Web-Based Rating Systems Designed Combat the Adverse Effects of Multimedia Marketing on Children - Coursework Example

Web-based rating systems designed combat the adverse effects of multimedia marketing on children INTRODUCTION REFERENCES to SOME OF THE RECENT SURVEYS The techniques elaborated through these web based rating systems Conclusion Bibliography INTRODUCTION Advertising is a pervasive presence in the lives of most American children. Estimates suggest that young people watch over three hours of television per day (Roberts, Foehr and Rideout 2005) and are exposed to anywhere from 23,000 to 40,000 television commercials in a single year (FTC/DHHS 2006; Kunkel 2001). Emerging media such as the Internet have further expanded advertising’s reach and offer novel opportunities to target this young audience. Estimates suggest that 98% of children’s sites permit advertising, and that more than two-thirds of websites designed for children rely on advertising for their primary revenue (Neuborne 2001). Commercially sponsored websites containing games and promotions designed for children are also an emerging force on the Internet. Concern about children’s ability to comprehend and critically evaluate these sales messages has stimulated research and debate for more than three decades. The scope of this debate has broadened in recent years as new advertising venues have become available. With the significant rise in levels of childhood obesity, particular questions are being raised about the impacts of food marketing. Two comprehensive studies have recently been published, one by the Institute of Medicine in the U.S., and another by the Food Standards Agency in the U.K. which attempt to assess marketing’s contribution to the obesity problem through a review of the existing empirical evidence (Hastings 2003; Institute of Medicine 2005). By necessity, these reviews are heavily focused on the impacts of television advertising because this has been the primary research emphasis over time. Relatively little is known about the nature and effects of emerging media such as the Internet, product placements or buzz marketing. Yet, commentators on all sides of the issue recognize that the picture is incomplete, and that the many new forms of marketing activity targeted at children need to be investigated as well. One of the perceived strengths of the Internet is its capacity to engender high levels of interest and engagement. Consumers have to seek out desired content, and interact with it in some way. This is an inherently active process: surfing through a website demands a continuing series of decisions and actions. It is this feature that distinguishes the Internet from a more passive medium like television. Rather than capturing children’s attention for 30 seconds, the advertiser may now engage children for several minutes in this potentially powerful, interactive medium. REFERENCES TO SOME OF THE RECENT SURVEYS A new study released finds that 71% of Americans believe that marketing is harmful to children. The study by psychologists Susan Linn of Harvard and Tim Kasser of Knox College found Americans are concerned about several side-effects of this $15 Billion industry. Wide majorities cited concernes ofer materialism, early sexuality, and obesity resulting from youth marketing. Only 4% believe the industry acts ethically and there is strong support for measures restricting marketing practices. Ninety percent of parents or legal guardians of children ages 8-18 believe they should bear a lot of responsibility for ensuring children have safe online experiences, although only 34 percent see themselves as “very knowledgeable” about how to educate their children to use the Internet safely and responsibly. According to a new national poll commissioned by Cable in the Classroom and conducted by Harris Interactive®, 71 percent of parents also think a major portion of the responsibility for ensuring children’s safety on the Internet falls to schools. The poll was released August 10,2006 at the PTA Back-to-School Media Briefing held at the New York City Public Library. “Parents want to take primary responsibility for guiding their kids’ use of the Internet,” said Douglas Levin, senior director of education policy for Cable in the Classroom. “Yet, as the Internet continues to change and evolve, most parents don’t feel very knowledgeable about how to ensure children’s Internet safety and are looking for schools to help.” U.S. parents are more worried about the amount of time their kids spend watching television or meeting friends on Internet social networks than about sex or alcohol abuse, according to a new study. Some 57 percent of 1,138 U.S. parents surveyed were either very concerned or strongly concerned about children spending too much of their time with different media outlets. By comparison, about 45 percent of parents said they were as concerned about their kids engaging in sex or using alcohol. "Intuitively, parents have a sense that too much media isn't a good thing, but they can't quite put their finger on why," James Steyer, founder and chief executive of Common Sense Media, said in a statement. Conducted by Insight Research Group, the study obtained responses from 500 parents with Internet access who have children between 11 and 16 years old who go online at least once a week. (The study's margin of error was plus or minus 4.4 percent.) Many of the results show that parents are grappling with how to navigate the changing media world, a space where their children often are a technological step ahead of them. According to the survey, 85 percent of the respondents said the Internet posed "the most risk" to their children; 13 percent thought television did. While 78 percent felt that social networks -- online hubs such as MySpace.com and Friendster.com -- were not "safe ways for your kids or teens 11-16 to meet new people online," 91 percent appreciate that "the Internet helps my kids or teens explore things they're passionate about and interested in." "You don't see the same kind of bashing from parents that you do when parents talk about television," said Steyer, a longtime children's advocate and media watchdog and author of "The Other Parent: The Inside Story of the Media's Effect on Our Children." "With television, it's easy for people to say, 'Oh, there's just a bunch of crap on it.' But the Internet is different. It's more of a complex relationship. Part of that is because the Internet is a two-way medium, and television isn't." "When a parent is stuck on something, they can go back and think of what their parents did as a reference point," Steyer said. "They can even do that with TV, movies, music. But here they can't do that. The Internet and instant messaging weren't around when they were growing up." Many parents are hungry for such information as they try to keep up with their kids. And they're not worried about the ethics of snooping. The survey found that 40 percent of the respondents "actively" spent time every week researching what their children are doing and looking at online. Only 12 percent of the respondents said respecting their child's privacy was more important than knowing what they're doing online. The techniques elaborated through these web based rating systems To help kids understand the intent of junk food and fast food advertising is to sell them something, here are some questions you can ask. “Why do you think the advertiser put a commercial on this particular program?” This gets to the heart of an important media literacy concept: all messages are designed for a particular audience. “Why do you think advertisers use slogans or catchy music?” You may even ask them to recall other songs or slogans they remember from ads. Many of us can remember a particular phrase or jingle that we heard 10 or 20 years ago. “What is appealing in this commercial? Is it the way the food looks; the happy family seen eating the food?” Remember that commercials are constructions, and that techniques are used to make the product seem more attractive. Explain “tricks” that advertisers use in commercials, like using Vaseline to make hamburgers look juicy and putting hair tonic into cereal bowls to make sure the cereal doesn’t get soggy. Also chat with kids about the true purpose behind promotions, downloads, and links from games, websites, and cell phones. Kids need to know that no matter how clever the gimmick or game, they’re all ads. “What might the advertiser be leaving out of the commercial and why?” Most food ads are not designed to tell us the nutritional values. Encourage your kids to look elsewhere for the missing information. ”Does it make a difference to you that a celebrity was in that commercial?” Teach your children about the popular techniques ad-makers use, such as testimonials from celebrities -- or everyday people.This will help your kids know how they’re being influenced. Set media time limits and stick to them. Limit your child’s screen time to no more than one to two hours per day. Children under the age of two should watch as little TV/videos as possible. Check media content and ratings at www.commonsensemedia.org to choose media that is age-appropriate and entertaining. You might prerecord high quality shows or movies and let your kids watch them over and over. You may get bored, but your child learns through the repetition. Location, location, location. No TV or computer in your child’s bedroom. Research shows that when media is located in kids’ bedrooms, its negative influence on their development is greater. Watch and listen with your kids. Ask questions such as, who was your favorite character? What was it about her/him that you liked? Which character would you like to be? You can also encourage your child to sing, clap, jump around, and dance with the characters. Use media to spark your child’s imagination and creativity. You can ask questions like: if you wrote the story, how would you change the ending? Would you add new characters? What would they look or act like? Also encourage your child to make up his/her own stories. You can make a book out of her/his drawings and write down the story. Help your child understand fantasy from reality. Explain that children often imitate their favorite media characters. Remind your child that real people can’t do things that cartoon characters or superheroes can—like jumping off buildings or falling out of a tree—without getting hurt. Point out that violence isn’t a good way to solve problems. Offer nonviolent ideas of how to resolve problems if you’re watching a show with characters that solve arguments by hurting people. Ask your child if s/he has any ideas. Help your child avoid buying in to commercialism. Young kids cannot distinguish between ads and program content. Help kids differentiate between commercials and programs, and help them understand that the purpose of an advertisement is to sell a product. You can also explain that advertisements often exaggerate the quality of the product to make it more appealing. Balance electronic media with playtime— push the remote button to “off” and encourage your kids to go outside and be active. Read to your child and go to the library. It’s the best way you can build their literacy skills and help them establish a love of books. Conclusion Although young children are modifying their behavior to incorporate new media offerings, research efforts have not kept pace. Little is known about what children understand, believe, or do as a consequence of their exposure to brand messages in this new marketing environment. With the significant increase in levels of obesity among children, questions are being raised about the impact of food marketing. This study is intended to be a first step towards understanding the nature and scope of the online environment children face. Now the challenge is to learn more about how this young audience responds within it. The Internet is just beginning to hit its stride as a communications medium. It is important to understand what this new medium offers children as it becomes an increasingly important feature of their daily lives. Bibliography Aaker, David A. (2002), “The Internet as Integrator: Fast Brand Building in Slow-Growth Markets,” Strategy & Business, 16–21. Alexander, Alison, Louise M. Benjamin, Keisha Hoerrner and Darrell Roe (1998), “We’ll Be Back in a Moment: A Content Analysis of Advertisements in Children’s Television in the 1950s,” Journal of Advertising, 27 (Fall), 1–9. Barcus, F. E. (1980), “The Nature of Television Advertising to Children,” in Children and the Faces of Television, eds., E.L. Palmer and A. Dorr, New York, NY: Academic Press, 287–305. Bertrim, Byron (2005), “It’s How You Play the Games,” Marketing Magazine, 110 (16), 18. Boush, D. M., M. Friestad and G. M. Rose (1994), “Adolescent Skepticism toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 165–175. Brucks, M., G. M. Armstrong and M. E. Goldberg (1988), “Children’s Use of Cognitive Defenses Against Television Advertising: A Cognitive Response Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 471–482. Center for Science in the Public Interest (2003), Pestering Parents: How Food Companies Market Obesity to Children, Washington, D.C. Children’s Advertising Review Unit (2003), Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Children’s Advertising, 7th ed., New York, NY: Council of Better Business Bureaus, Available at http://www.caru.org/guidelines/index.asp, accessed April 27, 2006. Dobele, Angela, David Toleman and Michael Beverland (2005), “Controlled Infection! Spreading the Brand Message through Viral Marketing,” Business Horizons, 48, 143–149. Dye, Renee (2000), “The Buzz on Buzz,” Harvard Business Review,Nov/Dec, 139–146. Economist (2005), “And Now, a Game from Our Sponsor,” TheEconomist, 375 (8430), 3–4. Fattah, H. and P. Paul (2002), “Gaming Gets Serious,” American Demographics,May, 39–43. Ferrazzi, K. and K. Benezra (2001), “Journey to the Top,” Brandweek,April 16, 28–36. FTC/DHHS (2006), Perspectives on Marketing, Self-Regulation, and Childhood Obesity, A Report on a Joint Workshop of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services, held July 14–15 2005. Galst, Joann P. and Mary A. White (1976), “The Unhealthy Persuader: The Reinforcing Value of Television and Children’s Purchase- Influencing Attempts at the Supermarket, Child Development, 47 (December), 1089–1096. Goetzl, David (2006), “Television has Competition in Pursuit of Kids,” Television Week, Feb. 20, 8 (10). Grossman, Seth (2005), “Grand Theft Oreo: The Constitutionality of Advergame Regulation,” Yale Law Journal, 115 (October),227–237. Harkin, Tom (2005), Comments at a Joint Workshop of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services titled “Marketing, Self-Regulation, and Childhood Obesity,” transcript available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/ foodmarketingtokids/index.htm (accessed April29, 2007). Hastings, Gerard, et al. (2003), Review of Research on the Effectsof Food Promotion to Children, Report to the Food Standards Agency, Glasgow, UK: Center for Social Marketing, University of Strathclyde. Hawkins, Scott A. and Stephen J. Hoch (1992), “Low-Involvement Learning: Memory without Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September 1992), 212–225. Henke, Lucy L. (1995), “Young Children’s Perceptions of Cigarette Brand Advertising Symbols: Awareness, Affect and Target Market Identification,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (Winter), 13–28. Iacobucci, Dawn (1995), “Analysis of Variance for Unbalanced Data,” in Marketing Theory and Practice, AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, eds., D.W. Stewart and N.J. Vilcassim, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 6, 337–343. Institute of Medicine (2005), Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Isler, Leslie, Edward T. Popper and Scott Ward (1987), “Children’s Purchase Requests and Parental Responses: Results from a Diary Study,” Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (October/ November), 28–39. Ippolito, Pauline M. and Janis K. Pappalardo (2002), Advertising, Nutrition & Health – Evidence from Food Advertising 1977–1997, Bureau of Economics Staff Report, Federal Trade Commission. John, Deborah Roedder (1999), “Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twenty-Five Years of Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 183–213. Read More