After the discussion we had in class today, I was left thinking a lot about the vulnerability of children and how it's exploited by the media and by corporations. It really surprised me when the lady in the documentary (Lucy, I believe?) claimed that she didn't care about the moral repercussions of her job pretty much because it's what she was asked to do and it made her money. Personally, I think that using children as a ploy to get their parents to buy them things is extremely immoral, because it takes advantage of a parent's emotional attachment to their child. Of course, if a child nags their parent enough, their parents are bound to buy them what they want (unless these parents seem to have an extreme kind of self control that I definitely don't...) When it's two parents (or in growing cases, only one) parent up against their child, backed by millions of dollars worth of marketing, as well as their child's peers, who do you think is going to win? There's only so much a parent can take.
These corporations are taking advantage of the vulnerability of children in that they are easily influenced and led to believe that they need toys that they definitely don't. Of course that's immoral; it's taking advantage of a person based on age. Could these corporations use similar marketing ploys to take advantage of the weaknesses of elderly people? Probably not...and yet taking advantage of a child's undeveloped brain is considered ethical and "fair."
The kinds of commercials targeted at small children scare me sometimes.
Not only are they way too fast-paced and crazy, it's actually hard to take your eyes off the screen. Watching TV with my 10-year-old brother makes me fear for his future. Characters in TV commercials can be shown displaying extreme happiness when they're exposed to the product being marketed, and yet in some cases they can also be seen going to a drug-like withdrawal from the products when they're taken away. (Sonny from the Cocoa Puffs commercials, anyone?). This kind of advertising is harmful to children's impressionable minds because it leads them to believe that they actually need these products, not only for fun but for survival. They're taught that money can buy happiness, which as we all eventually learn, does not.
Among tons of other issues I had with our class discussion today (and yet failed to acknowledge at the time, as usual), I feel really strongly that targeting children is a really low way to get products sold. It's immoral and unfair not only to parents but to the unsuspecting and extremely targets. I don't know what kinds of steps could be taken to ban this kind of advertising but maybe someday corporations will realize the horrible influence they are on our nation's growing generations. (Wishful thinking I guess.)
1 comment:
I think that some kids commercials are pretty weird, but when I was a child I remember thinking that they were just funny. I thought that the Trix one was sad, because I wanted the bunny to have his cereal, but it never bothered me too much. The Cocoa Puffs one really impacted me, because I remember I would ask my mom if I could have Cocoa Puffs all the time, right after seeing the ad. In that respect, it's a good ad because of the Nag Factor. I don't know that I would go so far to say that its a drug-like withdrawl, although I can totally see your point. I think it shows little kids more of how crazy and hyper you can get when you have such a sugary cereal, which at least is accurate. And every little kid wants to be hyper, right??
Post a Comment