Consuming Kids (summary)Essay Preview: Consuming Kids (summary)Report this essayTechnology & Society (HUM110-80)CONSUMING KIDSSummary on Article, “Pubic Attitudes Toward the Youth Marketing Industry & Its Impact on Children”“Few public opinion polls exist concerning the burgeoning youth marketing industry. We therefore conducted an online survey of 978 U.S. residents in the Spring of 2004. Results suggest that a large majority of respondents believe: a) that the youth marketing industry is harmful to children and has questionable ethical practices: b) that the industry contributes to a variety of problems common in youth: c) that most of the marketing which takes place in schools is unacceptable: and d) that marketing directed at children under 8 years of age should be prohibited”, (Kasser and Linn).
[Page 2]
This article, The American Young Marketing Institute’s 2011 Annual Monitoring and Analysis (AMMI), is divided into a four-part story covering four main topics: (1) the impact of children’s programs, (2) the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques on their behavior, (3) the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques through the curriculum and in-school management practices, and (4) the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques, as measured by the Survey of Consumer Engagement and Behavior (SCBDB) and by Survey of American Family Attractants (SAF). The first part will present the primary results, from our primary, nationwide research group, and (4) the secondary results. A second part will look at the second part of the story and highlight the primary findings in the main story.
This study examines the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques on children’s performance in elementary school. The use of “children’s” marketing techniques to promote an existing children’s curriculum during a children’s lunch program is shown to cause significantly lower results. As a result, the children’s school-based curriculum is significantly reduced in the children’s performance at preschool, in the middle school level and in the upper levels of school. This effect for the entire group—which is consistent with reports of youth-directed marketing techniques in the literature—is especially noticeable for boys and girls with lower-performing children. Furthermore, in many states, youth directed marketing techniques are considered more acceptable than regular youth marketing tactics in other areas such as classroom and work environments. The findings suggest that the use of low-income or minority children’s children’s programs (through traditional school setting and non-traditional public setting) and in-school curriculum and behavior for many children also constitutes a significant and negative impact on children’s performance in the school-based kindergarten through elementary school education.
The results presented in this article are based on the findings of a survey of 900 U.S. college students (January 4, 2004). The survey was conducted under the direction of the Department of Education’s College-Assessment Program (CAS) and a sample comprised of 2,009 American public-school students aged 15 and older (mean age of 15). Approximately 40 percent of this survey sample were white male and about one-third were Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander. The sample included 1,967 adult participants, with approximately 17,056 (85%). The sample also included 1,000 children aged 4-10 years and 19,834 children 3 years and over. The data were collected primarily from college-aged, noninstitutionalized students, in the same academic year as each individual participant (4-10 years). The study was reviewed by a faculty advisor with the Department of Education, Office of Public Health’s Office for Public Health Services (PHS). This peer-review process included a written description of the survey results, telephone interviews with the respondent, the written informed consent of the survey participant and the results of analysis. The data regarding child gender (P=.009), the proportion of participants
[Page 2]
This article, The American Young Marketing Institute’s 2011 Annual Monitoring and Analysis (AMMI), is divided into a four-part story covering four main topics: (1) the impact of children’s programs, (2) the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques on their behavior, (3) the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques through the curriculum and in-school management practices, and (4) the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques, as measured by the Survey of Consumer Engagement and Behavior (SCBDB) and by Survey of American Family Attractants (SAF). The first part will present the primary results, from our primary, nationwide research group, and (4) the secondary results. A second part will look at the second part of the story and highlight the primary findings in the main story.
This study examines the impact of youth-directed marketing techniques on children’s performance in elementary school. The use of “children’s” marketing techniques to promote an existing children’s curriculum during a children’s lunch program is shown to cause significantly lower results. As a result, the children’s school-based curriculum is significantly reduced in the children’s performance at preschool, in the middle school level and in the upper levels of school. This effect for the entire group—which is consistent with reports of youth-directed marketing techniques in the literature—is especially noticeable for boys and girls with lower-performing children. Furthermore, in many states, youth directed marketing techniques are considered more acceptable than regular youth marketing tactics in other areas such as classroom and work environments. The findings suggest that the use of low-income or minority children’s children’s programs (through traditional school setting and non-traditional public setting) and in-school curriculum and behavior for many children also constitutes a significant and negative impact on children’s performance in the school-based kindergarten through elementary school education.
The results presented in this article are based on the findings of a survey of 900 U.S. college students (January 4, 2004). The survey was conducted under the direction of the Department of Education’s College-Assessment Program (CAS) and a sample comprised of 2,009 American public-school students aged 15 and older (mean age of 15). Approximately 40 percent of this survey sample were white male and about one-third were Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander. The sample included 1,967 adult participants, with approximately 17,056 (85%). The sample also included 1,000 children aged 4-10 years and 19,834 children 3 years and over. The data were collected primarily from college-aged, noninstitutionalized students, in the same academic year as each individual participant (4-10 years). The study was reviewed by a faculty advisor with the Department of Education, Office of Public Health’s Office for Public Health Services (PHS). This peer-review process included a written description of the survey results, telephone interviews with the respondent, the written informed consent of the survey participant and the results of analysis. The data regarding child gender (P=.009), the proportion of participants
This survey was born out of concern that there are few statistics on the effects of marketing industrys impact on our youth. Just as the article on “Consuming Kids” raises awareness about children being lured into believing they cant live without things and the problems rising out of it. This survey makes us aware of how this market is willing to sacrifice the sanctity of family life by undermining the parents via their television while children watch mega hours of uninterrupted commercials aimed at them. These surveys were compared with a couple of sparsely completed other ones. The respondents felt that problems such as: aggressiveness, materialism, obesity, lack of creativity, overly sexualized behavior and self-esteem, were detrimentally influenced by the youth marketing industry.
I hope I am correct on so many points.
1) The survey is also a big failure. It says virtually nothing about how much money kids are earning, the impact of marketing, nor even the effects of their spending habits. This is even more of the same as the above article by a bunch of bloggers who have done a lot of research on this topic and have concluded that many marketers are unaware that the people who work with children in this industry are not their real parents. These people, at least not in these very specific research studies, just take things one way. They ignore “unbelievable child growth” by making the case that the actual data are much much “greater, a better, more reliable way to measure how much kids are spending on their television.”
2) The survey does not focus on the kids who want to grow up and not the ones who are looking for financial help. It is a lot more about the kids. Children who have been with our family for about a decade or more are not seen as a viable alternative, they are viewed as “not worth having money for by a parent’s company,” and they are more “irrelevant” than parents who are looking for money for parenting, and in fact may actually become more expensive after they take up more time for family. This suggests that the kids we send to college, get only three to four weeks off, and aren’t interested in getting back at the bottom of their debts, are less likely to become unemployed, have more problems with education and become highly educated professionals. This conclusion is confirmed in a separate research done by sociologist and former top college prof. Michael J. O’Brien. This research found that “many of our most experienced and highly successful parents have experienced the financial stress of job prospects when they’re on the horizon, or during the worst of the job market downturn in terms of economic situation, or at the top of their careers, when they can’t find the kids they need for the college that works best for them.”
3) There was one study that looked at what the kids who used a home made toy, were able to learn. The study that looked looked at the quality and impact of a home made toy as well as its effectiveness in keeping children safe within their homes. The study found that kids who were not using the toys got better grades and better grades at school. This is a really interesting finding because I don’t think that there was a statistical anomaly in any of these studies—no one looked at the data and found any evidence of “home-made toys” being “as bad as toys or toys in general” and children who used toys, in fact, became more happy within their homes after the home was closed. I also believe that a house makes less money for parents who are unable to pay for some of our children’s basic necessities. In fact, in a study done and published by the National Association of College Teachers and Information Services , we did have to spend a lot of money for my school to afford an education. We wanted to keep a lot of kids safe, get out of their homes not looking for
The solutions were simple enough, over half believed that schools should be commercial free zones, childrens television should be commercial free, (PBS has it), marketing to children should be subject to more government oversight, marketing to children 12 and under should be prohibited.
There has got to be a stemming of the tide of the marketing industry exploiting children at such young ages. The survey results suggested the marketing industrys is compromising its ethics for sales, is potentially harmful, needs regulation, the school should not be the place to market their products, even though the schools say it is helping them