The New York Times has announced that they are testing "NYT Kids," a digital paid subscription product targeted to children. A section of the same name has been running in the print edition since 2017. But current Times digital products are limited to adults and teens.
The subscription would include how-to content on crafts, recipes and physical activities. There will be no display advertising. And the product will be complaint with children's digital online privacy laws. (Schultz, 2021)
But the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) focuses on data mining practices not the bigger question of whether it is ethical to market to children. (FTC, 2020)
In the U.K. both Facebook and Google are being pressured to stop marketing to people under the age of 18. (BBC, 2020)
While in the U.S. Google paid $170 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that YouTube hosts "numerous channels" directed to children and has been selling them to marketing partners such as Mattel and Hasbro bragging that “YouTube is today’s leader in reaching children age 6-11 against top TV channels.” (Davis, 2019)
Marketing to children has taken place on television and in magazines for decades. But here too questions are being raised. Last winter the Massachusetts D.A. announced a lawsuit against Juul alleging placements in Nickelodeon, The Cartoon Network, Seventeen magazine and on educational sites for middle and high school students, targeting underage teens. (Kaplan, 2020)
Meanwhile, research has shown that most children do not understand the concept of "selling" until they are at least eight years old; and full comprehension does not occur until age 11. (Brucks, Goldberg & Armstrong, 1986)
Which brings us back to the original question.
Should we ban marketing to children? At what age? Should we introduce more regulations? Or just leave it to the courts? If you were a marketer what would you do? As a consumer will you continue to buy products from a company that markets to kids? Should parents get their kids a subscription to NYT Kids? Would you if you had children?
(2020, July) Complying With COOPA: Frequently Asked Questions. ftc.gov. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions-0
(2020, September 18) Google and Facebook under pressure to ban children's ads. bbc.com. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54205229
Davis, W. (2019, September 4) YouTube Agrees To Pay $170 Million Over Children's Privacy Violations. mediapost.com. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/340250/youtube-agrees-to-pay-170-million-over-childrens.html
Kaplan, S. (2020, February 12) Juul Bought Ads Appearing on Cartoon Network and Other Youth Sites, Suit Claims. nytimes.com. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsuit.html
Merrie Brucks, Marvin E. Goldberg, and Gary M. Armstrong (1986) ,"Children's Cognitive Responses to Advertising", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 13, eds. Richard J. Lutz, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 650-654. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6574/volumes/v13/NA-13
6 comments:
We should ban marketing to children if it potentially has harmful effects on them. We need more regulations for this. Especially, vaping company Juul's advertising to teenagers has lots of problems. The ad images show attractive cool looking teenagers hold the Juul like a trendy electronic device. It will definitely affect teenagers to think it is a not dangerous thing and should have Juul if they want to look cool in school. And YouTube also has many problems in terms of kids-related content and ads. I read a story about a Korean kid YouTuber. In her videos, she reviews new toys in the market, and even she eats new children's snacks to review the taste. Her videos are very popular with the same age group subscribers. However, the toys and snacks she reviewed are all sponsored by the companies that made the products. So she basically had to act the toys are really nice and cool even though she didn't feel like that. And snacks she ate are mostly low-quality snacks with lots of sugar, but she had to eat for contents and describe the taste in a good way. This kind of marketing devised by adults destroys the kid YouTuber and her kids subscribers mentality. Politicians have to make more specific regulations to protect the exploitation of kids for marketing.
However, in terms of NYT Kids, I think it is a good idea. If I had children, I would subscribe to NYT Kids because it is not dangerous or harmful to children. This magazine features science, sports, arts, foods, photography, illustrations, etc., with children's perspectives. These kinds of content will increase children's insights and tastes, so we should encourage this kind of business more.
-Hanjo Mok-
There are many concerns about ethical issues relating to marketing to children. I agree with Hanjo that more regulations need to be implemented. However, I do feel that marketing efforts should not be completely eliminated. The reason being is that I feel that the parents or caretakers are culpable for the content their children view. If care-takers are not screening the content that their children view on youtube or television, then they need to also be made accountable. If children are being used to advertise products to other children, then the caretakers are responsible for allowing their children to do so in the first place. I feel that dangerous and harmful products such as vaping should be completely banned from marketing to children. However, other products such as children's snacks should still be allowed because it is the care-takers responsibility in how they decide to raise their children, the content they watch, health habits, values, and purchasing decisions they allow into their households. I tend to place more responsibility on the care-takers, rather than the advertisers. I also agree that NYT kids are a great idea for children because of the positive content that is advertised. Once again, parents are responsible for the content their children view in both positive and negative programming.
In regard to the New York Times Kids program currently being tested, I do not necessarily mind the concept. Although I am not particularly supportive of marketing towards children, and although I might be thinking in a naive manner or with bias, my initial reaction to this was not all negative. I have 3 nieces and 2 nephews, all below the age of 10 who I love very much and It truly disappoints me when I see them using the currently available forms of social media/entertainment which actively disguise themselves as appropriate for children via crafty and food related “channels” however as soon as their parents aren’t looking, they scroll on down to far more inappropriate things that a child of that age simply should not have access to see. These platforms being Instagram, Tiktok, YouTube, among a few others- these application undoubtedly accommodate many different amazing, innocent people, however the darker sides of the content they can show is not something I feel comfortable with them viewing. Albeit my nieces and nephews having very restricted/limited access to these apps (being supervised and only for a certain number of minutes per day), they still manage to come across too much material they should not be able to. My point being, a new education source/platform that parents can confidently trust and that curates its content well enough, such as NYT Kind, might be a far better alternative-if not a seemingly perfect solution to kids needing to watch something and stay stimulated somehow, but currently have no appropriate platform to do that on. Past a certain age, perhaps 10-12 years old, parents will start to relinquish some of the ability to monitor their children’s social media access, however this is why more regulations should be set forth while this generation’s children are still young- As a marketer I would primarily market this towards parents of the children, as well as having a team on board to ensure marketing is child friendly, relevant, and appealing to younger masses as well. As a consumer, I will continue buying products that are marketed to children, only under the circumstance that there is sufficient parental involvement, however that may be- and more so If I was a parent, I would be happy to test out a subscription in favor of the much less appropriate options available.
I think it is fair for market to target children because all the marketing strategies are serving for satisfying the needs from customers.From the child's birth to grow up, parents are concerned about the growth of children.Therefore, marketers leads is very important for the young customers.However, young age market still need ethical limitations to business firms.children do not have enough ability to distinguish which product is the best choice for them.They may attracted by fancy advertising but ignore if the product really good for them.Consequently, it is fair but government need to regulate firms marketing behaviors towards young age market.
We cannot allege whether marketing on kids is a good thing or not. In my opinion, marketing on kids should not be banned and we should leave it to court to judge depending on the content of the commercials. If I am a marketer, I am sure that I am going to target kids despite their poor purchasing power. The reason is that parents tend to make purchases when their kids say YES, and if our marketing promotions are implanted in kids' memory after they grow up, they will probably take a shot to buy our products. To me, I don't really care whether the brand does promotions on kids or not. It is their right to use their budget to reach as many people as they can. In addition, If I had a child, I would not purchase a subscription to NYT kids. I personally think it is unnecessary since even if my kids do not see any promotions on youtube, they have a huge chance to see them in real life.
Belle:
Yes, I do think we should market toward children, because children have their own needs to, we should treat their needs the same. But we should not exaggerate or mislead their needs. For example, McDonalds did a good marketing toward childrens, this misled their health towards fast food which is unhealthy. I think we should do marketing for children that are at least 8+, and we should regulate those marketing for healthier choices. For example, towards fresh vegetables and fruits that are healthy for all ages. If I am marketer, I would do marketing toward healthier sides, this because I am not only responsible for our next generation’s health, this could also create a positive impression for their parents. As a consumer, I would be more willing to purchase those products if I am a parent. If I am a parent, I would not get my children to watch TV often, so I would not let my children subscribes.
Post a Comment