杏吧原创

鈥淲hy鈥檚 that man got his hand up a sock. Don鈥檛 they know how to do it
properly? That鈥檚 not going to get me to buy it, is it?鈥� carped one
seven-year-old about the glove puppets used in Burger King鈥檚 The Lost
World television advertisement.

Call it cynicism. Call it sophistication. Nowadays, it鈥檚 not unusual to find
children as young as four making judgments like these, claims Nicky Buss of the
advertising agency Ammirati Puris Lintas in London. By then children are 鈥渂rand
literate鈥� and they can see through 鈥渕arketing hyperbole鈥�.

Or can they? Is advertising geared at children even ethical? Since the 1970s,
the battle between the forces for and against child advertising has hinged on
whether or not kids understand the motive behind advertising. The debate is far
from over, but new studies suggest that Buss is onto something. Either children
are getting wise to the advertising game, and at an earlier age than in the
1970s and 1980s, or in the past psychologists underestimated their young
subjects鈥� ability to work out other people鈥檚 motivations.

It doesn鈥檛 take a genius to work out why advertisers are trying harder to
market directly to children. British children aged four to fourteen spend an
average of 拢2.49 each week. This makes the pocket money market worth more
than 拢1.5 billion a year, according to a recent report from management
consultancy Datamonitor. In the US the pocket money market is worth a massive
$64 billion a year.

Selling to children has become big business, and advertisers want to make it
as scientific as possible. Winthrop Publications in London has just launched the
International Journal of Advertising and Marketing to Children. One
article reports that 60 per cent of children aged two to eleven know by the end
of October what they want for Christmas, and that for girls under seven the
biggest deciding factor is what they see on television.

Conferences and consultancies abound. Pay 拢2000 and you can attend Kid
Power 99 at any one of a string of European venues. The meetings offer workshops
on 鈥渨hat works with kids and why鈥�, 鈥減eer group marketing鈥� and how to 鈥渢hink like
a kid鈥�. Consultancy firms will tell you how to build 鈥渁 wall of communication鈥�
to influence 鈥測our core consumer lifestyle鈥� from the moment said consumer is two
years old.

Meanwhile the London-based Children鈥檚 Research Unit (CRU), a for-profit
organisation, surveys the tastes of 7000 children, three times a year in their
schools, via the Internet. Children are notoriously fickle, and advertisers have
a hard job keeping up with their capricious tastes, explains Glen Smith, the
unit鈥檚 director and a psychologist who also edits the International Journal
of Advertising and Marketing to Children. For a fee, market researchers can
buy 鈥渉ot topix spots鈥� in the survey, he says.

There are, of course, regulations in most countries specifically to protect
the child consumer. In the UK, 鈥渁dvertising must not take advantage of
children鈥檚 natural credulity and loyalty and must not arouse unreasonable
expectations of toys and games by special effects鈥�, says Helena Hunt of the
Independent Television Commission (ITC). 鈥淐hildren must also not feel under
pressure to buy.鈥� And the ITC Code works, according to the Advertising
Association鈥檚 James Aitchison. 鈥淟ess than 1 per cent of complaints received by
the Advertising Association in 1998 related to ads for toys or games,鈥� he
says.

But what counts as taking advantage of a child鈥檚 natural credulity? And isn鈥檛
that an impossible standard to meet, if a child does not even grasp the notion
that ads are trying to sell something? If on the other hand, children are aware
of the purpose of ads, those aimed at children are no more sinister than those
aimed at adults.

The backdrop to today鈥檚 research on kids and advertising is the cognitive
theory put forward over 70 years ago by the famous Swiss psychologist Jean
Piaget. According to Piaget, children go through four stages of cognitive
development鈥攁 model that, with relatively modest tweaking, still dominates
child psychology today. Between two and seven years old, children are in the
鈥減re-operational鈥� stage. Completely egocentric, they are at the mercy of their
immediate perceptions. They lack what psychologists call a 鈥渢heory of mind鈥�:
they don鈥檛 understand that the world looks different from another person鈥檚
perspective, or that other people can have motives and desires that differ or
even clash with their own. They certainly couldn鈥檛 be expected to realise that
an advertisement was a manifestation of those different motives. After seven,
children enter the 鈥渃oncrete operational鈥� stage: they become less egocentric,
are capable of more structured thinking, and understand that the world is not
always as it seems to their immediate perceptions.

Had Piaget ever considered children and advertising (and it鈥檚 likely he would
have thought it beneath him, being more concerned with such heady questions as
how children solve syllogisms), he would have argued that they had no clue as to
the motives behind the media until well into the concrete operational stage.

The first studies on children鈥檚 understanding of advertising seemed to fit
Piaget鈥檚 model. One 25-year-old study found that 96 per cent of five to six year
olds, 85 per cent of eight to nine year olds and 62 per cent of eleven to twelve
year olds 鈥渄o not fully understand the purpose of TV advertising鈥�. At the time,
psychologists in the US used those findings in their bid to press the US Federal
Trade Commission to ban toy ads on TV, on the basis that children under the age
of eight didn鈥檛 understand 鈥渢he commercial meaning鈥� of ads. Advertisers
persuaded the FTC against a ban.

But in the 1990s similar arguments led to a ban on toy ads on TV in Greece
and Sweden. Swedish law bans any product ads that aim to attact the attention of
the under-twelves. Now the European advertising industry wants to see those bans
lifted, or at the very least to ensure that they don鈥檛 spread. Ironically, some
psychologists who might usually be more comfortable arguing against sales
pitches to children have had to concede that they are shrewder than they once
supposed.

Take Jeffrey Goldstein, a psychologist at Utrecht University in the
Netherlands. Goldstein, who also writes reports on the latest research into
children and television for companies such as Nintendo and Compaq, believes that
the test used in the 25-year-old study was too stringent. To be deemed 鈥渇ully
aware鈥�, kids had to explain verbally that ads were trying to sell something and
make money out of children.

Psychologist Henry Wellman, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor,
argues that Piaget鈥檚 framework does not fit the modern child. 鈥淐hildren
[nowadays] are exposed to a much wider range of social interaction. They go to
day care, they don鈥檛 live in nuclear families. They engage much more in pretend
play,鈥� Wellman says. Children communicate with far more people at earlier ages
than they did in the past. It grows them up.

According to Wellman鈥檚 analysis of thousands of children鈥檚 conversations,
鈥渁round the age of three to four children understand that what you display on
your face doesn鈥檛 necessarily go with your internal state. By the age of five to
six, most children understand you can deceive people by showing one kind of
overt behaviour and feeling something else.鈥� If you understand deception, you
are well on the way to understanding advertising.

Piaget may have chosen just the experimental subjects to exacerbate any
difference in the cognitive abilities of children of the 1920s and of the
present day. He based most of his key ideas on observations of his own
children鈥擩acqueline, Laurent and Lucienne鈥攚hose upbringing was very
sheltered.

His studies also suffered from a problem that plagues child psychology to
this day: how do you get a child to make explicit what may be an implicit
understanding?

One way to tease out what children implicitly understand about advertising is
to see whether they realise that TV ads are different from regular programmes.
In one such experiment, 66 children aged between four and eight years old
watched two sorts of ads. The genuine version extolled a face cream on the basis
that it made users better looking. A doctored version praised the cream but the
punch line was that it gave users disgusting spots. The children were asked
which they preferred鈥攁nd why. Children aged four to five liked the funny
endings better and did not notice whether or not the punch lines made commercial
sense. All the eight-year-olds were totally familiar with the advertising game.
They laughed at the doctored ads鈥攏ot just because they were funny but
because they were pathetic as ads. A face cream that gives you spots is not a
product that will sell, they pointed out.

But it was the reactions of six-year-olds that revealed most. Just over half
understood that there was something wrong with the funny endings, even though
they couldn鈥檛 always say just what. That suggests that many six-year-olds only
have a limited understanding of what ads are trying to achieve, says
psychologist Brian Young of the University of Exeter, who reported the findings
at the 1998 British Psychological Society conference.

An experiment conducted by the CRU reaches a different conclusion.
Four-year-old children were shown TV commercials and were asked鈥攗sing
dolls representing mum, dad, children and so on鈥攖o select the doll that
the advert was talking to. 鈥淲e found if there was a frozen pea commercial they
moved the mum forward, if it was a toy they moved the child doll forward,鈥� Smith
says. If four-year-olds understand whom a sales pitch is aimed at, he says, it
is reasonable to assume they have some implicit understanding of advertising鈥檚
goal.

Smith has not published this research because, like much of the CRU鈥檚 output,
it is only available to clients. Smith says his study and others reassure him
that advertising to children is not 鈥渟inful or wicked鈥�, but, he concedes, one
should 鈥渂e mindful of the gullibility of young children鈥�.

Although the growing consensus is that by the age of five many children
realise there is something different about ads, some psychologists claim they
still do not truly understand the purpose of advertising.

How can they, asks Young, when they don鈥檛 even know how to 鈥渟ell鈥� themselves?
鈥淎 number of studies,鈥� he says, 鈥渟how it鈥檚 only around the age of seven that
children get a sense of promoting themselves. For example, if you ask
six-year-olds to put themselves forward to become one of a team they tell you
about themselves warts and all.鈥� Only around seven鈥攕till young, according
to Piaget鈥檚 theories鈥攄o children understand that if they want to convince
others to have them on their team, they need to accentuate the positive and
eliminate the negative in the best tradition of Madison Avenue.

It might seem as if recent studies on children鈥檚 grasp of advertising are
fuelling the debate rather than settling it. But one clear trend has
emerged鈥攁nd one that鈥檚 troubling for advertisers. Almost as soon as
children understand what advertising is about they become hostile to it.

One study of girls and boys aged seven to eleven in Aberystwyth, Wales, found
the children to be not only knowing but dismissive of TV ads. Even
seven-year-olds 鈥渞esponded with surprising hostility鈥�, says Merris Griffiths, a
child psychologist at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth. 鈥淭hey felt
insulted by the ads. They say things like `This is trickery鈥�. The girls had the
most hostile reactions. You鈥檇 think none of them had played with a Barbie doll.鈥�
Then there was that seven-year-old鈥檚 put-a-sock-in-it comment.

Advertisers and marketers, it seems, have every reason to get a severe case
of jitters whenever they plan a new Beanie Babies or Pok茅mon sales
campaign. After all, says Goldstein, 鈥渢here鈥檚 a conference every day on
marketing to kids. If advertisers really knew how to sell to children, they
wouldn鈥檛 be doing that.鈥�

As the TV global village explodes with niche channels, cartoons 24 hours a
day and good-for-all-ages shows like The Simpsons, children appear to
be getting wise to the purposes of advertising at an earlier age than in the
1970s and 1980s, forcing advertisers to fight back.

The London-based consultancy Focus on Kids suggests 32 different techniques
for marketing to children. Top tip in 鈥渂uilding a motivating promotional
mechanic鈥� is to link up with a charity鈥�67 per cent of children prefer
products from companies that do this.

Overt sexual stereotyping is pretty much grist for the mill in mainstream
advertising, but many TV ads aimed at children are more subtly 鈥済endered鈥� says
Merris Griffiths, a child psychologist at the University of Wales in
Aberystwyth. She examined 20 TV ads aimed at children. Ads for boys鈥� toys use
far more high-angle shots鈥攅mphasising, Griffiths suggests, their supposed
superiority鈥攁nd rely on 鈥渃uts鈥� rather than on 鈥渄issolves鈥� to keep the
action going.

The children鈥檚 programming that accompanies the ads is also often faster
paced than those aimed at adults. 鈥淭here鈥檚 only one way you can keep the
attention of both two and twelve-year-olds and that is to have very fast-paced,
fast-action programmes,鈥� says John Murray of Kansas State University in
Manhattan, Kansas, who was a member of a 1992 American Psychological Association
working group on children and television.

That may not sound ominous, but Murray thinks otherwise because one of the
easiest ways of achieving a fast pace is violence. His analysis found that one
hour of Saturday morning children鈥檚 TV in the US included 24 deaths as opposed
to five deaths per hour during prime time adult viewing. 鈥淟aughter goes along
with many of these deaths, and I just can鈥檛 think that鈥檚 good,鈥� he says.

Murray鈥檚 findings highlight a potential catch for those who would like to see
an end to ads aimed at children. Since Greece banned its TV stations from airing
children鈥檚 ads in 1993, the stations have lost an estimated $45 million
in revenue. 鈥淎s a result they鈥檙e importing cheap cartoons鈥攅xactly the
programming [Murray] was worried by,鈥� says James Aitchison of the Advertising
Association in London.