12 ms·

Caving to marketing designed to make children nag their parents.

by bantunes 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago
It's a parenting issue then, because saying 'no' to a nagging child is basic parenting, always has been.
- buran77 6y ago
  Parenting issue or not we protect children with laws all the time. Think no further than alcohol and tobacco products whose sale to minors is banned. Sure we could say "where are the parents" but that's not how reality works and good solutions are the one that work in reality not on paper. Without legal push to make everyone work in unison there will always be an entity (a corporation) willing to invest enough to push the right buttons and coax people into the most unhealthy habits. After all the profits will belong to that company while the expense is paid by society. The overwhelming majority of individuals are completely unqualified to see through the onslaught of marketing (especially the covert kind), the social pressure, or even to understand the risks they're taking.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    You're ignoring the point. The issue is one of culture (and parenting when it comes to children), in Mexico and in all other countries. Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left. It's also a complete fallacy to claim that people cannot see through things. People are not stupid they know that it is their diet that makes them fat. People deserve at least this credit and respect. Alcohol and cigarettes sales to children are obviously completely different and a very poor analogy. So... Following the logic, either we accept that people are free to make their own decisions, that parents are responsible for their children, or we take children away from parents because the state knows best. Personally I think we should do the maximum we can to teach good diets at schools, and perhaps provide classes for adults, and to label products then people can do whatever they want but live with the consequences. But I think the likely outcome (as we start to see in some countries), which must be politically acceptable and cheap, will be similar to the path taken for cigarettes: PR campaigns and tax. This is a way to let people do what they want while nudging them, and to let them pay for the consequences (healthcare where it is financed through tax). When it comes to children parents won't be blamed (although they should be) because this is not good to win votes. It will be easier to continue blaming ads and corporations, and to ban things.
    - bkor 6y ago
      > Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left. Calling things 'left', 'ideology', 'fallacy' and randomly saying things are 'completely different' aren't great arguments if you keep it at statements instead of an argument. Marketing is _very_ effective. Further, people are paid for to ensure it is effective. Having rules to restrict that behaviour does go against some peoples idea of what a government should do. IMO that's exactly what the government should do, protect the people (among other things!). > When it comes to children parents won't be blamed (although they should be) because this is not good to win votes. You're making this a parent thing, and an either/or thing. It's much easier to do multiple things at the same time. Ensure parents are educated, ensure children cannot be marketed.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        Well, I'm happy to hear your arguments, then... It seems obvious to me that alcohol and cigarettes are not the same thing as telling people what to eat or feed their children. I'm happy to hear your take on this. It also seems obvious to me that people in fine choose what to eat and drink. No-one ever put a gun to my head, for example. I absolutely agree that marketing influences choices, but only up to a point. Certainly the quantity is a personal choice. Giving Coke to your children for breakfast (I have seen it here in England) is a personal choice. A crap diet is a personal choice. I also think that parents are responsible for their children. Marketing targeted at children is beside the point. Of course it will work, but again only up to a point: in fine it is the parents' decision to let anything go or to impose limits. I am a parent, I know but I'm also happy to hear your views on this. And finally, it is also clear to me that blaming corporations (and behind them capitalism) for people's bad diets is a political stance because it fits the view that people are oppressed and victims of the system. But it's also the politically easy and low-risk thing to do because you don't scold people you want to convince to vote for you. I agree that parents and children should be educated, that's even what I wrote in my previous comment. But let's also acknowledge people's responsibility in their life choices. My take on the situation (at least here in England) is not that people don't know or that they are victims, it's simply that they couldn't care less.
    - 6y ago
liability 6y ago
When I was a kid my parents only let me watch PBS. No saturday morning cartoons -> no sugary cereal commercials -> no desire/nagging for sugary cereal. Install adblockers on any computer your kids use. Cancel your cable television subscription. Deny these corporations the opportunity to pump their propaganda into your kids.
- emteycz 6y ago
  I still remember the hate I felt when I watched my sister turn from a really calm child to a screaming brat because of Hannah Montana. I don't watch the TV, now around 12 years.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Saying 'no' and limiting your child's access to TV, etc., that's parenting, indeed. But again it's easier to give up and let them watch TV than having to actually deal them.

Caving to marketing designed to make children nag their parents.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

It's a parenting issue then, because saying 'no' to a nagging child is basic parenting, always has been.

buran77 6y ago
Parenting issue or not we protect children with laws all the time. Think no further than alcohol and tobacco products whose sale to minors is banned. Sure we could say "where are the parents" but that's not how reality works and good solutions are the one that work in reality not on paper. Without legal push to make everyone work in unison there will always be an entity (a corporation) willing to invest enough to push the right buttons and coax people into the most unhealthy habits. After all the profits will belong to that company while the expense is paid by society. The overwhelming majority of individuals are completely unqualified to see through the onslaught of marketing (especially the covert kind), the social pressure, or even to understand the risks they're taking.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  You're ignoring the point. The issue is one of culture (and parenting when it comes to children), in Mexico and in all other countries. Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left. It's also a complete fallacy to claim that people cannot see through things. People are not stupid they know that it is their diet that makes them fat. People deserve at least this credit and respect. Alcohol and cigarettes sales to children are obviously completely different and a very poor analogy. So... Following the logic, either we accept that people are free to make their own decisions, that parents are responsible for their children, or we take children away from parents because the state knows best. Personally I think we should do the maximum we can to teach good diets at schools, and perhaps provide classes for adults, and to label products then people can do whatever they want but live with the consequences. But I think the likely outcome (as we start to see in some countries), which must be politically acceptable and cheap, will be similar to the path taken for cigarettes: PR campaigns and tax. This is a way to let people do what they want while nudging them, and to let them pay for the consequences (healthcare where it is financed through tax). When it comes to children parents won't be blamed (although they should be) because this is not good to win votes. It will be easier to continue blaming ads and corporations, and to ban things.
  - bkor 6y ago
    > Corporations are an easy scapegoat that also fits a political ideology on the left. Calling things 'left', 'ideology', 'fallacy' and randomly saying things are 'completely different' aren't great arguments if you keep it at statements instead of an argument. Marketing is _very_ effective. Further, people are paid for to ensure it is effective. Having rules to restrict that behaviour does go against some peoples idea of what a government should do. IMO that's exactly what the government should do, protect the people (among other things!). > When it comes to children parents won't be blamed (although they should be) because this is not good to win votes. You're making this a parent thing, and an either/or thing. It's much easier to do multiple things at the same time. Ensure parents are educated, ensure children cannot be marketed.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Well, I'm happy to hear your arguments, then... It seems obvious to me that alcohol and cigarettes are not the same thing as telling people what to eat or feed their children. I'm happy to hear your take on this. It also seems obvious to me that people in fine choose what to eat and drink. No-one ever put a gun to my head, for example. I absolutely agree that marketing influences choices, but only up to a point. Certainly the quantity is a personal choice. Giving Coke to your children for breakfast (I have seen it here in England) is a personal choice. A crap diet is a personal choice. I also think that parents are responsible for their children. Marketing targeted at children is beside the point. Of course it will work, but again only up to a point: in fine it is the parents' decision to let anything go or to impose limits. I am a parent, I know but I'm also happy to hear your views on this. And finally, it is also clear to me that blaming corporations (and behind them capitalism) for people's bad diets is a political stance because it fits the view that people are oppressed and victims of the system. But it's also the politically easy and low-risk thing to do because you don't scold people you want to convince to vote for you. I agree that parents and children should be educated, that's even what I wrote in my previous comment. But let's also acknowledge people's responsibility in their life choices. My take on the situation (at least here in England) is not that people don't know or that they are victims, it's simply that they couldn't care less.
  - 6y ago

liability 6y ago

When I was a kid my parents only let me watch PBS. No saturday morning cartoons -> no sugary cereal commercials -> no desire/nagging for sugary cereal. Install adblockers on any computer your kids use. Cancel your cable television subscription. Deny these corporations the opportunity to pump their propaganda into your kids.

emteycz 6y ago
I still remember the hate I felt when I watched my sister turn from a really calm child to a screaming brat because of Hannah Montana. I don't watch the TV, now around 12 years.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Saying 'no' and limiting your child's access to TV, etc., that's parenting, indeed. But again it's easier to give up and let them watch TV than having to actually deal them.