BEYOND COMMERCIALS: MARKETING TO CHILDREN IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM

Susan Linn, Ed.D.

Associate Director, Media Center, Harvard’s Judge Baker Children’s Center. Instructor in Psychiatry. Author, Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood.  

Children stand at the center of an unprecedented maelstrom of marketing that undermines all aspects of their lives. The landscape of advertising and promoting to kids today is unlike the television commercials you and I experienced as children. It is enhanced by technology, honed by child psychologists, and brought to us by billions of dollars.

Electronic media has transformed how children spend their time and the commercialization of childhood can only be understood in that context.(1) The average child in the United States spends almost 40 hours a week engaged with media outside of school,(2) most of which is commercially based. Children spend more time in front of a screen than they spend doing anything other than sleeping. And much of this time is without adult supervision: 32% of children 2 to 7 have televisions in their rooms, as do 65% of children 8 to 18.(3) Children see about 40,000 commercials a year on television alone.(4)And as Internet access increases, so does children’s exposure to marketing. According to Business Week, in 2001 only 2 percent of the millions of websites designed for children were free of commercials.(5)

As consumers, children are big business. In 2000, corporations spent over 12 billion dollars marketing to kids. That’s about double what was spent in 1992.(6) Along with toys, ads for food high in fat, sugar and calories account for most of the marketing that targets children.(7,8) In 2000, Burger King spent $80 million on advertising to children9 even as Quaker Oats spent $15

 million just to pitch Cap’n Crunch cereal.(10)

Promotions linking toys, media and fast food are another pervasive form of advertising. Once a movie or TV program is associated with a product, the program itself becomes an ad for that brand. Characters from Nickelodeon’s hit program Rugrats now grace packages of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, as well as Farley’s Fruit Rolls, and a Good Humor ice cream sandwich. Kraft’s best selling pasta brand is SpongeBob SquarePants Macaroni & Cheese, based on another Nickelodeon program.(11)

Tie-ins like these are lucrative. But are tie-ins good for children? They are designed to lure kids into selecting food, toys and clothing based on favorite movie or TV characters and, in the words of one marketing expert, “to establish a situation where kids are exposed to their brand in as many different places as possible throughout the course of the day ... or almost anywhere they turn in the course of their daily rituals.”(12) Nor is public television the commercial-free haven it once was. Programs such as Teletubbies and Clifford the Big Red Dog engage in promotions with fast food companies while Arthur the aardvark and Sesame Street characters grace packages of juice.

Children are not even free from commercial advertising when they play. Last year, nine of the ten best selling toys were media linked.(13) Toy companies partner with food companies to create what I call “advertoys” such as Barbie’s Fun Time McDonald’s and Hot Wheel’s miniature trucks and cars featuring M&Ms.

This year, 4Kids entertainment, the distributors of Pokemon, has entered into a four year $100 billion deal with Fox to create programming based on their products for Saturday morning television. In other words, Saturday morning on Fox will be one long commercial.

Children today are also subjected to product placement–where products are inserted into the plot or setting of programs. For instance, Disney’s popular movie Spy Kids contains a scene featuring food from McDonald’s. Even live sports events include product placement. After each at-bat during baseball’s 2002 All Star Home Run Derby, viewers were treated to repeated closeups of athletes quenching their thirst with bottles of Gatorade.

On the Web, product placement is called “immersive advertising.” Because immersion advertising does not require children twelve and under to provide personal information, it is legal and does not violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Yet it exposes children to advertising that is unidentified and embedded in the content of their online activities.

When children approach adolescence, they are targets for a recently developed practice called word-of-mouth – or “viral” – marketing.(14) This approach relies on sending marketers out into a community to identify the most popular children. These kids are given free products to distribute; in this way, the product is identified as “cool” and becomes attractive to the less popular children who also want to be “cool.”15

The industry spin is that it’s up to parents to protect children from marketing. But how can one family combat a $12 billion industry? Child development experts tell us to pick our battles. But which battle are we supposed to pick? And even as parents work to help children resist marketing, our efforts are undermined by corporations.

Companies routinely hire child and consumer psychologists to conduct research to help them target children effectively. In fact, most of the current research on children and advertising is done by corporations and ad agencies. Yet, unlike research in academic or medical settings, children and their families who participate in such research are not subject to protections through government regulation. The industry is not required to inform participants of potential harm, or even reveal the intent of a particular study. In addition, research done for corporations is proprietary and we do not have access either to methods or results.

In 1998, Western Media International(16) and Lieberman Research World Wide conducted a study on nagging. Called the Fine Art of Whining: Why Nagging is a Kid’s Best Friend,(17)the study was not designed to help parents cope with nagging; it was designed to help corporations teach children to nag more effectively. Research shows that children’s requests for advertised products add to family stress(18) yet we have no idea what the nagging researchers told parents about the study’s intent. Such a study would certainly not pass muster in my institution.

Marketing to children is a billion dollar industry that permeates children’s lives. It’s pervasive, it’s growing and its practices are largely unexamined. I will leave it to my colleagues to talk about why children are so susceptible to commercial persuasion and the ways it does them harm.  

          ENDNOTES:

1. Levin, D. & Linn, S. (2003) The commercialization of childhood: Understanding the problem and finding solutions. In: Kanner, A. & Kasser, T. (Eds.) Psychology and the culture of consumption. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

2. Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J.,& Brodie, M. (1999). Kids & media @ the new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

4. Kunkel, D. (2001). Children and television advertising. In: D.G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.) The handbook of children and media (pp. 375-393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

6. Lauro, P.W. (1999). Coaxing the smile that sells: Baby wranglers in demand in marketing for children. New York Times, November 1. Facts attributed to psychologist James McNeal.

7.Williams, J.O., Achterberg, C. & Sylvester, G.P. (1993). Targeting marketing of food products to ethnic minority youths. In: C.L. Williams & S.Y.S. Kimms (Eds.) Prevention and treatment of childhood obesity: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 699 ( pp. 107-114). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

8. Kotz, K. & Story, M. (1994). Food advertisements during children’s Saturday morning television programming: Are they consistent with dietary recommendations? Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 94, 1296-1300.

 

9. Cebryznski, G. & Zuber, A. (2001). Burger behemoths shake up menu mix, marketing tactics. Nation's Restaurant News. February 5, 1.

10. Thompson, S. (1999). Cap’n goes AWOL as sales flatten; Quaker redirects cereal brand’s marketing budget to focus on kids. Advertising Age, November 22, 8.

12. Kjos, T. (2002). Marketers compete fiercely for spending on kids. Arizona Daily Star, April 15, 1.

14. Siegel, D.L., Coffey, T.J. & Livingston, G. (2002). The great tween buying machine: Marketing to today’s tweens. Ithaca: Paramount Market.

16.  Now called Initiative Media World Wide

18. Liebert R.M. & Sprafkin, J.N. (1988) The earlywindow: Effects of television on children and youth. 3rd ed.                 New York: Pergamon Press.