Fast Food Industry Marketing Towards Children - Essay Example

So-called “fast-food” consists of meals which are pre-cooked and warmed later for the s convenience. For over the past half-century, these types of products have served as a staple of the modern diet. All over the world, such establishments rose up to meet customer demands; that is, wherever customers are busy and industrious, or otherwise have neither the time to cook their own meals nor the money to dine at traditional sit-down restaurants, fast-food establishments satisfy demand for quick, tasty and cheap food. In many ways, the automation of food consumption was inevitable: factory work in every industry, especially automobile production, underwent a process of automation throughout the 20th century. With the advent of fast-food, the absolutely essential activity of eating has become no different. But despite the obvious demand for such an industry, a relatively recent phenomenon has begun to occur: accusations that the fast-food industry is responsible for the statistical rise in obesity over the past quarter century in developed countries. The most startling of these statistics apply to children. A 2008 study found that approximately 32% of all children in the United States are either overweight or obese (Neighmond). Such findings have left many to question why the modern world—especially the United States—is becoming so fat. The blame has been laid primarily (but by no means solely) on the fast-food industry—having been accused of marketing to children in such a way that the children are, in essence, coerced into using their product. A new study exemplifies this, which indicated that banning fast-food advertising to children would reduce obesity rates in children by 18% (Fox). At no other chain have these criticisms been so pointed than at McDonald’s—the world’s largest fast-food chain and by far the most widely recognized among those who are familiar with these types of restaurants. In the course of this examination, I shall use this chain as the paradigm for the entire industry for two reasons: (1) statistically, McDonald’s, as a business, has outperformed its competitors in the industry by a significant margin, and (2), conceptually, McDonald’s Corporation has the most recognizable face in the entire industry. Attacks on the corporation stem primarily from those startling statistics on childhood obesity cited above; these attacks take the form of condemnations of McDonald’s enormously successful advertising campaigns to children. The question is not, however, what responsibility McDonald’s has to these individuals or to society. By examining the nature of marketing and advertising, and refuting arguments against these activities, we will see that the fast-food industry ultimately bears no responsibility for the harmful effects of the disastrous overuse of its products. In showing that this is true, we will find the real causal determinants of the recent explosion in childhood obesity, as well as the agenda behind faulting corporations. First, however, it may be instructive to investigate the real nature of advertising and marketing in order to gain a full view of these claims. Firstly, advertising as such is simply a subset of marketing, for marketing is the piece of any business which recognizes and acts upon the demands of current and potential customers, and then creates, packages, and delivers the products produced from the customers’ demands. Fundamentally, marketing is entrepreneurship insofar as it rewards innovation by uniting innovation with execution. Marketing is the process of creating need- and want-satisfying products and then delivering them to customers (Hermann). In contrast, advertising is simply selling to the mass-media. It consists of the communication of production information by means of this medium in order to sell one’s products. To narrow the definition, advertising is a technique of communication directly to customers which ultimately costs less than other methods directed at this end. Thus, there are a few things to remember when discussing advertising. First of all, advertising differs from personal salesmanship in two ways: (1) advertisements are delivered to many individuals simultaneously, and (2), advertisements are delivered through a medium as opposed to in person. Another item to keep in mind is that a first principle is that good advertising consists of the “primacy of the product”. That is, one cannot advertise and eventually sell a product that has no demand in the marketplace. Thus, one cannot just “sell anything to anybody”; there must be a reason—rational or irrational—why someone desires a certain product. Common criticisms of advertising in general, with a particular focus on McDonald’s, revolve around a supposed “coercive” power of advertising. The critics claim that advertising apparently creates the needs and wants that it aims to satisfy by using techniques of persuasion. Or, to phrase it differently, behaviorist psychology indicates that people have no choice once they see a particularly effective advertisement—that their actions are fully determined by their environments and that they have absolutely control over their actions. Such determinism “reduces the complexity of human choices and action to the status of a reflex” (Kirkpatrick 44). A central proposition which the critic is asserting here is that tastes and wants are determined by advertising. However, tastes, needs, needs, and demands all come from within the customer. So, although advertising can be a necessary condition for a consumer’s demands, one cannot assert that advertising determines those demands unless it is also the sufficient condition. Consider the example of a lemonade stand which is selling glasses of lemonade for 5¢ per unit. It is also relevant to the example that the weather conditions on this day are sunny and scorching. Moving from this example, apply these critics’ assessments. Suppose two people are walking down this street by the lemonade stand: person A is a parched farmer, thirsty after spending hours outside working his fields, and person B is a well-dressed businessman who just exited his limousine well-hydrated and slightly chilled. Clearly, the fact that person A wants this lemonade is based upon his value-judgments. He does not immediately need this lemonade, but because he likes the taste of lemonade and he is thirsty, he wants some. Clearly, that the businessman is not thirsty and is not hot leads him to make a different value-judgment. It is a non sequitur to move automatically from the existence of products and product advertising to the conclusion that such products—with accommodating advertising—actually create the consumers’ wants (Hayek). Transition of goods from “luxuries” to “necessities” demonstrates this: as so-called “luxuries” have become cheaper and more available (the necessary condition), consumer demands have changed, according to their value-judgments (Kirkpatrick). Attacks by critics on the marketing tools of McDonalds, and the rest of the fast-food industry, to children consist of similar accusations of coercion. Within the past decade, these attacks have become ever more vehement, especially with the works of Morgan Spurlock, author and filmmaker. Sam Hirsch, an attorney who sued tobacco companies in litigation seeking monetary compensation for his clients’ health problems, brought legal action against McDonalds Corporation in 2003 with a lawsuit accusing McDonald’s of coercing children into long-term, catastrophically unhealthy diets. In light of these condemnations on the part of societies as a whole, an examination of corporate social responsibility is in order. Many have made the claim that McDonalds and the fast-food industry have some type of responsibility to the assistance of those societies that they bring their services to. Corporate social responsibility is commonly defined as a corporation’s attempts to take into consideration the welfare of society by maintaining accountability for the effects of their activities on suppliers, shareholders, the environment, customers, and employees alike. In other words, the concept of social responsibility denotes the application of morality—something reserved for individual human beings—to non-human entities (Vogel). Corporate social responsibility, in the case of McDonalds, entails, according to the critics, not marketing harmful products to children. Nevertheless, the natures of corporate social responsibility and business as such contradict one another, for the only responsibility which corporations have is to their shareholders. The shareholders are the reason for the corporation’s existence; thus, the corporation has no “responsibility” to anyone or anything but them, except to follow laws. So, although many like the idea of a corporation handing out pieces of its large revenue, which ought to go to the shareholders who deserve such returns, to do so would be an even larger injustice than giving fast-food to children free of charge. People already question the motives of the Ronald McDonald House, an organization operated by McDonalds’ that houses parents of ailing children in hospitals, saying that McDonalds is capitalizing off these altruistic enterprises. The question then becomes, what can this firm do right in terms of its corporate social responsibility? Nothing, because it has none. McDonalds markets to children through a variety of means, with outstanding success. The means by which the fast-food industry can get to children is primarily through television. Television is certainly the most commonly used electronic communication device of children, and thus the leading cause of sedentary lifestyles (Critser 73). Fast-food companies can also reach children through less common means as well—including the internet. Eric Schlosser, in his book fast-food Nation, recounts one instance of internet advertising wherein “a character on the McDonalds web site told children that Ronald McDonald was ‘the ultimate authority in everything’” (Schlosser 45). In addition to using mass communication to advertise to children, McDonalds also uses various devices as jungle gyms (or “playplaces”), and toys in special kids’ meals to ensure return visits to the restaurant. Schlosser also reveals the infiltration of McDonalds advertisements in public schools “as a means [for children] of paying for their own education” (Schlosser 52). Statistical evidence shows that McDonalds advertisements to children are extremely effective. As Schlosser recounts, “the aim of most children’s advertising is straightforward: get kids to nag their parents and nag them well” (Schlosser 43). The advertisements are so effective, in fact, that they build lifetime loyalty with only one visit and sustained subsequent marketing (Tellis). Our society, on the whole, finds almost any marketing to children morally reprehensible because of its view of children not as young people, but as young people. Such a dichotomy drawn between the adult and the child is not at all mistaken. In fact, it is completely valid. Fundamental differences do separate childhood and adulthood. Such differences between adults and children are in a persons willingness to question the world around him. It is this criterion that allows us to differentiate children and adults into two discrete groups. A child sees his world through inexperienced eyes and has not heard many things: his life revolves around learning and exploring. Children hear many different accounts about their world; they are commanded on what to do and how to do so. Nevertheless, a child will not take such stories as irrefutable fact, for children explore for themselves. Questioning plays a central role in a childs life (Borman). Adults, however, are quite different. Adult human beings have heard accounts of events throughout their entire lives. But, through time, adults gradually abandon this inquisitive nature. They merely start taking such stories as fact or may simply cast them aside if they conflict with their values, bothering not to investigate or discover the truth themselves. As an adult human being finds that he or she resides in a fundamentally three-dimensional, complex world, they do not bother to explore. As children grow into adults, something changes within them to make them lose that questioning. The fundamental difference between adults and children is their willingness to question. Adults stop asking about the world which they inhabit, for reasons that may never be fully understood. A child questions the world around them and strives to comprehend what is said to them (Borman). Modern societies tend to ascribe three distinctive characteristics to children. Together, these characteristics diminish children to irrational creatures which need coddling and protection from the harmful outside world and the malevolent forces of nature. Firstly, society sees children as innocent creatures. Innocent, in this context, means precisely what the term implies: harmful inexperience. Because children are these innocent creatures, they need protection from the detrimental effects of alcohol, drugs, and food. And because children are innocent, they should have no final responsibility for their actions. Secondly, society sees children as vulnerable creatures. Similar to innocence, vulnerability implies the necessity of a paternalism which robs children of their autonomy—a sacrifice of liberty for security. Because children are vulnerable to marketing directed at them, children need to be protected by any means against the irresistible coercion which constitutes persuasive advertising. Lastly, society sees children as gullible creatures, in the sense that they are “easily deceived or tricked”. However, as we have seen, the defining feature—the primary feature which permits us to draw a distinction—between adults and children, is the child’s inquisitive nature and proclivity for curiosity. To call children “gullible” in sense being spoken of here is fallacious. In fact, doing so forms the central fallacy which marks such attacks on fast-food marketing. By claiming that children are characteristically gullible, or vulnerable, to the deterministic forces of predatory advertising is to contradict the clear fact that human children are characteristically inquisitive, curious, and questioning. They take nothing as a given and accept no principles as an adult would. Adults, claiming that McDonalds aggressive and “coercive” marketing will impose upon the child their message, are imposing upon the child their own misperceptions. Such claims confuses the adulthood for the child’s psychology. Opposition to fast-food marketing to children is based essentially on these misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of children. They take responsibility away from those who are to blame for excessive consumption of these meals in youth populations, and place it on a legitimate business establishment providing useful, valuable products to customers worldwide. There is, in all honesty, no doubt that fast-food contributes to childhood obesity, and their marketing techniques exacerbate the problem by making large populations aware of the products. However, there is no real causal link between an advertisement on television and a child consuming fast-food products, let alone consuming them so excessively that they become overweight as a result. Thus, the question becomes what responsibility McDonalds, or any fast-food establishment which employs marketing strategies to children, has when it comes to childhood obesity. We have already established that neither McDonalds nor any large corporation have any genuine “social responsibility”. So what is the nature of their responsibility in this matter? It may be instructive to examine the means by which children acquire these products. In the aforementioned quotation from Schlosser, who says, “the aim of most children’s advertising is straightforward: get kids to nag their parents and nag them well” (Schlosser 43), we see the causal link between advertising and excessive consumption of fast-food products. Schlosser also notes that, “the explosion in children’s advertising occurred during the 1980s. Many working parents, feeling guilty about spending less time with their kids, started spending more money on them” (Schlosser 42). Consider the process. A child sees an advertisement on television or the internet for McDonalds which apparently “coerces” the child, when, in fact, what is happening is not coercion as such but a piquing of the child’s curiosity. The only coercion which occurs is that of the parents by the child, who “nag their parents and nag them well”. Nevertheless, this coercion is not equivalent to, say, the coercion of an adult by another adult. Coercion from a child is completely different because of the significant differences in the natures of children and adult human beings. Adults have the reason, and the power, to simply say “no”, especially when saying “yes” can be detrimental to the child’s welfare. However, there are additional psychological, and economic, factors at work as to why the parents allow children to consume these meals in excess: guilt about long hours at work, indisposition to prepare home-cooked meals, monetary issues, and so on. Ultimately, there must be a connection of cause by which children have the means to acquire these products; and for children to acquire these products in such a way that they significantly contribute to an unhealthy diet means that there is some parental responsibility, if not negligence, involved (Schor). Advertising simply does not have the coercive power which critics allege. Marketing cannot force products upon the innocent, vulnerable, and gullible children. It may be useful to distinguish the advertisement—a simple statement of words—from action in a purchase. I do this to bring attention to the fact that selling a product to a minor without the parent’s consent is a violation of the parent’s rights. Parents are, after all, responsible for all facets of their young child’s life until they reach adulthood. Parents may, if they make it known to the seller, have legal recourse in the event that a seller pushes his product on a child. Such legal recourse is, however, a violation of the parent’s rights. Children are, through their parents and their own rights as minors, thoroughly protected by common law. Thus, even if the critics were correct in their obviously erroneous assertions about the nature of childhood, their arguments would still fail. Above all, what common law cannot protect children from are the words of parents, teachers, friends, and television advertisements. Although words can be harmful, anything less than slander cannot not violate anyone’s individual rights. Thus, the simple statements which constitute legitimate advertising should not draw the types of legal constraints that the critics purport. Indeed, on the rating of those sources of information that can potentially harm children, the words of television programs and advertisements should be rather low on the list (Kirkpatrick). Using McDonalds and other fast-food establishments as scapegoats for the childhood obesity endemic has its clear justifications. It represents a deep-seated political agenda of the media, including filmmakers like Morgan Spurlock and writers like Eric Schlosser, and the philosophical movement away from individual responsibility, represented by attorney Sam Hirsch. The political agenda behind such attacks brings us to identify “problems” with capitalism: the creation of multinational conglomerates that “don’t care about its customers”, unlike the mom-and-pop establishments of old times. These attacks require us to ask if the “harms” this food present morally require government regulation and censorship: these companies should not seek profits, but should seek to serve the common good by having “corporate social responsibility” and products for which there is no demand. Overall, these attacks foster a psychologically harmful attitude wherein one can merely fault a third party for one’s own wrongdoings. When this is the case, the blameworthy of the many (the parents) cannot learn to correct their actions, but expect others to change their actions, even if those blamed are not responsible. The nature of advertising and marketing precludes any possibility of coercion when it comes to persuading children to convince their parents to buy them products which, if used in excess, can be incidentally harmful. The blame for childhood obesity rates lies with parents and those who control what children eat. The absurdity of the claim that a corporation, constantly concerned with what is necessary for maintaining its very existence, is responsible for what children eat is so obviously absurd that it need not be discussed. Ultimately, claims about marketing to children rely on untenable philosophical doctrines like determinism, misconceptions of persuasive advertising, and mischaracterizations of the adolescent human being. Works Cited Borman, K. M. The Social Life of Children in a Changing Society. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1984. Critser, Greg. Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fatest People in the World. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. Fox, Maggie. Fast-food ad ban could cut child obesity: U.S. study. 19 November 2008. 25 November 2008 . Hayek, F. A. "The Non Sequitur of the "Dependence Effect"." Southern Economic Journal (1961): 346-348. Hermann, Robert O. "The Consumer Movement in Historical Perspective." Aaker, David A. and George S. Day. Consumerism: Search for the Consumer Interest. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982. 32-33. Kirkpatrick, Jerry. In Defense of Advertising: Arguments from Reason, Ethical Egoism, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1994. Neighmond, Patti. U.S. Childhood Obesity Rates Level Off. 28 May 2008. 24 November 2008 . Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. Schor, Juliet B. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. New York: Scribner, 2004. Tellis, Gerard J. Effective Advertising: Understanding When, How, and Why Advertising Works. New York: SAGE, 2004. Vogel, David. The Market For Virtue: The Potential And Limits Of Corporate Social Responsibility. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2005. Read More