%20(1)_edited.png)
Nov 14, 2024
By: Eva Zhong
Courtesy of Prostock-Studio | Getty Images
In a world where, for better or worse, our youngest consumers are glued to screens, advertisers and marketers begin continuously vying for their attention. With this digital immersion comes a nonstop flow of advertisements tailored to the most impressionable of minds. In today’s highly competitive market, children represent a valuable audience for brands looking to establish loyalty as early as possible. From animated characters parading colorful cereal boxes to catchy jingles for the latest toys, when brands speak to children, where should marketers draw the line between engaging and exploiting?
An Expensive & Tactical Industry
Two well known brands and their child-specific products, McDonald’s Happy Meal and Kinder Egg Surprise, lend themselves as notable case studies in this ethical debate. Both brands have faced significant backlash for advertising tactics that sparked discussions about children’s health, gender stereotypes, and underscored the responsibilities of brands to their youngest audiences. When it comes to marketing, firms are undoubtedly strategic in targeting consumer wants and needs, employing tactical psychological schemas to push their ideas across. That's just smart and effective marketing in most scenarios, but not necessarily so when used on children who are still gradually developing rational judgements.
Children represent a significant segment of the consumer market, both through their own spending and influence on family purchases. In the United States, children up to 11 years old spend approximately $18 billion annually, while teenagers contribute around $160 billion in direct spending. Additionally, children and teens influence parental purchases totaling over $130 billion each year (Children As Consumers). Advertising targeting children is a more substantial industry than you might think. In 2023, advertisers in the baby and kids sector in the U.S. spent nearly $1.53 billion on advertising, up from less than $1.28 billion in 2022 (Statista).
Children are exposed to a vast number of advertisements annually; estimates suggest that young people view more than 40,000 ads per year on television alone (Children, Adolescents, and Advertising).
Courtesy of Center for Science in the Public Interest
Too Young to Question: Children’s Unique Vulnerability to Advertising
Children, especially those under the age of eight, lack the cognitive skills to fully understand the persuasive nature of advertising. While you and I can clearly identify hyperbolic portrayals of a product for sensationalist purposes, children simply cannot. You tell a kid Santa is real, they believe you; you tell a kid that Santa endorses a product, they have no reason to reject that idea either. According to research by the APA Task Force, children in this age group often interpret advertising as informative and unbiased — what they see is what they think they will get. “Children can be sold things with their full and enthusiastic personal consent which are, in fact, entirely inappropriate for them” notes a report from the Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM). For marketers, this creates a high-stakes situation — while children represent an ideal market for long-term brand loyalty, their impressionability raises questions about responsible advertising. Marketing directly to children becomes especially problematic when it targets vulnerable aspects of their behaviors.
Courtesy of McDonald’s
Happy Kids and Upset Stomachs
I’m sure we are all familiar with McDonald’s Happy Meals, most people I know have purchased their fair share of it throughout their childhood. The Happy Meals have long appealed to children by combining fast food with the allure of free toys. However, these toys became a focal point for criticism, where health advocates argue that they incentivize children to consume unhealthy, high-calorie meals for the reward of cute, collectible toys. In response to the backlash, certain cities, like San Francisco, implemented regulations requiring that kids’ meals meet specific nutritional standards before they could include a toy (Daily Meal). This policy addresses the issue of “pester power”, which refers to the way children are able to influence family purchasing decisions by persistently asking for items they see advertised. Children do not have purchasing power, but what they do have is unlimited energy to nag their guardians to make a purchase on their behalf (sorry to say I was one of those kids too).
McDonald’s have since then introduced healthier side options in their Happy Meal offerings such as apple slices or milk instead of fries and soda.
Courtesy of The Grocer
Kinder Surprise Or Gender Stereotypes?
Kinder Surprise Eggs have captivated children for decades with an exciting combination of chocolate and a hidden toy. However, the company sparked significant controversy when it introduced gender-specific versions of the chocolate, “for Girls” and “for Boys”. In these products, toys were tailored based on traditional gender stereotypes, with “boy eggs” featuring action-themed toys like cars, while “girl eggs” contained dolls or beauty-related toys. This gender-specific approach to marketing perpetuates outdated stereotypes about what interests are appropriate for boys versus girls, teaching impressionable minds from a young age what they should and should not like. Unsurprisingly, the release of these girl/boy eggs outraged parents, educators, and social activists alike.
Dividing products along gender lines restricts children’s freedom to explore diverse interests and reinforces limiting social norms. As the CIM report noted, even though products may not necessarily directly shape a child, the signifier of the brand does — there are unintended consequences of branding, especially when they are aimed at young consumers. In response, the company removed gender-segregated Kinder eggs and opted for a more inclusive approach that allowed children to enjoy a range of toys regardless of gender. This highlights the need for marketers to adapt with changing societal expectations and adopt inclusive marketing practices, especially for young consumers.
When the Rules Aren’t Enough: National Policies and Self-Regulation
With these concerns in mind, there needs to be a balance between self-regulation within the marketing industry and the legal frameworks implemented on a national level. Ethical considerations of marketers should be standardized when it comes to children, and each state needs to address these problems on a more institutional level. Again, the burden of responsibility should never be on the children, who are made exceptionally vulnerable by the current exploitative media marketing landscape. Countries like Norway and Sweden have set positive examples by outlawing commercial advertisements “immediately before, during, and after a program primarily aimed at children under 12” (CIM Report). However, in the United States, self-regulation is still the norm, where brands have a lot of freedom in how they choose to appeal to young audiences.
Advertisements aired on television or print mediums can be more carefully vetted and regulated. However, with the advent of personalized, data-driven marketing strategies on social media, brands can choose to post whatever they want whenever they want — “Digital food marketing can be said to be exploitative of young people’s incredulity due to its use of highly salient creative content…[in] embedded, immersive, and interactive ways” (Cambridge University Press).
Courtesy of Amazon
Parental influences also play a huge role in moderating the effects of advertising. There has been a push for parents to emphasize media literacy to help children understand the intentions behind advertisements and become critical consumers. Guardians with purchasing power have just as much responsibility in making informed decisions about what their children are consuming — “Parents need to exercise judgment, just as they would for alcohol, gambling, and other areas that are acceptably marketed to adults, but not to children” (CIM report). Nonetheless, the psychological tactic employed by brands cannot be easily counteracted by children who still believe in tooth fairies. Susan Lin from The Guardian comments on the topic by saying, “to depend on children to protect themselves from advertising is either naïve or disingenuous”.
In the Gray Zone: Navigating Moral Ambiguity in Kid-Focused Ads
Though there are clear issues with children's marketing, there still exists a lot of moral ambiguity. Nothing about this type of marketing is blatantly evil or systematically illegal, but it is ethically negligent. Advertising tactics themselves already leverage our weaknesses for populations with — hopefully — fully developed frontal lobes. For children, they are enticed by the novelty of an item rather than the genuine utility behind a product. Adults can barely think critically when presented with flashy advertisements, let alone children.
While government regulations and parental guidance can help curb some of the excesses of child-targeted advertising, the primary responsibility rests with brands. To ethically reach young audiences, companies should emphasize inclusive, balanced messaging and avoid tactics that exploit children's impressionability. The takeaway for marketers is clear — creating a loyal customer base among children shouldn’t come at the cost of their health, autonomy, or development.
Eva Zhong is a junior studying media, culture, and communication at NYU Steinhardt. She enjoys writing, from poetry to social commentary, and will go on existential tangents any chance she gets.
Comments