The Times: Investigation - marketing to the under-fives
Should TV ads aimed at young children be banned? 130 MPs think so, but advertisers say under-fives can think for themselves. David Rowan investigates
IT IS AN annual tradition as fixed in the autumn calendar as are leaves on the line and last-minute tax-return panics. During the past few days, parents across Britain have been feeling the first pinpricks of the long pre-Christmas pester campaign - that relentless lobbying by children determined to own, this year, the Barbie Rapunzel DVD, a full set of Tomy's MicroPets, the Ready Steady Cook Popcorn Maker, or Baby Annabell doll.
To understand where the exhortations begin, you need watch only a few minutes of children's commercial television at this time of year - just long enough to experience the advertising blitz bombarding them with tips on how to indulge their "passion for fashion". Commercials aimed at children are a vital seasonal sales tool in a toy market worth around £1.7 billion in the UK.
But should the ads be there at all? Amid intense debate about children's vulnerability to these aggressive sales pitches, it is a question being asked with increasing vigour by campaigners ranging from concerned parents to professors of nutrition. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, Dr Rowan Williams, has blamed the "marketing culture" promoted by companies such as Disney for robbing childhood of its special innocence.
The Labour MP for Stourbridge, Debra Shipley, for one, believes that only a total ban on advertising aimed at young children can protect them from what she calls the industry's "cynical manipulation". She cites parents' worries that under-fives, in particular, fail to understand the purpose of adverts, and do not differentiate between commercials and programmes. "Three or four-year-olds watching a TV programme probably don't know what's happening," she says. "One minute they're watching a bear, then suddenly they're seeing a food product."
As a result, she says, they are easy targets for brainwashing - which is why earlier this year she introduced an early day motion in Parliament demanding "that TV advertising should be banned during broadcasting hours scheduled for under-fives' viewing".
Remarkably, Shipley's campaign has attracted the support of 130 MPs - and a series of discussions with the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, who told her that the proposal would be considered as part of a "wholesale review" of advertising codes under the new broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom. "At this very moment there's a window, and I want the Secretary of State to tell that watchdog to make sure that the television companies don't exploit three-year-olds," says Shipley.
"I'd be happy to engage Debra Shipley in a discussion about the value of advertising," says Malcolm Earnshaw, the director-general of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. "We live in a world of brands, and brands are a mark of quality. We need to start to learn to choose from an early age, and advertising provides us with information."
Broadcasters argue that advertisements for children's products generate up to £650 million across Europe each year, and, in Disney's view, any ban would be "catastrophic" for the quality of children's programmes. And just to show how responsible it is, the industry will next month launch a media education campaign in Britain intended to help children to interpret what advertisements are seeking to do.
What is becoming harder for advertisers to defend is the high volume of food commercials aimed at these youngest consumers. Last month the International Obesity Task Force, a coalition of medical experts and nutritionists, demanded a Europe-wide ban on adverts for "inappropriate" food and drinks aimed at children, to stem an "epidemic" of childhood obesity.
"Children are targeted as consumers and are vulnerable to intense, repetitive advertising," the task force reported, leading to a "dramatic" shift in children's diets towards soft drinks and fast foods high in fats or sugars.
At the Food Commission, Kath Dalmeny, a research officer, is in no doubt that ads are partly to blame. "They tend to portray the sugary, salty foods as 'cool'." Healthy, unbranded foods such as fruit simply cannot compete.
Those who demand a ban point to countries such as Greece, where ads for toy are prohibited between 7am and 10pm (and those for toy guns and tanks at all times). In Belgium, too, the Dutch-speaking area bans any advertising within five minutes of a children's TV programme on a local channel.
But the greatest inspiration for prohibitionists is Sweden, where, since 1991, all advertisements aimed at the under-12s have been barred from terrestrial television. Broadcasters who breach the ban can be sued, and fined. Last year the TV4 channel ran into trouble over its Pokemon cartoon series, which ended with a jingle, "Gotta catch 'em all". This was ruled a surreptitious plug for Pokemon playing cards, and TV4 faces a large fine if the jingle is heard again.
The Swedish Government believes that children should be treated as "commercial-free zones", based on academic research suggesting that only by the age of eight to ten do they understand the purpose of advertising. The ad industry, needless to say, disagrees, and considers the ban "futile".
Glen Smith, whose Youth Research Group advises companies how best to target children (use images not words; use models three years their senior), considers the Swedish ban misguided. "It's is disadvantageous to children, as they don't know about new products," he says. "You can't put children in cases until they are 12. It goes against the tenets of allowing children to become acclimatised to adverts as part of their environment."
That argument, though, will be of little comfort to those facing their children's pre-Christmas strategies of persuasion. There is no doubt that advertising will help to decide which toys are bestsellers this season. But what is harder to show is how, specifically, the adverts affect younger children. Do commercials lead children as young as four to show distinct brand preferences? If so, how strong is their identification with brands that they may not even be able to name? Do they, in fact, understand what the adverts are there for?
This is where things become complicated. No clear picture emerges from the vast academic research on the issue - much of it backed by vested interests striving either to avoid further regulation or seeking to prove that children are being exploited.
So Channel 4 News decided to commission a leading psychologist in the field to devise an experiment that we could take into primary schools. Dr Karen Pine, of the University of Hertfordshire, had previously studied the differences between children's letters to Father Christmas in England and Sweden, and found the former demanding many more branded presents than the more generically inclined Swedes. She wanted to know how far four and five-year-olds were likely to be swayed towards the advertised branded goods that they saw on television, and whether they knew what the ad breaks were for.
We photographed eight advertised goods - from Sunny Delight and Walkers crisps to Barbie and Max Steel toys - as well as eight similar-looking, non-branded products. In two different primary schools in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, Pine asked 75 children, one at a time, to help her to choose which products a child of their age would like. They had only to point to one of each pair of photos.
The results were not surprising: the children showed a strong preference for the advertised goods, particularly with food products. Among breakfast cereals, there was an 84 per cent preference for Coco Pops; for Sunny Delight the preference was 71 per cent. Among girls, the scores were even higher, up to 97 per cent. We also tested branded products such as Nike trainer that are not targeted specifically at children. Here there was no statistically significant preference. What we did find, though, was confusion among children about what the ad breaks were for, and an inability to articulate why they chose certain products, beyond comments that "nice girls like this one".
Pine is cautious about identifying television advertising as the only influence on these children's choices. "You could argue that these brands are already familiar," she says, "but we chose products aimed specifically at children, and made it as difficult as possible for them to spot the branded product, by pairing it with a very similar one. What did come out of this study was how little children are aware of how they're being sold to. We need to help them to understand that the people selling the product want to make money."
Why did girls show such a strong brand preference? "Probably because of their greater verbal or literary ability, or perhaps because of their emotional sensitivity," says Pine. "They are better at decoding the subtle messages."
So where does she think her findings leave the debate on whether to move towards an advertising ban? "Banning isn't the answer," she says. "Children are exposed to brands in many other ways: on buses, lorries, even clothing." The answer, she believes, lies in educating children about what the commercials are seeking to achieve - a conclusion the ad industry's Media Smart initiative is aiming to pre-empt.
As for stopping the pestering - that will prove a more daunting challenge.
(David Rowan's film on advertising and children is on Channel 4 News at 7pm)
(The Times, October 18 2002)
IT IS AN annual tradition as fixed in the autumn calendar as are leaves on the line and last-minute tax-return panics. During the past few days, parents across Britain have been feeling the first pinpricks of the long pre-Christmas pester campaign - that relentless lobbying by children determined to own, this year, the Barbie Rapunzel DVD, a full set of Tomy's MicroPets, the Ready Steady Cook Popcorn Maker, or Baby Annabell doll.
To understand where the exhortations begin, you need watch only a few minutes of children's commercial television at this time of year - just long enough to experience the advertising blitz bombarding them with tips on how to indulge their "passion for fashion". Commercials aimed at children are a vital seasonal sales tool in a toy market worth around £1.7 billion in the UK.
But should the ads be there at all? Amid intense debate about children's vulnerability to these aggressive sales pitches, it is a question being asked with increasing vigour by campaigners ranging from concerned parents to professors of nutrition. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, Dr Rowan Williams, has blamed the "marketing culture" promoted by companies such as Disney for robbing childhood of its special innocence.
The Labour MP for Stourbridge, Debra Shipley, for one, believes that only a total ban on advertising aimed at young children can protect them from what she calls the industry's "cynical manipulation". She cites parents' worries that under-fives, in particular, fail to understand the purpose of adverts, and do not differentiate between commercials and programmes. "Three or four-year-olds watching a TV programme probably don't know what's happening," she says. "One minute they're watching a bear, then suddenly they're seeing a food product."
As a result, she says, they are easy targets for brainwashing - which is why earlier this year she introduced an early day motion in Parliament demanding "that TV advertising should be banned during broadcasting hours scheduled for under-fives' viewing".
Remarkably, Shipley's campaign has attracted the support of 130 MPs - and a series of discussions with the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, who told her that the proposal would be considered as part of a "wholesale review" of advertising codes under the new broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom. "At this very moment there's a window, and I want the Secretary of State to tell that watchdog to make sure that the television companies don't exploit three-year-olds," says Shipley.
"I'd be happy to engage Debra Shipley in a discussion about the value of advertising," says Malcolm Earnshaw, the director-general of the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. "We live in a world of brands, and brands are a mark of quality. We need to start to learn to choose from an early age, and advertising provides us with information."
Broadcasters argue that advertisements for children's products generate up to £650 million across Europe each year, and, in Disney's view, any ban would be "catastrophic" for the quality of children's programmes. And just to show how responsible it is, the industry will next month launch a media education campaign in Britain intended to help children to interpret what advertisements are seeking to do.
What is becoming harder for advertisers to defend is the high volume of food commercials aimed at these youngest consumers. Last month the International Obesity Task Force, a coalition of medical experts and nutritionists, demanded a Europe-wide ban on adverts for "inappropriate" food and drinks aimed at children, to stem an "epidemic" of childhood obesity.
"Children are targeted as consumers and are vulnerable to intense, repetitive advertising," the task force reported, leading to a "dramatic" shift in children's diets towards soft drinks and fast foods high in fats or sugars.
At the Food Commission, Kath Dalmeny, a research officer, is in no doubt that ads are partly to blame. "They tend to portray the sugary, salty foods as 'cool'." Healthy, unbranded foods such as fruit simply cannot compete.
Those who demand a ban point to countries such as Greece, where ads for toy are prohibited between 7am and 10pm (and those for toy guns and tanks at all times). In Belgium, too, the Dutch-speaking area bans any advertising within five minutes of a children's TV programme on a local channel.
But the greatest inspiration for prohibitionists is Sweden, where, since 1991, all advertisements aimed at the under-12s have been barred from terrestrial television. Broadcasters who breach the ban can be sued, and fined. Last year the TV4 channel ran into trouble over its Pokemon cartoon series, which ended with a jingle, "Gotta catch 'em all". This was ruled a surreptitious plug for Pokemon playing cards, and TV4 faces a large fine if the jingle is heard again.
The Swedish Government believes that children should be treated as "commercial-free zones", based on academic research suggesting that only by the age of eight to ten do they understand the purpose of advertising. The ad industry, needless to say, disagrees, and considers the ban "futile".
Glen Smith, whose Youth Research Group advises companies how best to target children (use images not words; use models three years their senior), considers the Swedish ban misguided. "It's is disadvantageous to children, as they don't know about new products," he says. "You can't put children in cases until they are 12. It goes against the tenets of allowing children to become acclimatised to adverts as part of their environment."
That argument, though, will be of little comfort to those facing their children's pre-Christmas strategies of persuasion. There is no doubt that advertising will help to decide which toys are bestsellers this season. But what is harder to show is how, specifically, the adverts affect younger children. Do commercials lead children as young as four to show distinct brand preferences? If so, how strong is their identification with brands that they may not even be able to name? Do they, in fact, understand what the adverts are there for?
This is where things become complicated. No clear picture emerges from the vast academic research on the issue - much of it backed by vested interests striving either to avoid further regulation or seeking to prove that children are being exploited.
So Channel 4 News decided to commission a leading psychologist in the field to devise an experiment that we could take into primary schools. Dr Karen Pine, of the University of Hertfordshire, had previously studied the differences between children's letters to Father Christmas in England and Sweden, and found the former demanding many more branded presents than the more generically inclined Swedes. She wanted to know how far four and five-year-olds were likely to be swayed towards the advertised branded goods that they saw on television, and whether they knew what the ad breaks were for.
We photographed eight advertised goods - from Sunny Delight and Walkers crisps to Barbie and Max Steel toys - as well as eight similar-looking, non-branded products. In two different primary schools in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, Pine asked 75 children, one at a time, to help her to choose which products a child of their age would like. They had only to point to one of each pair of photos.
The results were not surprising: the children showed a strong preference for the advertised goods, particularly with food products. Among breakfast cereals, there was an 84 per cent preference for Coco Pops; for Sunny Delight the preference was 71 per cent. Among girls, the scores were even higher, up to 97 per cent. We also tested branded products such as Nike trainer that are not targeted specifically at children. Here there was no statistically significant preference. What we did find, though, was confusion among children about what the ad breaks were for, and an inability to articulate why they chose certain products, beyond comments that "nice girls like this one".
Pine is cautious about identifying television advertising as the only influence on these children's choices. "You could argue that these brands are already familiar," she says, "but we chose products aimed specifically at children, and made it as difficult as possible for them to spot the branded product, by pairing it with a very similar one. What did come out of this study was how little children are aware of how they're being sold to. We need to help them to understand that the people selling the product want to make money."
Why did girls show such a strong brand preference? "Probably because of their greater verbal or literary ability, or perhaps because of their emotional sensitivity," says Pine. "They are better at decoding the subtle messages."
So where does she think her findings leave the debate on whether to move towards an advertising ban? "Banning isn't the answer," she says. "Children are exposed to brands in many other ways: on buses, lorries, even clothing." The answer, she believes, lies in educating children about what the commercials are seeking to achieve - a conclusion the ad industry's Media Smart initiative is aiming to pre-empt.
As for stopping the pestering - that will prove a more daunting challenge.
(David Rowan's film on advertising and children is on Channel 4 News at 7pm)
(The Times, October 18 2002)
posted by David Rowan at Friday, October 18, 2002
<< Home