For those of you who oppose the Happy Meal toy ban in SF:

[Murphy101]

To me banning is usually wrong.

 

To me, in this specific case, at the very least, there IS a clear and present danger to the lack of sufficient warning and ingredient labeling.

 

The situation that brought this to light did not involved many minors. It was a college party. And the product is not well advertised at all here. My dh home brews and is known by face and name in many local liquor stores because he likes to order in or gets to know the owners in other ways and he didn't have a clue what it was until I mentioned it to him.

 

The problem here is not advertising, minors or otherwise.

 

The problem in this specific situation, is that if a 21 year old 135 lb woman tries ONE of these hip new drinks, she could literally put her blood alcohol into toxic levels and yet the caffeine might mask how strong it is affecting her. So she has ONE drink. Or even maybe an hour later thinks, sure I'll have a glass of wine to kill this raging headache that crappy drink gave me. She isn't feeling sluggish or excessively tired. She just drops dead or near dead from alcohol poisoning and all she had was one, maybe two drinks.

 

So yes, I think there's a labeling problem with that drink!

[Murphy101]

Here's a link to the drink in question.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/parenting-family/teen-ya/2010-11-10-alcoholic-energy-drinks_N.htm

 

Hmmm, I can't go search right now...

 

I was listening to the news on this yesterday and again this morning and they were not making it sound that simple.

 

Also, beer pts vary from state to state and Oklahoma is one of the "lighter" states. You can only purchase that drink at a liquer store, none of which are open past 9am and all of which are closed on Sunday and state or federal holidays.

[Perry]

I disagree that this is anything new. Marketing to kids has been going on for decades. Well over 50-60-70 years.

 

Kids and Commercialism

 

 

• Advertising directed at children is estimated at over $15 billion annually – about 2.5 times more than what it was in 1992.1

• Over the past two decades, the degree to which marketers have scaled up efforts to reach children is staggering. In 1983, they spent $100 million on television advertising to kids. Today, they pour roughly 150 times that amount into a variety of mediums that seek to infiltrate every corner of children’s worlds.2

• According to a leading expert on branding, 80 percent of all global brands now deploy a “tween strategy.â€3

 

 

[Parrothead]

Well it's a bit more complicated than that, tho I don't agree with it.

 

The particular beverage in question is a single drink with the alcohol level of an ENTIRE bottle of wine and 4 red bulls.

So is the ban for this one particular drink or for all alcohol and caffeine potables? If it is just this one thing then, yes even though I think banning McD meals with toys is ridiculous, I can see the banning of a dangerous beverage. There are already laws in place restricting alcohol to adults. There are already laws in place banning dangerous substances that alter a persons cognitive ability. Coke, meth, opiates to name a few.

 

A toy in a happy meal is not going to fry brain cells. I really think it is mixing apples and oranges if it is one beverage in particular. If they are banning all alcohol and caffeine mixes, rum and coke, Baileys and coffee,etc., then those in power are over reacting and being a bit foolish.

 

They are not immune, but I believe that the responsibility lies on my shoulders to ensure that my children are educated to our families beliefs.

 

You will never remove all negative influences, whether through legislation, avoidance, ignoring....

 

So you better equipt your children with the ability to handle those influences wisely.

:iagree:

I guess I just don't understand why corporations hould have the right to market to children, making money however they can, but children (and their parents) shouldn't have the right to not be marketed to constantly. Really, are most kids in a position to get away from marketing? No, they are not. It's in the schools, on their clothing, on the sides of the streets, everywhere in our media-rich society. And regardless of whether or not you think it should be the right of the parent to make choices for their child, I don't see how clawing back on marketing aimed at children could ever be a bad thing.

 

And please don't anyone bother to reply with the nanny state argument again. Establishing rules for how corporations are required to operate does not a nanny state make.

No one has to watch TV. I posted a thread earlier today about the hot new games for the Wii because we do not have TV*. I havn't seen a commercial in months.

 

And while a corporation is not a person or people they are run by people who do have rights. A business owner no matter the size of the business has the right to promote his/her business.

 

I think it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children about making sound purchases. Did you have a problem growing up in an environment where marketing to children was the norm? Where your parents able to teach you about responsible purchasing?

 

*We have TV, we do not have network reception, cable or dish. All of our television viewing is commercial free via Netflix or DVDs

[Murphy101]

So is the ban for this one particular drink or for all alcohol and caffeine potables? If it is just this one thing then, yes even though I think banning McD meals with toys is ridiculous, I can see the banning of a dangerous beverage.

 

Idk. I was just listening yesterday to the story a police officer was giving of having been called out to a party and 6 people needed ambulances because of this drink (and likely possibly having additional drinks too).

 

The officer was the one that gave the example of the 135lb woman having one drink, and obviously his words really stuck with me because, if he is right, that's one hell of a dangerous drink. How often go women go out for a date and he orders her drink, kwim?

 

So yes, it is a question of potency in this particuliar drink.

But it is also a question of mixing too.

 

Most people don't put baileys in their coffee with the express purpose of negating the two. It's just a bit of flavoring.

 

But given that many people do one of two things to determine how much to drink:

 

How many drinks and the situation. (for example, if i drink in public at all, it is maybe ONE glass of wine and always with my meal.) in this case, counting drinks might not help.

 

Or

 

How they feel. No matter what I'm drinking or how much, if I start to feel even a bit "off" - I'm done. I drink for the enjoyment of the drink, not for a buzz or high or whatever. But when mixing with high doses of caffeine, that "off" feeling might be drastically and dangerously delayed or even entirely absent.

 

So I do think, at the least, the combination in commercial drinks should be investigated to determine safety and at what point it is not safe.

[Cedarmom]

I live in WA, which is a state that banned the drinks. I heard aDr's explanation. That much caffeine in your blood supresses the body's signal to your brain to tell you that you have had too much to drink. It is very easy to get alcohol poisoning. It is basically a drug cocktail. So, I agree with the banning. But I thought the San Fransico is a nany state rule. When my son was little happy meals were a rare treat. But, you know what, sometimes treats are nice. Having a hamburger and french fries once a month is fine. Many people are able to teach their kids resopnsiblilty . I think making yet another law doesn't solve anything. Irresponsible parents will stay let their kids eat frech fries and hamburger frequently. ANother law on the books will just make it harder to enforce other laws, such as cleanliness standards, that are more important.

[Stacy in NJ]

Helmet wearing doesn't really equate with banning a small plastic toy in a Happy Meal. While the dangers of going helmetless are obvious, the benefits of the ban are questionable. I understand what San Fran folks are trying do, and I agree that they as a local government probably have the right to do it, but I would strongly object to my own town doing the same.

[wapiti]

Kids and Commercialism

 

While the dollar amount of marketing to kids may have increased, such marketing has nonetheless has been going on for many decades, and there has been marketing directed at children since prior to the inception of television, though it was probably television where such marketing really exploded in the 1950s.

 

To flesh this out a little more, specific to the issue of food, see e.g. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24239658/CSPI-s-History-of-1978-1980-FTC-History-Regarding-Food-Ads-and-Children

 

Almost 30 years have passed since the last public debate on food marketing aimed at children.

...

If Rip Van Winkle went to sleep in the 1970s and woke up in 2005, he would see little difference in the amount and type of advertising on children’s television. ... The major differences are that cable companies, like Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network, provide many more hours of children’s programming than did Saturday morning broadcast networks in the 1970s, and food manufacturers and restaurants have new marketing venues like Channel One in schools and the Internet.

 

In the case at hand, McDonald's introduced happy meal toys in 1979.

 

I haven't seen advertising for happy meal toys anyplace but television and within the restaurant, though it's not something I'd necessarily notice. We do eat fast food, but I don't buy happy meals.

 

In addition to the first amendment issues, I have a hard time believing that the San Francisco regulation will have the desired affect - the cause and affect are too disconnected (so much so that I wonder whether it can be invalidated on grounds of being arbitrary and capricious, though I also admit I don't know what the applicable standard of review would be under California law). The parents wouldn't be buying happy meals if they weren't already at the restaurant. IMO, not having the toy isn't going to stop the parents from buying fries and nuggets unless both they wouldn't have gone to McD's but for the child's begging and the child's begging was caused solely by the desire for the toy. And the child is easily suckered into eating what came with the toy. (ETA: And the eating caused the child to develop health problems.) If happy meal toys really cause health problems in children, I have to wonder who is driving the car.

Edited November 11, 2010 by wapiti

[idnib]

I can see both sides so I'm not sure where I stand on this.

 

But...

 

Now that we've talked about

 

--the rights of corporations to market their products

--the responsibility of the parents to raise their kids to follow family values and to teach them awareness about consumerism

--that marketing to children has been happening for several generations (not sure how that relates to this discussion)

 

I have an honest question.

 

Do children have the right to not be marketed to?

[CLHCO]

One way to limit the marketing geared to children is to turn off the TV. I'm not implying that you do nothing but watch TV all day ;) , but I noticed that when I canceled cable, my dd's desires for the latest anything all but disappeared. It's been wonderful! LOL

 

 

:iagree:

My kids do not watch TV. I won't say *never*, but it is certainly almost never. The day before yesterday I let them watch a bit of Qubo (?), and my daughter came in dying for some pillow pet thing. She never begs for things like that. I let them finish the program, then it went off and I was reminded once again why we do not watch TV.

 

The bulk of advertising is not as impossible to avoid as everyone thinks it is. It makes parenting a lot easier, Christmas shopping easier, and far more content children.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

 

I have an honest question.

 

Do children have the right to not be marketed to?

 

 

I think that is actually one in a set of questions:

 

Do companies have the right to advertise a product?

Who has the right not to be marketed to?

Do my kids have a greater right not to be marketed to than I do?

Do I ultimately have the responsibility to raise my children as I see fit or is it the right of a government body to decide how I may raise my children?

[Murphy101]

Do children have the right to not be marketed to?

 

No.

[Meriwether]

:iagree:

My kids do not watch TV. I won't say *never*, but it is certainly almost never. The day before yesterday I let them watch a bit of Qubo (?), and my daughter came in dying for some pillow pet thing. She never begs for things like that. I let them finish the program, then it went off and I was reminded once again why we do not watch TV.

 

The bulk of advertising is not as impossible to avoid as everyone thinks it is. It makes parenting a lot easier, Christmas shopping easier, and far more content children.

 

 

When my kids first started watching kids programming, they would ask me for 10 things a day. I'm not opposed to buying my kids things every so often, but after hearing the begging for two or three weeks, I told them if they ever asked for something because they saw it on a commercial again they would never get it under any circumstance. In the past two years they have only forgotten the rule once. Commercials still influence them. They may ask for something when we are out and about (although I rarely buy something on the spur of the moment). It has helped them think about whether they really want something or whether it just looks fun in the commercial.

[Tea Time]

I can see both sides so I'm not sure where I stand on this.

 

But...

 

Now that we've talked about

 

--the rights of corporations to market their products

--the responsibility of the parents to raise their kids to follow family values and to teach them awareness about consumerism

--that marketing to children has been happening for several generations (not sure how that relates to this discussion)

 

I have an honest question.

 

Do children have the right to not be marketed to?

 

When you put it this way, it makes me think that children are not being marketed to. There would no purpose. They have no resources. Parents are being solicited through their children. So the question comes back to allowable and not allowable practices in advertising rather than what is or is not a "right."

 

It is well established that advertising is a "right" (That word can mean different things to different people and in different contexts. I am using it in the sense of "something that people, businesses, and corporations are free to do.) It is also established that there are limitations to that right. Is the law about McDs (or other laws that might come up) working solely to make an advertising method honest and fair, or does it have a broader purpose and effect? Could the law be manipulating the business at a level that is beyond advertising? Does the law have the intention of giving lawmakers a hand in controlling business practices other than just advertising? If so, then it is disingenuous to say it is simply a law limiting advertising to minors. It may still be a law with a good purpose, but the purpose must be clear and defined, not hidden in trickery. What good is it for the government to be tricky and manipulative to stop businesses from being tricky and manipulative! :001_huh:

 

The ends do no justify the means, a concept that both the advertisers and the government seem to have forgotten. I am at a big loss as to how to structure our laws to force people be ethical if they really are not ethical. It makes me sad.

[Haiku]

I wish. We don't get to vote on individual items. The lawmakers come up with them, people complain, they pass them anyway. You think people would remember and care come voting time, but they usually get bombarded with the hot issues (abortion, religion, gay marriage, taxes) and don't even know what the candidates plan to do.

 

 

 

But if people are too distractible/forgetful/apathtic to vote about the things that matter to them, that doesn't mean that local governments shouldn't pass laws ordinances that govern what they want in their local jusridiction. Perhaps I am reading you wrong, but it kinda sounds like you are arguing against local governments having power because you can't trust people to vote properly.

 

I'm still trying to understand why people have a problem with a local government passing a local law. I honestly thought that people who are more conservative than I am really wanted less federal and more local control. Am I misunderstanding? Or is it really that any law is pretty a much a bad law because the government (at any level) simply shouldn't interfere? I'm not tying to be snarky, I am really trying to understand.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

Do children have the right to not be marketed to?

 

No, but I do believe that voters in local areas have the right to curb marketing that they find extreme. Imo, if people don't have a right to put the brakes on corporate behavior that they find troubling, then that really is saying that corporations have more rights than people do.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

When you put it this way, it makes me think that children are not being marketed to. There would no purpose. They have no resources.

 

Actually, there have several studie in the last decade that show that children DO have resources, and that their resources are increasing.

 

Tara

[Tea Time]

Actually, there have several studie in the last decade that show that children DO have resources, and that their resources are increasing.

 

Tara

 

That is a debatable concept given that they are minors. It doesn't follow that they are free to use their resources as they choose without limitations by their guardians. That is assuming the word "guardians" means what we think it means. ;)

 

Advertising is aimed at decision makers. That may be shifting to children though. Isn't that just lovely?

[justamouse]

That is a debatable concept given that they are minors. It doesn't follow that they are free to use their resources as they choose without limitations by their guardians. That is assuming the word "guardians" means what we think it means. ;)

 

Advertising is aimed at decision makers. That may be shifting to children though. Isn't that just lovely?

 

I don't just think it's being shifted to children-I think they're being trained as future consumers. "Make this bad choice and we'll reward you." Of course advertisers and such would never admit to that train of thought when devising a marketing campaign, but that is the end effect on the children.

[Mom23Boys]

I think Texas is a test-marketing area for McD's. I remember when lived in Texas, they had menu items no other area had. Here, there are no nutritional values on wrappings or on the menu boards at all. So, I'm thinking that maybe that idea is being tested there? Not sure, but I do know that no McD's here has that info on the wrappings at all.

 

 

That is interesting. I live in Louisiana and all the McDonald's around here print the information on the wrappers. Not for salads, but all sandwiches and fries. My DH likes to stop at McDonald's when we travel because he is a Type 1 diabetic who has an insulin pump. McDonald's has the nutrition info easily available - on the wrappers at all the ones we have gone too or on the wall for things like salads. I have never seen them on the menu boards. They also have some of the healthiest choices among fast food restaurants. He spent lots of time looking at websites and gathering the nutrition information so he would know what he could eat if he is in a situation where fast food is the easiest/best choice at the time.

 

McDonald's won hands down for the easiest to get nutrition info and the healthiest options. He did only check fast food restaurants we have available to us, so I have no idea if there are others that are better or not.

 

Oh, and to be clear, it is not like we consider McDonald's health food, just among the best options for us for those times we do end up eating fast food.

[Tea Time]

Advertising is very much aimed directly at children, that is easy to see and prove. Minors do have discretionary income, that is also provable. There are tons of places available to research how much is spent on direct marketing, and how much minors spend on a myriad of products.

I'm sorry, this is not some newly shifting practice, it's been done for decades. I believe major laws were even passed in the late 70's setting limits on toy commercials.

 

Yes. I know. Don't you think that is still the fault of adults though? Does the buck stop at Mikey or Mikey's mommy and daddy? Theoretically speaking?

[Haiku]

Yes. I know. Don't you think that is still the fault of adults though? Does the buck stop at Mikey or Mikey's mommy and daddy? Theoretically speaking?

 

Once kids are out independently (which happens at an earlier and earlier age), the buck pretty much stops with Mikey. If Mikey has $5 in his pocket and goes to McD's while he's out and about on his bike, Mikey's mommy is pretty much out of the equation.

 

Tara

[MelanieM]

I don't just think it's being shifted to children-I think they're being trained as future consumers. "Make this bad choice and we'll reward you." Of course advertisers and such would never admit to that train of thought when devising a marketing campaign, but that is the end effect on the children.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

Once kids are out independently (which happens at an earlier and earlier age), the buck pretty much stops with Mikey. If Mikey has $5 in his pocket and goes to McD's while he's out and about on his bike, Mikey's mommy is pretty much out of the equation.

 

Tara

 

Bull. If Mikey has $5 it is because his parents let him have it. The end.

 

Parents need to quit their griping and do some parenting.

 

I don't care where the $5 came from, whether my kid gets or gets to keep it IS entirely up to me as the parent.

 

If I find out my kid is spending it in ways that I don't approve of, certainly if he is doing so on a habitual basis, then I am fully capable of restricting his activity or his funds or both for that matter.

[Haiku]

Parents need to quit their griping and do some parenting.

 

 

I do parent my kids, and with my younger ones, I monitor their spending. However, I also have a teenager, and I don't micromange hers. I'd say by the time a kid is about 10 or 12, I'm pretty much out of the picture on what they spend. I mean, I'm not going to let my kids buy things that hugely violate our family ethics, but neither am I going to gripe about the occasional "I wouldn't buy it but I am not going to make an issue of it" purchase. That still doesn't mean I want ad executives sitting around dreaming up strategies to hook my child into spending money.

 

My husband is a designer. He works at an ad agency. His job is to entice people to spend money. I am cool with that. If adults want to drop a stack on nicely packaged golf balls, for example, rock on. But I don't want my kids marketed to, and I see nothing nefarious about restricting maketing to children. Nor do I see it as a loss of my rights. Nor do I see wishing for such restrictions as an abdication of my parenting. Believe me, with a husband who works at an ad agency ("peddling the wares of corporate America," as he puts it), we have plenty of discussions about advertising and marketing.

 

Tara

[Joyofsixreboot]

I'm going with a gut reaction (and I haven't read all 9 pages) but I vehemently oppose anything that keeps me, a legal adult, from making any decision I want. Happy meal toys for my kids=my business. Drinking to the point I kill myself=my business. Also, I really don't have a problem with legalizing some drugs. Again, my choices. I choose not to indulge in any of those things but I resent being told what to do.

[Murphy101]

I do parent my kids, and with my younger ones, I monitor their spending. However, I also have a teenager, and I don't micromange hers. I'd say by the time a kid is about 10 or 12, I'm pretty much out of the picture on what they spend. I mean, I'm not going to let my kids buy things that hugely violate our family ethics, but neither am I going to gripe about the occasional "I wouldn't buy it but I am not going to make an issue of it" purchase. That still doesn't mean I want ad executives sitting around dreaming up strategies to hook my child into spending money.

 

Tara

 

To me, then you have nothing to gripe about. If you don't want to stay more involved in what or how they spend and you wouldn't make an issue of an occasional expense that you wouldn't particuliarly like, but feel isn't worth the argument - then quit griping because you are parenting the way you feel best. If there's a problem, then the best response to it is for you to adjust your parenting, not to have a fit that the entire business world should adjust their advertising to suit you.

[Haiku]

not to have a fit that the entire business world should adjust their advertising to suit you.

 

Gee, I didn't realize I was having a fit. I guess the rolling on the floor and screaming should have tipped me off, though... :tongue_smilie:

 

Actually, I think you kinda missed my point.

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

Gee, I didn't realize I was having a fit. I guess the rolling on the floor and screaming should have tipped me off, though... :tongue_smilie:

 

Actually, I think you kinda missed my point.

 

Tara

 

 

I think it's a bit of a fit to expect, demand, insist, whatever term you'd like, that the entire business world stop advertising because it would make your parenting easier. In theory. I don't know that it would.

 

Then what was your point? First you claim these kids have money parents have no say in, which is untrue. Second, you just don't want people advertising to your kids, which is a personal problem for you. Obviously several people disagree with you.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I think it's a bit of a fit to expect, demand, insist, whatever term you'd like, that the entire business world stop advertising because it would make your parenting easier. In theory. I don't know that it would.

 

Then what was your point? First you claim these kids have money parents have no say in, which is untrue. Second, you just don't want people advertising to your kids, which is a personal problem for you. Obviously several people disagree with you.

 

Yes but why is it ok to market to children who legally are not adults and cannot enter into contracts? I am very uneasy about marketing to children. I am ok with marketing to adults:)

 

OTOH I agree parents need to parent:) I also think if parent choose to buy unhealthy food that is there choice as long as it does not go to the extreme and end up being abusive as in allowing your 2 year old to weigh 100 pounds which has happened:(

[MelanieM]

I do parent my kids, and with my younger ones, I monitor their spending. However, I also have a teenager, and I don't micromange hers. I'd say by the time a kid is about 10 or 12, I'm pretty much out of the picture on what they spend. I mean, I'm not going to let my kids buy things that hugely violate our family ethics, but neither am I going to gripe about the occasional "I wouldn't buy it but I am not going to make an issue of it" purchase. That still doesn't mean I want ad executives sitting around dreaming up strategies to hook my child into spending money.

 

My husband is a designer. He works at an ad agency. His job is to entice people to spend money. I am cool with that. If adults want to drop a stack on nicely packaged golf balls, for example, rock on. But I don't want my kids marketed to, and I see nothing nefarious about restricting maketing to children. Nor do I see it as a loss of my rights. Nor do I see wishing for such restrictions as an abdication of my parenting. Believe me, with a husband who works at an ad agency ("peddling the wares of corporate America," as he puts it), we have plenty of discussions about advertising and marketing.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:Excellent post.

 

Whether parents want to accept it or not, corporate advertising that is aimed at children is having an impact on children, for better or worse, regardless of how great individual parents are or how much they control their kids. I see no problem with parents standing up to oppose children being targeted in such a way.

[Perry]

I think it's a bit of a fit to expect, demand, insist, whatever term you'd like, that the entire business world stop advertising because it would make your parenting easier. In theory. I don't know that it would.

What about schools then? Many people here have expressed extreme displeasure with how schools and teachers usurp parental rights, by teaching things that they personally disagree with. I frequently read about how schools make parenting so much harder because we have to un-teach and counter-teach. (And I have made those complaints myself.)

 

So what's the difference? Why do corporations get a pass, but not schools? Hope this doesn't sound snarky, it's not intended to be at all.

[Paige]

Yes but why is it ok to market to children who legally are not adults and cannot enter into contracts? I am very uneasy about marketing to children. I am ok with marketing to adults:)

 

 

 

I think it is ok to market to children because they have parents or guardians who can enter into contracts on their behalf and who are in control of whether or not the child actually purchases what is being marketed to him or her.

 

The Happy Meal ban angers me because I think a business should be allowed to give away whatever it wants for free. There is no coercion going on here. They toys don't hurt the children. You buy the meal and they throw in a free toy. If you don't want the toy, you can refuse it. If you don't want the meal, you don't have to buy it. Now, they are forcing McD's to make me pay for something that had been free. And, I think it is ridiculous because now the kids will still be begging their parents to take them to McDonald's and get the Happy Meal toy with their meal for $$. and parents who can't say no to the Happy Meal as it is won't be any more inclined to say no to adding the toy on to the meal for $.50 or whatever it is. It also is requiring McD's to spend a lot of money adjusting their menus and marketing plans which I think is too much useless government interference and the money McD's has to spend will be passed on either to consumers or to employees who either will work less or get paid less to make up the difference.

[wapiti]

So what's the difference? Why do corporations get a pass, but not schools? Hope this doesn't sound snarky, it's not intended to be at all.

 

Just thinking out loud, for one thing, it's not hard to turn off the TV. Not so easy to turn off the public school teachers whose audience is more of the captive variety.

[Catherine]

It's not one parent insisting the business world bend to her will, it's a city of citizens insisting that local businesses bend to their will. When it's stated that way, I think the true conflict is better illuminated. If enough citizens in a city support legislation (through their elected officials) to limit marketing to children in a particular way, then they pass a law like this.

 

I agree with you that parents should teach their children to be wary of advertising, to spend their money wisely, all of those points. But it's simply not true that advertising is not aimed at children. Advertising to children is a millions of dollars a year industry. Can you honestly say you think that advertising to children is beneficial? Do you support it on moral grounds? Do you think that no limits at all should ever be placed on it?

[Murphy101]

What about schools then? Many people here have expressed extreme displeasure with how schools and teachers usurp parental rights, by teaching things that they personally disagree with. I frequently read about how schools make parenting so much harder because we have to un-teach and counter-teach. (And I have made those complaints myself.)

 

So what's the difference? Why do corporations get a pass, but not schools? Hope this doesn't sound snarky, it's not intended to be at all.

 

No one is being forced to take a toy from McD. No matter where you live, if you don't want it, just say so.

 

In schools, students are literally by law forced to sit and listen to the crap. If the schools bring in Mcd ads or give mcd fries as a reading incentive with no alternative - these kids have to passively sit there surrounded by it. Yes, I think that is wrong. It's not what kids are sent to schools for and as a parent, I don't want my education tax dollers going there.

 

It's not one parent insisting the business world bend to her will, it's a city of citizens insisting that local businesses bend to their will. When it's stated that way, I think the true conflict is better illuminated. If enough citizens in a city support legislation (through their elected officials) to limit marketing to children in a particular way, then they pass a law like this.

 

But that is NOT what happened. The citizens never voted for this law. If they had, I might have a different opinion. Not likely bc I still think it's a stupid law and if there's a problem it is completely within the parents grasp to handle it without a law.

 

Can you honestly say you think that advertising to children is beneficial? Do you support it on moral grounds? Do you think that no limits at all should ever be placed on it?

 

I have no moral objection to happy meal toys at the moment.

I suppose if they start putting sex toys in there or jello shooters, yes, I'd have a problem with that being sold as a child's toy.

 

We live in an adult world, not a kiddie wonderland.

I can't go to the dr without passing a huge billboard for strip club.

Most magazines have the worst sexual garbage in the advertising. (I'm concerned for all engineers and mechanics. Going by the ridiculous amount of ads in Popular Science for various penis issues, we are concerned if this is some kind of work related hazard?!)

 

It seems saying advertising to kids would be rather unhelpful given they live in an adult world full of far more morally questionable advertising.

[Haiku]

I think it's a bit of a fit to expect, demand, insist, whatever term you'd like, that the entire business world stop advertising because it would make your parenting easier.

 

I did none of those things. I said I wished for restrictions on marketing to children. I am not demanding or even expecting these things, but I would like them and wouldn't feel my liberties were being restrained if they suddenly happened. Honestly, on my list of priorities, worrying about marketing to kids is way, way, way low, but since we're talking about it here, I am expressing my opinion/preference. I am not demanding or having fits. I'm a little surprised you can't tell the difference, actually.

 

My point (which I guess was not explicitly stated in these last few posts, but which was made upthread) is that this is not big government coming in and usurping parental rights. This is local government having a say in what the people want for their community, and I really see zero wrong with that. In fact, I think that's a good thing.

 

Tara

[stripe]

Well, I oppose the candy/soda/junk food marketing "game" often done in cahoots with schools. When I was in several different schools in different parts of the country, we had to sit through an assembly urging us to sell magazines and candy (at different times of the year). We were told we had to sell one magazine subscription and one box of candy (30 bars/bags). We were also told not to go door-to-door to sell them. Seniors in HS were threatened with not being allowed to "walk" at graduation. I don't know anyone who tested this, but it was repeatedly screamed at the student body. In high school, a candy and soda vending machine was installed, of course, not to operate during lunch hours -- ? When are students supposed to buy stuff? During class? We also had a third party's pizza available for purchase once a week (or month?) at school during lunch. I found all of that to be revolting and promoting unhealthful eating.

 

I think the issue with the advertising is, when children ONLY are exposed to unhealthful, prepared food items being advertised, in a hugely disproportionate ratio to other foods, can we really expect them to have great eating habits? The only non-junk foods I can think of that are or have been advertised are beef, pork, milk, and various local/state produced foods (e.g. California cheese, Washington apples, Idaho potatoes). You just don't see too many of these.

 

Also there is a serious effort to make children into nuisances so as to "encourage" their parents (through their irritating, whiny behavior) to buy toys, candy, or other child-targeted foods such as cereal or green ketchup. I think this is destructive to the family bond as well as the children's health.

 

These should be of concern to both citizens and the government, in terms of creating the sort of future that we will want to live in.

[Tea Time]

I don't just think it's being shifted to children-I think they're being trained as future consumers. "Make this bad choice and we'll reward you." Of course advertisers and such would never admit to that train of thought when devising a marketing campaign, but that is the end effect on the children.

 

"I don't just think [decision making] it's being shifted to children-I think they're being trained as future voters. 'Vote for me and I'll reward you.' Of course politicians would never admit to that train of thought when devising public education, but that is the end effect on children."

 

You are completely right and totally onto something here! But the problem is that some people only see it when they are looking at corporations (where it is fairly obvious really) instead of seeing that this is happening with our government as well, as I state below. In fact, our government has entrenched the concept in public education and has addicted us to child care. Once you get that idea, it is hard to imagine any way out, which I think is why people really don't want to see it at all.

 

It is well established that advertising is a "right" (That word can mean different things to different people and in different contexts. I am using it in the sense of "something that people, businesses, and corporations are free to do.) It is also established that there are limitations to that right. Is the law about McDs (or other laws that might come up) working solely to make an advertising method honest and fair, or does it have a broader purpose and effect? Could the law be manipulating the business at a level that is beyond advertising? Does the law have the intention of giving lawmakers a hand in controlling business practices other than just advertising? If so, then it is disingenuous to say it is simply a law limiting advertising to minors. It may still be a law with a good purpose, but the purpose must be clear and defined, not hidden in trickery. What good is it for the government to be tricky and manipulative to stop businesses from being tricky and manipulative! :001_huh:

 

The ends do no justify the means, a concept that both the advertisers and the government seem to have forgotten. I am at a big loss as to how to structure our laws to force people be ethical if they really are not ethical. It makes me sad.

 

Once kids are out independently (which happens at an earlier and earlier age), the buck pretty much stops with Mikey. If Mikey has $5 in his pocket and goes to McD's while he's out and about on his bike, Mikey's mommy is pretty much out of the equation.

 

Tara

 

This is not going to hurt your child enough that we need laws put in place to "protect" your child from an occasional "guilty pleasure." They would do better to be working on making sure that Mikey does not get molested by a child predator while out on his bike. That is their first priority, isn't it? Or has that issued been solved so they want to move on to something that is really, at heart, a parental duty? If they really care about public health, they should take on Monsanto or stop subsidizing corn so that everything we eat is not full of corn. That would be something that parents would have trouble doing. But it would probably cost them dearly, whereas fighting this foe is easy, cheap, and pays big "feel good" (read that as getting votes) dividends. (Can I get a Amen to that at least???)

 

:iagree:Excellent post.

 

Whether parents want to accept it or not, corporate advertising that is aimed at children is having an impact on children, for better or worse, regardless of how great individual parents are or how much they control their kids. I see no problem with parents standing up to oppose children being targeted in such a way.

 

Whether or not you want to accept it, the government is equally interested in manipulating you and your children for their own ends (which they often feel are really, really for your own good). Parents have been free to stand up and oppose this all along. Obviously it has not been a priority. I agree with Martha. The sexualized culture is just as bad or worse for our overall health, especially that of our children, but we can't get any limits on that anywhere, it seems.

 

My point (which I guess was not explicitly stated in these last few posts, but which was made upthread) is that this is not big government coming in and usurping parental rights. This is local government having a say in what the people want for their community, and I really see zero wrong with that. In fact, I think that's a good thing.

 

Tara

 

This is a good point, Tara, if it is truly the will of the majority of the community then they should be able to make that choice. Everyone does need to realize that laws that restrict business practices do have an impact on the community that is often outside the desired effects, and proliferating laws do tend to concentrate power in government institutions instead of in private ones (at all levels). Unintended consequences are a fact of economics and life in general.

[MelanieM]

 

Whether or not you want to accept it, the government is equally interested in manipulating you and your children for their own ends (which they often feel are really, really for your own good). Parents have been free to stand up and oppose this all along. Obviously it has not been a priority. I agree with Martha. The sexualized culture is just as bad or worse for our overall health, especially that of our children, but we can't get any limits on that anywhere, it seems.

 

 

I don't disagree with you. But I don't understand why the idea that government is manipulating our kids means that we can't protest when corporations do it. Two wrongs, and all that jazz... And who says it hasn't been a priority for some parents? It's been a priority for someone or else this wouldn't have happened.

 

You raise an interesting point regarding our overly sexualized culture (which I also have a big issue with). I wonder if people would also oppose any type of ruling that put additional restrictions on the type of sexual content that could be depicted in advertising aimed at children. After all, it seems what passes for a G rated movie is getting worse and worse... should someone clamp down on that, or would it also be seen as a violation of parental rights? Trying to understand where people are truly drawing the line, because it seems from here that it isn't as cut and dry as many would suggest.

[Jen500]

 

My point (which I guess was not explicitly stated in these last few posts, but which was made upthread) is that this is not big government coming in and usurping parental rights. This is local government having a say in what the people want for their community, and I really see zero wrong with that. In fact, I think that's a good thing.

 

Tara

 

Great point Tara.

Does anyone posting in this thread even live in SF??

[creekland]

 

My point (which I guess was not explicitly stated in these last few posts, but which was made upthread) is that this is not big government coming in and usurping parental rights. This is local government having a say in what the people want for their community, and I really see zero wrong with that. In fact, I think that's a good thing.

 

Tara

 

So, you'd be ok if the majority were to decide they didn't want big corporations marketing pants to girls and therefore passed a law stating all pictures had to show girls in dresses or skirts since that's what the majority wants for their community?

 

Or you'd be ok if the majority were to decide that competitive sports injure too many children a year so no company should use any sports pictures or memorabilia in their marketing?

 

Or you'd be ok if the majority decide video games were the downfall of the children, so all marketing of video games should be gone?

 

Or you'd be ok if the majority decided a book didn't contain "appropriate" content for children so it should be banned from the community and you had to ask for it at the library if you wanted it as it wouldn't be allowed to simply be on the shelf?

 

It's a very, VERY scary thing when our country lets the majority rule on such things. Our constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority. Granted, it hasn't always worked, but I sure don't want to see it slide. I'd rather parent adequately for my own children and teach them about marketing in the process. It's far more useful.

[Haiku]

Once kids are out independently (which happens at an earlier and earlier age), the buck pretty much stops with Mikey. If Mikey has $5 in his pocket and goes to McD's while he's out and about on his bike, Mikey's mommy is pretty much out of the equation.

 

 

This is not going to hurt your child enough that we need laws put in place to "protect" your child from an occasional "guilty pleasure."

 

Yeah, I wasn't really arguing for one thing or another here, I was just making an observation in response to your question about who controls the purse strings. Once Mikey is out on his own with money, parents aren't in control of what he spends. They can hope they have taught him well and expect that he stick within their parameters, but they aren't in control anymore. We can argue about whether parents should allow their kids to have their own money or whether they should allow their kids to go out alone, for that matter, but the fact remains that children are the targets of maketing and many will make their own spending decisions. Just the facts. My opinion is that regulations on marketing to minors is ok. And historically we have had regulations on marketing to minors. In fact, the cigarette industry got in trouble big-time for doing it.

 

Tara

Edited November 12, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[Tea Time]

I don't disagree with you. But I don't understand why the idea that government is manipulating our kids means that we can't protest when corporations do it. Two wrongs, and all that jazz... And who says it hasn't been a priority for some parents? It's been a priority for someone or else this wouldn't have happened.

It might have been driven by parents. I don't know the facts, so I am just speculating. But it might just be a priority for officials who see it as a way to look good in the eyes of voters while taking very little political risk. Because they will not take on the root problems which only government could take on surrounding food (Monsanto, subsidized corn, etc.) or take on other issues affecting children, I have trouble really believing that the core reason this goes forward is the deep, abiding concern for children. I know, I am jaded. That is true enough.

 

I feel like the things that corporations do to manipulate the public are fairly transparent, and it is easier to connect the dots because the incentives are fairly obvious. But where government is concerned it is more insidious. It is not so easy to see how public education can be manipulated to guarantee future votes. It is not as easy to see how taxes carve into the economy. Also, corporation and businesses produce the wealth in this country. We have good reason to want them to succeed. Government is important, but it cannot keep us afloat on its own, ever. To me that is why I fret more over government. That is not to say that I do not fret over both!

 

You raise an interesting point regarding our overly sexualized culture (which I also have a big issue with). I wonder if people would also oppose any type of ruling that put additional restrictions on the type of sexual content that could be depicted in advertising aimed at children. After all, it seems what passes for a G rated movie is getting worse and worse... should someone clamp down on that, or would it also be seen as a violation of parental rights? Trying to understand where people are truly drawing the line, because it seems from here that it isn't as cut and dry as many would suggest.

Martha actually brought it up. I don't know what to do about it! It is completely overwhelming to me. As I said, how do you make people be ethical if they simply are not ethical at their core? How do you change the heart? I know of only one way, and that is not very popular right now. :confused:

 

Where the food issue is concerned, I just see the overly sexualized culture as something that reveals a lot of hypocrisy.

 

Most people who are for small government have wished that the media would clean itself up, especially in response to a public that often really supports family friendly entertainment. I have not seen them push a lot of restrictive laws, however, and that seems to show a little less hypocrisy. Just a thought.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Tea Time

[Tea Time]

Yeah, I wasn't really arguing for one thing or another here, I was just making an observation in response to your question about who controls the purse strings. Once Mikey is out on his own with money, parents aren't in control of what he spends. They can hope they have taught him well and expect that he stick within their parameters, but they aren't in control anymore. We can argue about whether parents should allow their kids to have their own money or whether they should allow their kids to go out alone, for that matter, but the fact remains that children are the targets of maketing and many will make their own spending decisions. Just the facts.

 

Tara

 

I alluded to the idea that the parents control the purse strings; others might have as well. But I was just speaking theoretically (which I noted). I was also making the point that things have really gotten out of control regarding raising kids in our culture if advertisers just bypass the parents and appeal straight to children!

 

I know what you mean though, and of course it is true. It is HARD for parents to do a good job of any of it when all the forces out there seem determined to go against us! I get really depressed about it at times.

[Haiku]

So, you'd be ok if the majority were to decide they didn't want big corporations marketing pants to girls and therefore passed a law stating all pictures had to show girls in dresses or skirts since that's what the majority wants for their community?

 

Or you'd be ok if the majority were to decide that competitive sports injure too many children a year so no company should use any sports pictures or memorabilia in their marketing?

 

Or you'd be ok if the majority decide video games were the downfall of the children, so all marketing of video games should be gone?

 

Or you'd be ok if the majority decided a book didn't contain "appropriate" content for children so it should be banned from the community and you had to ask for it at the library if you wanted it as it wouldn't be allowed to simply be on the shelf?

 

 

I guess I am not seeing the parallel. No one is saying kids can't buy Happy Meals, just that McDonald's can't offer toys to kids if the Happy Meals are going to be nutritionally crappy. Just like Camel can't market Joe Camel items that were clearly designed to get children interested. I guess if some company decided that they were going to give free candy bars to kids whose parents bought them ultra-low-rise jeans that said "Slut" across the rear, I'd be cool with citizens saying, "No candy bars."

 

Tara

[Tea Time]

I guess I am not seeing the parallel. No one is saying kids can't buy Happy Meals, just that McDonald's can't offer toys to kids if the Happy Meals are going to be nutritionally crappy. Just like Camel can't market Joe Camel items that were clearly designed to get children interested. I guess if some company decided that they were going to give free candy bars to kids whose parents bought them ultra-low-rise jeans that said "Slut" across the rear, I'd be cool with citizens saying, "No candy bars."

 

Tara

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Okay, but it won't help! They have managed to sell the slut jeans without using the actual word and without the candy bars. I guess we should not worry too much about McDs.

 

Lo, the crap will continue unabated.

 

See why I feel like the public officials just want to pump up their own popularity and have no serious intentions behind the measures? Surely no actual parents really wasted their time on this. It is not worth precious parent time!

 

Someone slap me! The cynicism is overwhelming me!!!!:banghead:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I guess I am not seeing the parallel. No one is saying kids can't buy Happy Meals, just that McDonald's can't offer toys to kids if the Happy Meals are going to be nutritionally crappy. Just like Camel can't market Joe Camel items that were clearly designed to get children interested. I guess if some company decided that they were going to give free candy bars to kids whose parents bought them ultra-low-rise jeans that said "Slut" across the rear, I'd be cool with citizens saying, "No candy bars."

 

Tara

 

The difference is that it is illegal to sell cigarettes and other tobacco products products to minors. Last time I checked a minor could still "get fries with that." One is clearly marketing a product that it is illegal for that kid to purchase-the other is trying to get kids to buy their stuff (or more of their stuff) which is already legal to purchase.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I still do not understand why many are ok with corporations marketing to children. I am pretty sure we would be upset if strangers talked to our children. Why is it ok for business to try and sell products to children?

[Tea Time]

I still do not understand why many are ok with corporations marketing to children. I am pretty sure we would be upset if strangers talked to our children. Why is it ok for business to try and sell products to children?

 

It isn't always okay. It is just that it is a bad idea to call upon the state to intervene to fix all advertising problems. It will likely not work and probably backfire. Besides, they are too busy marketing themselves to our children (think Al Gore in the famous school assembly). :lol: You have to remember that governments are just people, too. They work under incentives as well.

 

Sometimes, however, it is okay, even good to market to children. For example, I work for a gymnastics facility that routinely visits local schools to give presentations. Schools request us to visit them, but I don't know what else markets there. For us it definitely is marketing and we get lots of business that way, although it is informative, too. We are not a corporation, but we are a business looking for income to stay afloat as are corporations. If we do not stay afloat then it is too bad, not only because we teach fitness to many children, but because jobs would be lost.

 

Personally though, I am glad that my children did not spend 12 years in public school being a market for vendors, and I do have mixed feelings about it in general because all the difference lies in what is being marketed. It is a potentially problematic situation, but I think for the most part it is better to trust parents and markets to sort themselves out. They would be able to do that better if governments had stayed out of more things all along and kids were not institutionalized for so many years (It makes them a captive audience.).

 

I would like to see the government work harder on laws that are on the books and stop expanding them. I see a lot of lack of respect for the law due to the fact that it has become so invasive and overwhelming, but that is another tangent.

 

Does that help at all???