use of material goods (i.e., it brings about consumerist tendencies and beliefs), and since such a view is psychologically damaging (it causes anxiety in various forms and a general dissatisfaction with life), it is therefore immoral to seek to expose children to sustained levels of commercial advertising.
This accounts for the parents' share of the blame, too. As guardians, parents have a duty to prevent or limit exposure to advertisements by their children. They have this duty precisely because sustained exposure is psychologically damaging.
Clearly, both parents and advertisers can take measures to prevent children from developing consumerist tendencies. Parents can limit their children's television and radio exposure and encourage a more productive and/or healthy use of their time. Advertisers can stop targeting children with their advertisements.
The reason why I have claimed that advertisers have a majority of the blame is because I am well aware of the fact that parents who are very good about trying to shield their children from advertisements and who take other measures to counteract the influence of consumerism still find that their children are deeply affected by the consumer culture. Children are bombarded with ads at school, in public spaces, on every for-profit radio and television station, on the city buses, etc., etc. It is, in short, very difficult for concerned parents to prevent their children from becoming part of the consumer culture. Advertisers, however, do possess a higher degree of control. Advertisers could make the conscientious decision to refrain from exploiting and using children as a means to their own ends.
If one can only be blamed for what one has control over (as I think is the case), then it seems that much of the blame should fall on those who have the most control. And in this case, the advertisers have exponentially more control than individual parents.
Learn more about this author, C. Spencer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Parents
Parents have a huge responsibility when it comes to teaching children how to be smart customers and not wasteful consumers. How many parents have to change cell phones just because they have grown tired of the perfectly good one they have or they want to be able to do things with it that the ordinary person doesn't do. What about the vehicle you drive? Do you own the SUV that drinks way too much gas just to drive it to work and park it in the parking lot for all your co-workers to salivate over? There are so many ways that you can teach your child to become greedy and wasteful, or you can open your eyes and realize what you are doing and change your priorities.
Look at that child who is following in your footsteps. If you are wasting money, there are always new toys, games, and fashions luring them into believing that just because their best friend or all the other kids have one, they should, too. All parents need to start early showing responsibility where spending is concerned.
The advertisers know how to get the interest of the child. They candy coat everything, so to speak. The ads promise friends, fun, and are magically delicious. Starting at the time when the child is noticing what is going on around them the parent needs to develop a way of keeping the child from trying to get what they want. Most children are mimicking at an early age and as they watch parents and other shoppers they learn that picking up a product and putting it into the cart is what everyone is doing, so they follow the example. Keeping the child away from the counters helps keep this from happening.
At the grocery stores the products that toddlers love are usually down low enough to be reached and the child can easily make a quick decision to place what he wants in the cart. The parent should try to do the shopping alone. This will help keep the budget more intact and also cause less stress at the grocery store.
By the time a child reaches school age they have learned that there is so much out there to be had. Parents need to learn not to dress them or adorn them in pricey outfits and shoes that most families can not afford. Teenagers look to their peers and also the media glorifies Hollywood qualities, making life seem unfair to those who have less. Sometimes they get involved in petty shoplifting or using your cash or credit card to try to look and be like everyone else. Reminding the child, whether preschooler or high schooler, who seems to want the newest and the best, that there are more important things in life, may be all that needs to be done. Teach them to care about other's needs and they will learn a valuable lesson that will stay with them for a lifetime.
We as a nation are overwhelmed with goods. Everyone seems to be selling something. The ads are enticing, causing the "I gotta have it" syndrome. If the parents show the children that they don't have to keep up with the Jones's, they are one step closer to raising a responsible, selfless, and thankful person.
Learn more about this author, Belinda Jolly.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
