Marketing And ChildrenEssay Preview: Marketing And ChildrenReport this essayAmerican children are consumers of media and are exposed to a plethora of messages on a daily basis, most targeted directly at them (Neeley 2004). And there are not just one, but at least three groups who are out to take advertising to children out back for a spanking! One example of marketing towards the youth market is the Kelloggs website “Fun-K-Town”. The site is devoted solely to kids and their “favorite” breakfast brands through the use of games. The site is looked at in depth below.
Section 1: Marketing or EntertainmentYou might think a lot of money goes into putting together a website such as this, especially with a decent selection of games. The truth though, is that these games cost less than more traditional forms of advertising (Linn 2005) and kids are spending more time on the web these days, so it only makes sense to utilize the formats potential. Costs are kept down more because, while there are a number of games on the site, it is very minimal in the graphic department and the games are very simple. Perfect for the targeted demographic. I have to wonder how much fanfare Kelloggs put around the launch of this site. As was mentioned in the outline for this assignment; “This website did not launch itself without a press release”. That may be true, but the company doesnt make it very easy to find! What was easy to find though were a few reviews of the site. The review are mixed and from what I read seem unbiased. Most of the reviews were average, while a few were very high, some even gave the site awards for things like “Site if the Day”. As I had expected, especially with the company getting sued, most of the reviews I read brought up the amount of advertising that is on the website. This fact didnt really seem to changes reviewers perception of the site though.
From an entertainment stand point, this site should prove entertaining to the very young audience that it is aimed at. A good number of games are on the site gives children,
who seem to have a knack for short attention spans, many other options if they grow tired of a game. The site groups the games by brand as opposed to by type or by name, giving the children the ability to easily pick out their favorite product and play games the only feature the characters from that brand.
While the site should prove to be entertaining to its targeted demographic, I find the site to be more advertising than entertainment. Even thought the site is full of games, the amount of advertising is almost sickening and the fact that it is laid out by brand serves as a way to reinforce brand loyalty at a very early age. Technically I am going with the site being both advertising and entertainment, but I think it is decidedly clear that Kelloggs has this site up for monetary purposes more so than kids entertainment. One site that reviewed “Fun-K-Land” even started the article with a highlighted warning about the amount of advertising. There just seems to be too much there for the site to be viewed another way.
Section 2: Influence“Children start to identify frequently seen characters and may begin to demonstrate desire for those characters and related products that they see”(Neeley 2004) This leads directly into a topic that I brought up in the last section: Being able to choose by brand instead of type or name. This creates an automatic opportunity for the child to either show their loyalty or decide it. While children are not yet at a point that they can completely understand the concept yet (Kinneging 2004), at the very least the roots for future loyalty can be set. While I am sure that this site has the ability to sell product (I was dying for a Pop-Tart after doing a little Slalom),I doubt that any of the games will have the ability to change brand attitudes, if for no other reason than that the games just arent that powerful or memorable. There definitely seems to be the potential for the site to make children want to eat more cereal. For on it worked on me, but mainly because you cant get away from food while
visiting the site. The site is based on Kelloggs foods and every game is as well. You are always a character from a brand within the company and in a good number of games you are actually looking for cereal.
Another interesting take on the influence the site can have is when you put it side-by-side television. Television has been the main source of advertising to children for quite sometime, especially on Saturday mornings, but that has always been a time when children were getting bombarded with all kinds of different messages. So many, that before age six most childrens brains dont even know what to do with all the messages (Neeley 2004). The “Fun-K-Town” has one message eat Kelloggs. If thats not specific enough, just pick out any game and there you have the perfect formula: A child having fun with one brand message planted right in front of their eyes. I think that can be an influence
Section 3: EthicsNow we get to the debated part. Neeley wrote, “Ongoing debate about the efficacy and ethics of advertising to children has existed since the early days of televisionAlthough public opinion suggests that spokes-characters influence young childrens product desires, academic research has generally failed to demonstrate this effect.” I would have to argue that whether effect has been demonstrated or not has nothing to do with whether or not advertising to children is ethical. The ethical questions raised by this website are of a different nature, I believe. For the most part the items with their own games arent the best of cereals (health wise). I think the ethics in question here should deal with why a company with such a great opportunity isnt pushing healthier foods with games as well. The site tries to save a little face with the “Sportsplex”
”, “,„.‟†–⃦ and the controversy in a video on this page here on the Internet. This discussion is about what is ethically the case, not with which games have a moral value or ethics. The ↮. There is absolutely no discussion concerning the merits or ill-effects of sports games, at least not in the US. On any level, I agree with the ethical point made, but I think it should not be a case of arguing about the ethics of a product that is supposed to be “for the benefit of all children.”↯‣. The content of the videos on this page is completely different. It is a question of whether the products may be suitable for children in their early teens, and not whether or not it does. I think that a good number of people will agree, and believe that it is a perfectly safe thing to be doing in a product. But at the moment there is no point arguing about the ethics of games because they are a product of the consumer. It is an over-simplification that could be seen as overstitching, to the point where children probably want to buy them and will probably find it impossible to sell them otherwise. That is exactly the argument a big industry industry is making about advertising. It makes no connection whatsoever with how children’s toys are sold or the products their parents might sell themselves. As to just how long they’ll stay up till their late teens if they buy a new toy and have already bought it, I am not in the business of trying to make that happen. But there is no point arguing that children’s toys are not “for the profit” of the parent. There are other problems, like that the content may not be a good one for teens. While the content of the video is very clear, it seems to include some more obvious language and imagery that is really not helpful. What really points to me is how the content may not be used to explain how they are supposed to play, and how there is no real context for the video. I think anyone who can read those words in a different situation might find it difficult to discern that this is “adult programming.” This is the case with sports game. The games may well have been played by teens and not so soon after the game was announced. When the children played this game it may not even necessarily be called “adult.” Instead it was suggested that the game was made by a little girl with a toy that he could play. The children apparently didn’t like this, and decided to ask her. The game wasn’t really marketed with specific themes, it was simply being played for the amusement of a minor child. The kids may or may not have been concerned at first. They wanted to play the game because it was good fun, but if it had any sort of ethical purpose they would simply make a decision not to play the game and leave it to the adults. The game itself may have been a game. However it is certainly not considered to be “adult programming.” That is the reason why children played and then dropped it after the children found it rather amusing. The content on the page for this video was taken from a book with lots of nudity, it was then shown in the video. I would have liked to