Protection in Regulating Advertising to Children: Government and Non-Governmental Interventions

Introduction

Advertising is a healthy practice in the world’s business.  Through advertisements, sales are generated, and consumers learn of new and existing products. However, this practice is regulated by consumer protection laws and regulations.  Regulation is critical in that it protects consumers from exploitation and misrepresentation by sellers. It is also necessary for protecting moral values. This paper focuses on advertisements where children are the targeted consumers and several illustrations shall be used. In respect to the above, the paper identifies scenarios where consumer protection principles might be applied, and where informed policymakers must choose from among government-based and non-government interventions to address a consumer protection problem. Finally, the paper makes a compelling argument for, or against, government intervention grounded in consumer protection principles.

Advertising to children

Over the recent years, many companies have increased their advertisement of products intended for children as the primary consumers. The reason for this trend is the understanding by the advertisers that children have become so very manipulative to their parents (Twain,2015). Their ability to convince their parents to purchase some products has increased incredibly. The existence of children’s entertainment channels such as Baby TV and Joy TV has also provided a good platform for advertisers to advertise children’s products.

Concerns have been raised that most of the advertisements targeting children promote toys and junk foods that are high in cholesterol and have little nutritional value (Bendich,2015). It is further asserted that a lot of advertisements are made on online platforms such as gaming websites (Aspray, 2014).  It is also observed that newer marketing techniques have emerged whereby advertisements are being inserted into the content of programs, films, and video games.

Due to the above, it has become difficult to regulate some of these advertisement techniques. There is a need to come up with laws that will restrict running advertisements on such platforms. In the United States, for instance, food and beverage companies have shown great interest in children and teenagers. They have come up with products that are meant to end up in the hands of the children (Starke,2003). As a result, there has been an intense promotion of these products. One of the key motivators of manufacturers’ interest in children is the nature of their spending. Their spending power is very high because they buy or cause their parents to buy not because they are basic to them but because they are obsessed with them. Some children are fascinated by toys and their fascination may gradually become obsessive. These necessitate their parents to invest heavily in children’s wants.

Scenarios where consumer protection principles might be applied

Advertising to children is done through various channels as observed earlier in the paper. Since children have no cognitive power and the ability to make judgments. Most of the advertisers take advantage of this fact and end up running deceptive advertisements. As a result, there must be a legal framework that regulates this practice. In the US, food companies have established strong promotional links with entertainment industries such as Hollywood. Dealers in toys have also been keen to promote their sales through advertisements.

For instance, Nickelodeon runs advertisements for companies that target children, an example of such companies is Burger King(Hendershot,2004). Similarly, Fox Kids Network has also featured advertisements for McDonald’s products (Page,2003). Seeing that the audience of these televisions is primarily children, measures must be taken by policymakers to safeguard them from violation of their consumer rights.  It is interesting to note that Burger King used creative ways to promote the chicken sold to children. The company had come up with chicken nuggets that looked like Teletubbies (Szmigin,2003). Though this may seem a creative way of advertising to children, it may be manipulating them.

Focusing on advertising to children, this paper appreciates the fact that junk foods and toys are the most advertised products targeting children. Yet, they are hazardous and infringing on the rights of children as consumers. Having a brief focus on various instances where companies have made deliberate efforts to appeal to children consumers, the paper addresses more specific case scenarios where advertisements to children were made in a manner that was in contravention of the consumer protection laws with a bit of detail.

To begin with, the paper looks at the SpongeBob SquarePants series case SpongeBob SquarePants case. SpongeBob SquarePants is an American animated television series that was criticized by consumer groups for facilitating the advertisement of junk food to children (Shaw, 2014). The consumer groups were agitated by the TV series for promoting content that showed deliberate attempts to promote junk food.  Convinced that the people behind the TV series had violated the consumer protection laws in force in the state of Massachusetts, they threatened to sue the network behind the series. The TV series was found to be in contravention of consumer laws in that the creators of the series used cartoon characters to promote junk food to children. The cartoon characters in that TV series are associated with some of the popular junk foods like Kellogg’s cereal and Pop-Tarts.

Considering the above scenario, it clearly demonstrates how sensitive advising to children can be. At their development stage, children ought to be protected from manipulative advertisements that may encourage their involvement in unhealthy practices such as eating junk food.

SpongeBob SquarePants series featured cartoon characters that were liked by children who watched the series. The two characters associate them with certain brands of junk foods the effect of that would prompt children to buy those from those brands.

Thus, because young children are at the most critical stage of their development, they ought to be protected from advertisements that would tamper with their physical and psychological development. United States (1873) observed that advertising could pose a major threat to the physical or mental health of their audiences.  In this regard, it is inconsiderate, unethical, and selfish for a company to produce unfit products and have children as their target customers.

Which among the government and non-governmental interventions should policymakers adopt to address consumer protection problems?

Both the government and nongovernmental bodies intervene in addressing the problem of consumer protection. While both operate differently, they aim at ensuring consumers are protected from unethical and dishonest businesspersons. The government operates mainly through state organs. Thus, its roles in addressing the problem of consumer protection are fulfilled by different players. For example, in the US the most vocal body in protecting children’s consumer rights is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (United States,1873). This commission has been very effective in protecting children from advertisements that violate consumer protection laws.

The commission understands the nature of children as manipulable and incapacitated to make sound judgments. Thus, it operates from an informed point of view that children are easily more likely to be deceived by what they see on television than adults.

It is crucial to note that it has not been easy to address issues of advertising to children because sometimes the commission has faced challenges. However, the commission has in some instances succeeded in protecting children from advertisements that are made in bad faith. At times, the commission has focused on preventing companies from selling high-sugar and fatty food products to children (Milling,1972). The more these kinds of foods are advertised the more the response from the target market hence the obesity menace. Survey shows that there has been an alarming growth in several children living with obesity. In every 3 children, one is obese (Perkin,2008). The major reason for the growth of the number of overweight children is eating junk foods and spending most of the in less physically engaging activities such as watching TV and playing video-game consoles (Klimis,2001).

FCT operates on a statutory basis. Their authority to regulate advising to children is derived from the FCT Act. Under section 5 of the Act, unfair and deceptive practices are expressly prohibited (United States,1970). Consequently, advertising to children whereby harmful products are involved has therefore been a mandate of the commission.

Where an advertisement is aimed at a particular group of persons, it shall be the role of the commission to assess the effect of such advertisement on members of that group. The reasonable man test is applied. In regulating advertisements to children, the advertisements are judged from an ordinary child’s point of view.

Being a government body, FCT has for 30 years challenged traders for running deceptive commercials. This has happened with toys advertised to children. For instance, the ballerina doll advertisement was criticized for conveying false and deceptive details about its nature. The advertisement showed the doll pirouetting on one toe but in a real sense, its performance was not anything to what was being shown repeatedly in the advertisement(Litwin,2009). The commission also took action when toy helicopters were shown flying in mid-air in an advertisement but they were suspended in unseen wires. The advertisement was deceptive and manipulative to the children.

In each of the above scenarios, the commission scrutinized the adverts from an ordinary child’s point of view. It is expected that an adult would ordinarily appreciate that companies may employ advertising techniques in their advertisements but children are not expected to appreciate such tactics. they believe that whatever is conveyed in the advertisement is the truth.  Thus, selling such products to them would frustrate their expectations which violates their consumer rights. Anything sold must be fit for purpose.

Willett (1988) suggests that policymakers play a vital complementary role. Given the above then, they should come up with policies that enable both government bodies and nongovernmental bodies to play their regulatory roles effectively. They should focus on eliminating barriers that may hinder the performance of regulatory bodies. For example, private actors such as the Centre for Science in the Public Interest play a vital role in regulating advertisements for children. The organization was responsible for raising the alarm in the SpongeBob SquarePants case. They announced their intention to sue the people behind SpongeBob SquarePants.

The key problem is their inability to prosecute, it is noted that has petitioned FCT to regulate advertisements of high-sugar and fat foods on television. On the same note, The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is on record making the same appeal to FTA. FDA has been at the forefront of the fight against high-sugar foods. FDA is against advertisements promoting food products that expose children to long-term risks in dental health. They attribute the problem to aggressive advertisements of high-sugar products.

It is therefore prudent for policymakers heed to both government and private actors. At the end of the day, the laws of the country must be followed. Thus, it would be meaningful for the policymakers to address the gaps that exist in the laws.

While in the past the court has been reluctant to find advertisements at fault due to the economic gains aspect, the law is continuously evolving to make it hard for players not to embrace consumer protection principles. The court in Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (94-1140), 517 U.S. 484 (1996) Justice Stevens appeared to have reservations about tempering the free flow of information. He maintained that this culture must not be dispensed with (United States,1998).

Considering the above, it is clear that the role of regulators can sometimes be frustrated by law enforcers. Hence, the best approach for the policymakers is to come up with policies that will make it possible for all the stakeholders to get satisfactory results. For example, in 2013 the policymakers made major strides in safeguarding children’s consumer rights. They included other rules to the existing Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998. The new rules gave significant control to parents over the kind of information that their children get exposed to on websites. The Act gives further protections to children audience and gives guidelines as to the procedures to be followed by companies under which the law operates (Rustad,2014).

All persons running websites that aim at children under the age of 13 must submit to the requirements outlined in COPPA’s requirements. Some companies like Silicon Valley have found themselves in deep trouble for nonadherence to the Act to the requirement of COPPA Act.

The commission plays an oversight role in protecting children from deceptive advertisements and other marketing malpractices.

Argument for, or against, government intervention grounded in consumer protection principles.

The role of the government in regulating advertising to children is a vital one. However, the existing government regulations seeking to protect children from a highly commercialized

environment are not sufficient. There is also a lack of government goodwill due to its interest in economic growth. It is estimated that at least   40,000 advertisements are made and exposed to children in a year(Veerkumar,2015). The advertisement of toys, and high sugar and fat food has dominated advertising platforms with little regulations. Such platforms are online gaming sites and entertainment websites such as YouTube.

It would be impractical to safeguard consumer rights without the involvement of the government. Private players can carry out their mandate when the government is supportive of their efforts. Thus, the paper appreciates the role of government in enforcing consumer protection laws and regulations in a country and therefore argues for the crucial role it plays in safeguarding consumer rights.  Even though the government is faulted for not doing enough, it is it to create marketplaces that reflect fairness, effectiveness, and competitiveness to all players. Thus, the role of ensuring safe and healthy dealings between traders and consumers chiefly rests upon the government.

Father, the government through its organs is responsible for coming up with laws that set conditions for sale, dictate business practices that should be observed, and ensure public safety through licensing and regulation of business enterprises.

Conclusion

This paper focuses on advertising to children as a broader topic. In addressing the topic, the paper looks at advertisements where children are the targeted consumers and several illustrations are used.  Father, the paper identifies scenarios where consumer protection principles might be applied, and where informed policymakers must choose from among government-based and non-government interventions to address a consumer protection problem. The paper argues that despite the lack of commitment by the government, it plays a major role in consumer protection.

References

TWAIN, T. I. F. F. A. N. Y. (2015). ENTERTAINING ILLUMINATION UNLEASHED. S.l.: LULU COM.

In Bendich, A., & In Deckelbaum, R. J. (2015). Preventive nutrition: The comprehensive guide for health professionals.

Aspray, W., Royer, G., & Ocepek, M. G. (2014). Formal and informal approaches to food policy.

Starke, L., United Nations Environment Programme., & Worldwatch Institute. (2003). Vital Signs 2003-2004: The trends that are shaping our future. London: Earthscan.

Hendershot, H. (2004). Nickelodeon Nation: The history, politics, and economics of America’s only TV channel for kids. New York: New York U.P.

Page, R. M., & Page, T. S. (2003). Fostering emotional well-being in the classroom. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Shaw, W. H. (2014). Business ethics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Szmigin, I. T. D. (2003). Understanding the consumer. London [u.a.: Sage.

United States. (1873). Congressional Record: Proceedings and debates of the … Congress. Washington: G.P.O.

Milling & baking news. (1972). Kansas City, Mo: Sosland Pub.

Perkin, R. M. (2008). Pediatric hospital medicine: Textbook of inpatient management. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Klimis-Zacas, D. J. (2001). Nutrition 01/02. Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

Litwin, M. L. (2009). The public relations practitioner’s playbook: A synergized approach to effective two-way communication. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Willett, T. D. (1988). Political business cycles: The political economy of money, inflation, and unemployment. Durham [N.C.: Duke University Press.

United States. (1998). Cigarette advertising and the First Amendment to the Constitution: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifth Congress, second session, on S. 1530 … February 10, 1998. Washington: U.S. G.P.O

Rustad, M. (2014). Global Internet law. St. Paul, Minn: West Academic Publishing.

Veerkumar, V., & Jaiswal, N. (2015). Impact of Television Advertisements on Purchases made for children. Hamburg: Anchor Academic Publishing.