Children as Consumers
Welcome! We are excited to take you through a journey exploring the complex relationship between children and consumer culture. In this exhibit, you will delve into various chapters of David Buckingham’s, “The Material Child: Growing up in Consumer Culture.” The exhibit is broken down by this week’s assigned chapters and summarized points. We provide a comprehensive view of how children interact with and are influenced by consumer culture.
In the section for chapter 1, “Exploited or Empowered?” we encourage you to consider how children are influenced by consumer culture. In this section, you will hear Sue Palmer’s thoughts on how the modern world affects children. Additionally, we included a video on the power of branding by Martin Lindstrom. Let us know what you think!
In the section for Chapter 2, “Understanding Consumption,” we invite you to think about consumer behavior! In this section, we explore the effectiveness of “sin taxes” in guiding consumer choices through the article “Do ‘Sin Taxes’ Really Change Consumer Behavior?” from Knowledge at Wharton.
In the section for Chapter 4, “Histories of Children’s Consumption,” you will see the change of children into activity participants in consumption and how they begin to be targeted depending on their age and gender.
In the section for Chapter 6, “The Fear of Fat,” you will have the opportunity to explore childhood obesity and its complexity. We provide a video from National Geographic which included Nigella Lawson’s thoughts on how food connects us all.
Lastly, in the section for Chapter 8, “Rethinking ‘Pester Power,’” you may examine the evolving dynamics of family and consumer culture. We hope our exhibit is thought-provoking and generates great discussion about the complexities of children and consumerism. Thank you for your visit. We hope you have an enlightening experience!
Exploited or Empowered? (Chapter 1)
Constructing the Child Consumer
Children are arguably one of the most marketable populations in the world. With curiosity and wonder, many a child can be seen examining the new toys, electronics, products, and even snacks available to them. As one fad goes out, another comes in, and as products gain popularity in child-run markets – “all of my friends have this, why can’t I?!” – profits incrementally soar. The culture of marketing and consumption is one that children are immersed in from the time they are introduced into the world (Buckingham, 2011, p. 5). This culture dictates not only what children consume, but also parental choices. Parents desperately want their children to be happy and may even find the products helpful or useful themselves. Children desperately want ownership over the products and accompanying feelings that they find desirable.
Marketing critics, however, brand producers as insidious predators, lurking around corners with illicit products tucked into their trench coat pockets and actively accosting innocent children. Marketers, on the other hand, resent these ideas, citing children’s needs as ones that are largely unfulfilled and just waiting to be met. Consumption, marketers argue, allows children to express themselves in ways that they wish according to their own ideals and societal values. Who’s to say what’s right? Even among critics, there seems to be conflicting ideas over acceptable versus non-acceptable consumption (Buckingham, 2011, p. 6).
Considering this background, we can investigate the following questions:
- Why are certain consumer products considered to be unsuitable for children, and are there age thresholds for such restrictions?
- Why are some items considered appropriate for adults but not for children?
- Are children more likely than adults to experience moral or ethical denigration as a result of consumerism?
- What would happen if marketing and consumerism were removed from society? Is this even possible to do?
- What kind of outside push or pull factors exist that might prevent families from being swayed by consumerist or marketing agendas?
Constructing Social Problems
Social problems are constructed, well, socially. Social problems specific to generational values or geographic regions are not things that inherently exist: Humans create society, and therefore, social problems. Things that are considered problematic largely depend on their discovery in the first place, followed by their exploration and labeling, which then turns to garnering public awareness and scrutiny. People choose the lens they see the problem through and subsequently make judgements, create arguments, spread the word, and find like-minded others to create a synonymous group. Buckingham describes the phenomenon of constructing social problems and the subsequent reactions through the framing theory: “putting a problem into a frame serves to define it and focus attention on it, but it also detracts attention away from what lies outside the frame, and thereby limits the ways in which we can understand the problem in the first place” (2011, p. 7).
In the case of childhood, children must rely on adults to create problems on their behalf. Children indeed have their own problems, but in order for them to be taken seriously, a group of adults must validate their claims. What can unfortunately result is the dramatization or fabrication of problems to better suit an adult’s ideal of childhood or society wishes in general. Consider Buckingham’s thoughts: “… against homosexuality were redefined as campaigns against paedophiles; campaigns against pornography became campaigns against child pornography; and campaigns against immorality and Satanism become campaigns against ritualistic child abuse” (2011, p. 8). Would a child asked about personal concerns list any of Buckingham’s provided examples? Adults create issues for children based on their own values and perceptions of discomfort.
The creation of social problems is not unique to consumerism: What’s the Problem With Kids These Days? Maybe it’s Us
The Problem of the Child Consumer
Looking at the book titles above, it is obvious that a large group of adults find consumerism harmful to children. And though consumerism and marketing have historically been considered the black eye of American society, the twenty-first century has seen a more systematic and alluring form of marketing, one in which children have increasingly difficult times resisting (Buckingham, 2011, p. 9). Adding to the quandary is the proliferation of the digital age and social media. Children – and adults – consume all day, every day. As a result, some argue, children are at risk. Impulsivity and rampant ADHD diagnoses plague the lives of children. Children are more likely to be depressed, be overweight or generally insecure about their body, be disrespectful and defiant to authority, engage in risky, violent, and sexual activity, partake in alcohol and drug consumption, and the list goes on (Buckingham, 2011, p. 10).
“Commercial marketing” is seemingly “acceptable” when promoting “‘healthy’ or ‘wholesome'” products but is criticized when associated with what society considers to be “harmful” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 11). In the moral idealization of marketing critics, there are stark contrasts between good parents who set boundaries and encourage healthy environments and bad parents who are permissive, neglectful, and influenced by popular culture (Buckingham, 2011, p. 11). Children are portrayed as passive victims of marketing – vulnerable, defenseless, and exploited by marketers (Buckingham, 2011, p. 11-12). These ideals even extend to children’s learning environments! Consider the following news article from MSNBC News: Child protection nonprofit alleges ‘manipulative’ upselling with math game Prodigy.
While it is implied that ‘good’ parents should protect their children and counteract marketing influences, including through censorship, parents are seemingly deemed somewhat defenseless in the face of pervasive commercial marketing (Buckingham, 2011, p. 12). In the end, “much of the rhetoric appears designed to inflame parental anxiety and guilt” as change makers push for stricter regulations on marketing to children while simultaneously placing the burden of protection on parents’ shoulders (Buckingham, 2011, p. 12). The issues here are certainly complex for parents!
Research Agnes Nairn interestingly highlights the complexities within the marketer versus parental relationship with children. Please see this linked video.
Childhood at Risk
Worries regarding the impact of advertising and marketing on children are part of a larger narrative portraying modern childhood as a period filled with dangers, causing anxiety and stress, a narrative that has become more prolific throughout the twenty-first century. Though most child abuse happening within families, Buckingham argues, the fear of predators and pedophiles have become central, and even linking the perception of marketers to predatory behavior (2011, p. 13). These heightened anxieties surrounding child safety have resulted in ‘over-protection’ and ‘paranoid parenting,’ both of which limit children’s independence; unstructured outdoor play has been replaced by supervised activities, along with the introduction of constant oversight over children’s educational activities by parents (Buckingham, 2011, p. 13-14). This trend is also influenced by ‘infant determinism,’ the belief that early brain development significantly shapes future life outcomes (Buckingham, 2011, p. 14).
Toxic Childhood Syndrome
Increased discussions about the influence of advertising and marketing on children have led to increased engagement and publications on the matter.
Sue Palmer’s Toxic Childhood: How the Modern World is Damaging Our Children and What We Can Do About It: Palmer argues that due to increased exposure to media, consumerism, and technology, children are more unhappy and dissatisfied than they ever have been. Further, she argues, children are binge drinking, developing eating disorders, engaging in self-harm and suicide, and receiving diagnoses such as ADHD, ASD, and dyslexia in higher numbers than ever before (Buckingham, 2011, p. 15). Palmer criticizes the internet as a platform for pedophiles and terrorists, while accusing broader media of promoting aggression, sexualization, obesity, and materialistic values (Buckingham, 2011, p. 16). Palmer also identifies changing family dynamics and parenting styles as contributing factors, highlighting shifts in parental responsibility and the paradox of overprotectiveness versus less time spent with children (Buckingham, 2011, p. 16-17). Palmer’s work triggered a public campaign, including a letter in The Daily Telegraph and subsequent initiatives like the ‘Good Childhood Enquiry’ by the Children’s Society, “a longer-term initiative which eventually resulted in the publication of the book A Good Childhood: Searching for Values in a Competitive Age, subsequently followed by the Society’s Manifesto for a Good Childhood” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 15).
‘Modern Life is Rubbish?’ Versus ‘Kid Power?’
“Essentially, we are all going to hell, and it’s the media and consumer culture that are taking us there” (Buckingham, 2011, p.18)
“While the campaigners assume that there is a ‘natural’ state of childhood that has been destroyed or corrupted by commercialism, the marketers suggest that children’s ‘real’ innate needs are somehow being acknowledged and addressed, even for the first time” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 22)
Childhood has become a symbol that unites people against perceived threats; those who go against this narrative are seen as enemies of childhood or careless. In this case, positive aspects of modern childhood, such as increased diversity and stable families, are ignored. Children in working-class families are seen as more prone to dysfunction and engagement in undesirable or unacceptable activities through the narrative.
Through the mainstreaming and proliferation of narratives like the one above, parents’ deepest fears and wishes for their children are given a voice in the form of a social problem. The essential issue here goes beyond the accuracy of such a narrative – the emotions and hidden beliefs it triggers are essential in creating social problems that need righting (Buckingham, 2011, p. 17-18). Back to the “framing” from above: Forming a social problem requires some viewpoints to be neglected or forgotten, leading to gains in some areas, but sacrifices in others (Buckingham, 2011, p. 19). What is society losing out on by neglecting the other sides to these stories?
The purported viewpoints of the marketers exist somewhere outside the frame. Marketers see children as proactive, capable, and knowledgeable individuals, along with difficult to pin-down or reach (Buckingham, 2011, p. 19). This perception traces back to the 1920s when retailers and advertisers began targeting children – not their mothers – directly as children were increasingly thought of as influential consumers wishing to express themselves through consumerism (Buckingham, 2011, p. 19).
Martin Lindstrom’s Brandchild: In Brandchild, Lindstrom calls up on the research conducted by Millward Brown on tweens (aged 8-14). Lindstrom describes the tween generation as a digital one with intelligence and prowess as consumers, even having their own language, “Tweenspeak” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 19-20). This portrayal challenges traditional ideas of children as passive: Tweens specifically have autonomy and influence in marketing and consumerism, especially through the use of peer-to-peer marketing (Buckingham, 2011). According to Lindstrom, children are competent and social beings in society, and further, are embedded, reactive, and counteractive within society (Buckingham, 2011, p. 20). Though these ideas align with many mainstream and popular opinions regarding children, they ironically conflict with mainstream opinions regarding consumerism and marketing (Buckingham, 2011, 20-21).
Though the following video featuring Lindstrom does not focus on Brandchild, it can be seen how his ideas are beneficial for companies looking to market to children, as well as the idea that consumers – including children – look for products that help them express themselves. Author Martin Lindstrom on Brand Sense
Buckingham (2011, p. 23-24) wonders: How can the frame around child consumerism be reframed?
Understanding Consumption (Chapter 2)
Considering Ideas from Chapter Two
What constitutes appropriate consumption is largely dependent on societal values and social class. “This approach is clearly suffused with cultural judgments about aesthetics and taste and with moral judgments such as the dangers of self-indulgence and excess. It would seem that in these respects, the [political] right and the left unite in a shared sense of disappointment at the irrational, folder and selfish proclivities of the masses” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 28). An interesting aspect of this idea is the use of ‘sin taxes’, put in place to prevent people from engaging in unsafe consumption, such as smoking or drinking alcohol. This article interestingly summarizes the effectiveness of sin tax. Sin, of course, is created by society for society. One of the arguments in the article is that if sin tax does not lead to changes in behavior, the lower economic and working classes will feel the most pain from its use (monetarily and through community norms). We can see here that societal class determines appropriate consumption.
There are alternative views between those that see marketing as predatory and those where “consumers are regarded as active and autonomous; and commodities are seemed to have multiple possible meanings, which consumers can select, use and rework for their own purposes. In appropriating the symbolic resources they find in the marketplace, consumers are engaging in a productive and self-conscious process of creating an individual lifestyle and constructing or fashioning their identities. In this process, consumers are seen to be … empowered or liberated” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 31). The contrasting views between marketers and their critics are often too black-and-white to be valid in real-world applications. The polarization of opinions in topics such as consumerism does little to promote either agendum and prevents society from having solid middle ground to collectively work from. Very few opinions and ideals have absolute rights or wrongs, Buckingham argues, including child consumerism.
An interesting spin on the merging of marketer’s and consumer’s values is that of influencer marketing. In this case, the consumer (and potentially, also the critic) does the marketing for a product while receiving benefits from the company for doing so. This article is a great example. By including consumers in the marketing, consumerism may not seem so bad to the public! Additionally, much of today’s marketing is done passively through the use of digital marketing – leading to the argument that people are only being shown what they were already looking for to begin with. Everything we do on the internet (or even speak about in the vicinity of our phones) is tracked and funneled into algorithms that ensure we see things that are meaningful to us for purchase (Dangerfield, 2018).
Consumers are dependent on producers and producers are dependent on consumers. There are many different theories at play here as the implications of the relationship between consumers and producers are murky at best. It is described as a balancing act by some. However, it is silly to think of it as “consumer-led” or “producer-led”. They are both essential to each other. The author brings up three ideas that influence the debate on the relationship between consumers and producers. The first is activity, consumers make choices of what products to “consume”. The second issue is wants and needs. Debate is included about how to distinguish the difference between basic wants and needs and higher-order wants and needs. The final issue is knowledge, the idea that there is a savvy consumer and a sucker consumer depending on their knowledge and ability to separate emotions (Buckingham, 2011, p. 33-36).
As Buckingham states, consumption is embedded within everyday lives and interpersonal relationships. The author continues, that consumption is not merely instrumental it is also always expressive. Further stating, it is how we communicate with others and define and construct our identity (Buckingham, 2011, p. 37). Consumption is an active process that is not solely free choice, it is dependent on social practices and social mores (Buckingham, 2011, p. 40).
The cost of basic survival is going up, even in the wealthiest countries, the consumer is spending more money on necessities (Buckingham, 2011, p. 42). This continues to divide inequality in the consumer society. Shopping is not a time filled with freedom and pleasure for most, but rather one of a functional routine. Levels of participation in consumption are unequal, even in apparently affluent and developed societies. The gap between the poor and the rich is widening in countries like the UK. There are feelings of inadequacy among those who are unable to participate in buying high-status goods. This continues to increase social isolation and demonstrate their relative poverty (Buckingham, 2011. p. 44).
The Making of Consumers (Chapter 3)
When discussing consumerism, the criticisms of the concept become heightened when children enter the discussion: “The moralistic tone that characterizes many broader condemnations of consumer culture takes on particular force when it comes to children” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 46). Children are seen as blank canvases by the corporations that shape consumer culture; the identity of children forms as a result of their participation, which usually is an extension of their parent’s participation, in consumer culture (Buckingham, 2011, p. 46).
The role children play in the economy and consumer culture is one of conflicting and contradictory beliefs. On one hand, children should be separated from the economy, as childhood should be a period of “play and learning” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 46). On the other hand, children and teenagers often work small jobs or part-time jobs once they reach the legal age of employment. Clearly, the value of money can be seen at a young age. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing; Children and teenagers can learn valuable life lessons by working these jobs: “…Children’s work can be seen as a key dimension of their involvement and community and family life. Research suggests that employment can have value for young people in terms of developing self-esteem and a sense of responsibility as well as in the development of specific vocational skills” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 48).
Understanding children as consumers is not an easy task because there are few ways to observe and measure the effects of particular variables on children. Current methods used to research children’s habits as consumers are flawed due to the inability of researchers to consistently collect data on children in their day-to-day lives; instead, these children are given “unrepresentative ‘stimuli’ in unusual conditions” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 50). On top of this, most research seeks negative effects or harmful effects of particular stimuli, such as the “physical or physiological illnesses… consumption of harmful products… and a range of anti-social behaviors and attitudes” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 50). This type of positivist research is critiqued for several reasons. This research assumes that these elements of childhood are quantifiable and can be measured quantitatively. The researchers believe these variables are able to be controlled to be made into measurable statistics when many of these variables are influenced by one another and are unable to be isolated in that matter. Additionally, this research also assumes that any influence from the researcher or design of the experiment can be eliminated or minimized. Lastly, the research assumes that it’s able to provide predictability, objectivity, and a basis for generalization of children (Buckingham, 2011, p. 50).
Points and discussion questions to consider:
- Buckingham claims that there is a fundamental issue with effects research, especially in regards to advertising to children in the media. He argues that advertising exposure and its influence on children’s attitudes and values cannot simply be explained by cause and effect. Buckingham criticizes the simplicity of the argument. How can we better understand the variety of ways children respond to advertising?
- Many argue that older children and adults are less susceptible to the effects of advertising due to their broader understanding of persuasion in the media. Buckingham counters this claim. Even though older children and adults may recognize the strategies and intent of advertisements, they can still be influenced. When do individuals allow advertising to persuade them and when do they remain unaffected?
- When adults criticize children’s attraction to bold and unconventional products, it can intensify the child’s appeal to said product! Can you think of a time when you were criticized by an adult as a child for being attracted to something that was considered unconventional? How did their criticism influence you?
- Buckingham encourages us to think about the multiple modes of child consumption: “the child who saves for the future: the childhood who delegates choice and responsibility to parents; the child who shops; the child who collects, the child who consumes moderately and rationally; the child who influences family consumption.” He highlights that children may opt for r multiple roles depending on the significance of the situation, rather than a fixed position. How might recognizing and understanding the various modes of child consumption described by Buckingham influence our approach to marketing, education, and parenting in today’s consumer culture?
Histories of Children’s Consumption (Chapter 4)
The rise of a consumer society is typically connected with a decline in traditional forms of authority and social stratification and the rise of individualism…it is also seen to entrail a new emphasis on the cultural or symbolic meanings of goods (as embodied in aspects of aesthetic and design) rather than merely on their functionality or use value (Buckingham, 2011, p. 68-69).
A significantly higher proportion of people’s income is now spent on discretionary ‘luxuries’, and on services and entertainment, and less on ‘necessities’(Buckingham, 2011, p. 69). Just as children were being recognized as distinct and special groups pure and innocent, and in need of careful protection-they were also coming to be seen as a potential market (Buckingham, 2011, p. 70). Adults used both types of goods to maintain a kind of vicarious or nostalgic connection with their childhoods. Connection of adults to their childhood through nostalgia and the display of goods in exhibitions like department stores. New worries over how to protect children from certain aspects of adulthood by playing with toys, reading books, or watching theaters that expose them (Buckingham, 2011, p. 71).
The expansion of the children’s market led to anxiety about the corruption of children and the shift from ideas of thrift and self-control to responsible and respectable consumers. The growth of consumer advice led to an expansion in play that was essential to children’s cognitive, emotional, and physical development. With this focus on play, family size decreased, and family relationships were changed to focus on play. The playroom, with functional furniture and educational toys, was established during this time (Buckingham, 2011, p. 72). During the mid-twentieth century, markets changed from addressing parents with shop displays, catalogs, and advertisements to addressing children with television. Change from adult nostalgia from toys to children with an emphasis on pleasure. With the shift from adults to children through marketing, parents have started to blame toymakers for their problems in disciplining children, promoting violence and materialism. There is a big distinction between the ‘rowdy’ street culture and the wealthy middle class. Not only does the wealthy class have playrooms, but they also have more high-quality toys like Fisher Price and the Early Learning Centre rather than just Mattel and Hasbro (Buckingham, 2011, p. 73-75).
After the production of children’s books and toys, there is the mass production of children’s clothing. Just like the production of children’s toys transferred from adults to children, the same happened with clothing. Initially, the mothers were the purchasers as an act of instinctive love and care, the stores even provided advice and instruction on parenting. Then it changed and children were the sole focus with the change in the design of products and packing, shop displays and layouts, and growing market research on children (Buckingham, 2011, p. 75).
There begins to be a divide in children by age group with toys that are ‘too young’ or age-appropriate. Children’s clothing was not simply about size, but also about style and design; the aim for children who were both younger and older was to emulate the styles of their older peers. The emergence of ‘toddler’ as a new marketing category in the 1930s with the popularity of star Shirley Temple. In more modern times the invention of the ‘teenager’, ‘subteen’, ‘preteen’ or ‘tween’. With these distinctions also comes the distinction of gender in a blue and pink world. Boys’ toys focused on technology and war while girls were sold dolls. The need to target boys because they were more rigid, and less focused on marketing girls as they were more flexible (Buckingham, 2011, p. 77).
The following video shows a modern experiment in which those social differences are exhibited by switching the clothing and “gender” of the boy and girl baby and seeing what happens after that. We find that the babies are treated very differently depending on their gender.
The advertising for boys was represented as a kind of junior business entrepreneur and consumer expert. The advertising for teenage girls typically encouraged them to be preoccupied with physical beauty to ensure popularity within the peer group. There is ongoing uncertainty on the part of marketers and the children’s market is somehow inherently volatile and difficult to control (Buckingham, 2011, p. 79 ). There is some work on children’s consumption in Norway, the image of frugal, responsible consumer was particularly strong in the decades following the Second World War. Childhood is identified with nature and an active, outdoor life. China in contrast has some of the same anxieties felt by Western parents, but they are also influenced by moderation and the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ consumption (Buckingham, 2011, p. 79-80).
The Fear of Fat (Chapter 6)
Obesity, food and consumption
The making of the ‘obesity epidemic’ (Buckingham, 2011, p. 105-108)
The “obesity epidemic” appears to be sweeping through our country, as it is a hot topic in the media today. Childhood obesity is rapidly increasing and is contributing to life-threatening illnesses, such as: cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes. There are predictions that this will burden our healthcare system and the economy. However, Buckingham argues that these claims are limited, with little to no evidence to support them. Obesity is NOT a contagious disease. Buckingham makes the case that:
- BMI reports are often misleading. Click here to learn about how the CDC defines BMI categories for children.
- There is a complex relationship between obesity, diet, and disease.
- Certain industries, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies in particular, have vested interests, which leads to manipulation and/or misrepresentation of scientific evidence.
Advertising, obesity and the problem of evidence (Buckingham, 2011, p. 108-110)
Buckingham brings to our attention how we should be skeptical when it comes to the marketing and advertising of the so-called “obesity epidemic.” There has been tons of research on the impact of food advertising on children’s health; unfortunately, conclusions have been conflicting and inconsistent. Why are there so many inconsistencies when there is an apparent commitment to an “evidence-based policy?” There is a significant gap between the policy decision and the actual research evidence. Buckingham brings up the case of banning high-fat, high-sugar, and high-salt (HFSS) food advertising to children. The decision was made to address the issue of childhood obesity; however, there is no evidence that the ban was effective in doing so. Buckingham argues that it potentially distracts from deeper issues like child poverty that contribute to obesity.
“Feed the Children is a leading anti-hunger non-profit organization delivering food and other critical resources to children and families. Our mission is to provide hope and resources for those without life’s essentials.”
The Link Between Childhood Obesity and Poverty, according to Feed the Children
- FOOD DESERTS: Children living in poverty often live through a food desert. This is a low-income area where fresh, healthy food is hard to come by. Because unhealthy, processed food options are more affordable, parents often prioritize feeding their children rather than focusing on the nutrition content of the food. (The Link between Childhood Obesity and Poverty | Feed the Children, 2020)
- FOOD INSECURITY: When children experience a consistent lack of access to enough healthy food, they are experiencing food insecurity. Therefore, when food is available, they tend to overeat which tends to be unhealthy options. (The Link between Childhood Obesity and Poverty | Feed the Children, 2020)
- SAFE PLAY SPACE: Children who are living in poverty often have limited access to exercise opportunities. Public parks may be in an unsafe community, and the cost of sports, clubs, and extracurricular activities may be unaffordable. (The Link between Childhood Obesity and Poverty | Feed the Children, 2020)
As research has (not) shown … (Buckingham, 2011, p. 110-113)
The evidence regarding the impact of advertising unhealthy food to children on the television is inconclusive. The research that has been conducted focuses more on food preference than the actual issue of obesity itself. Research has shown that television advertisements contribute to children’s food preferences; however, Buckingham argues that there is not a clear link between advertising exposure of unhealthy foods and obesity. Buckingham argues that genetic predisposition, family interactions, lifestyle choices, and limited access to physical activity have a significant contribution to obesity.
Overall, there is little evidence that suggests that food advertising impacts childhood obesity. Buckingham highlights how most of the research done has been focused on television advertising and there needs to be a shift in focus to other marketing strategies, like product placement and online advertisement.
Advertising in context (Buckingham, 2011, p. 113-114)
Too often, the research in this field simplifies the relationship between marketing and obesity and fails to address the various social factors at play. In this section, Buckingham makes a call to action for a more comprehensive sociocultural analysis of children’s food consumption. He argues that researchers must consider:
- Everyday practices
- Economic factors
- Food production and distribution
- Pricing
- Food availability in local communities, especially low-income
Understanding children’s food cultures (Buckingham, 2011, p. 114-117)
Food is a cultural phenomenon shaped by social, historical, and cultural factors. There is so much symbolism when it comes to food. What is considered edible or inedible? Healthy or unhealthy? High status or low status? Buckingham argues that food plays a crucial role in our social relationships, how we show our intimacy, and how it can even contribute to power dynamics! Check out this video from the National Geographic about how food connects us!
“No matter the nationality, the one common language humanity has in common is food.”
National Geographic. (2014). How Food Connects Us | National Geographic [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C7vFHeos8U
The food system (Buckingham, 2011, p. 118-119)
To understand the food system, you must study its political economy and its various historical and cultural features. Neoliberal policies have transformed modern food production, distribution, and consumption. Changes include: industrialization, large-scale production, preservation techniques, marketing strategies, and global trade. Since these changes, there have been concerns in regards to health and safety, environmental sustainability, and global inequalities. As a result, overconsumption is prevalent in industrialized nations. Meanwhile, mass hunger overwhelmingly affects developing countries. Food deserts prevail in low-income neighborhoods. Large supermarkets control the food supply chain and consumer behavior. Buckingham raises the concerns of price fixing, exploitative labor practices, and the lack of competition in these neighborhoods. He argues that obesity cannot be solely addressed as an individual level because the socio-economic status of community members affects their food consumption due to lack of resources and restricted access to healthy, nutritious foods.
In January 2020, Philly Magazine published an article addressing food deserts in Philadelphia. The article In Philly, the Neighborhood You Live In Could Determine Your Lifespan. Activists Are Pointing to the Food We Eat highlights the challenges Philadelphians in low-income neighborhoods face in regards to food accessibility and health. A local resident, Margaret Bowie, told Philly Magazine how at the age of 59 she had already experienced multiple heart attacks; however, with limited funds and food options in her neighborhood, Margaret finds it extremely difficult to improve her eating habits. Unfortunately, Margaret is not alone in her struggles. There are many activists and organizations working to find solutions to the health issues that coincide with living in poverty. The Food Trust and Philly Food Bucks are two examples of groups taking initiative to increase access to healthy and affordable food options for Philadelphia families. A question for teachers to consider: How does the neighborhood your students live in impact their access to health food options, as highlighted in the article about Philadelphia?
In Philly, the Neighborhood You Live In Could Determine Your Lifespan. Activists Are Pointing to the Food We Eat [Sponsor Content]. (2020, January 28). Philadelphia Magazine. https://www.phillymag.com/sponsor-content/philly-neighborhood-lifespan/#:~:text=Food%20deserts%20develop%20as%20grocery,between%2040%20and%2050%20percent.“Food deserts develop as grocery stores cluster around high-paying customers. Less than 1 percent of Center City residents are more than a half-mile away from a grocery store, according to city data, but in North Philly neighborhoods like Germantown and Belfield, that number can reach between 40 and 50 percent.”
The late modern diet (Buckingham, 2011, p. 119-121)
There have been many changes in food cultures and the food system, bringing various implications to the consumer.
- Product diversity: There is now great product diversity in industrialized countries, which is great! However, there are fewer shopping choices, leading to people spending more time traveling to out-of-town supermarkets and less time preparing meals.
- Convenience: With a reliance on convenience when it comes to our food choices, many people opt for fast-food restaurants. These meals often have higher levels of fat, salt, and sugar. Additionally, snacking too often becomes a full meal for many, as traditional family dinners are less frequent these days.
- Lifestyle changes: Longer working hours, changing gender roles, and increased single-parent and dual-income families have contributed to changes in people’s food choices.
- Food safety: Concerns about safer and more ethical food options have swept through wealthier communities. Consumers who can afford it consider ethical options like organic or natural foods.
In this section, Alan Ward’s research highlights the tensions in contemporary food culture. Consumers are constantly navigating the contradictions of innovation and tradition, health and indulgence, economy and extravagance, and convenience and care. These extremities reflect the uncertainties of modern culture today. Additionally, the role of food contributes to class distinctions today. People of the middle-class tend to prefer healthier options; but, it is important to note that low-income communities often have limited access to fresh, nutritious foods.
The regulation of bodies (Buckingham, 2011, p. 121-123)
The issue of obesity can be viewed as an effort of the government and media to manage and control the dietary habits of lower-income groups. Historically, the working class diets have been defined as “pathological and nutritionally inadequate.” The media would then promote middle-class tastes. Previously, there had been concerns of undernourishment; however, recently, the shift has turned to overconsumption. There is pressure for individuals to control their diets, but this may conflict with their cultural values and older beliefs about food. Typically, a disciplined, slim body is idealized and obesity is stigmatized as a lack of impulse control and self-care. Why? How can we make a change?
Rethinking ‘Pester Power’ (Chapter 8)
Pester power commonly refers to the persuasive and persistent influence that children exert over their parents or caregivers to buy or provide them with desired products or services. Pester can drive parents to make purchasing decisions based on their children’s persistent appeals, even if they might not have otherwise chosen to do so. The video below exemplifies this idea.
Though children play a role in their own participation in consumer culture, parents are responsible for their children’s engagement in consumerism. Especially for younger children, most, if not all, of children’s spending is actually their parent’s spending, as the parent provides the financial means to spend. This leads to discussions about the effectiveness of parents to avoid the onslaught the marketing and commercials; responsible parents are those who carefully pick when to give in and purchase their child what is advertised while permissive parents are those who consistently succumb to constant marketing and purchase their child advertised products (Buckingham, 2011, p. 143). This generalization of the dynamic between child and parent does not accurately portray how both parties participate in consumer culture, as many additional elements are relevant to the situation besides a child’s ability to plea for a product.
In recent history, the nuclear family structure that once was a staple in most Western homes has dissolved into a more nuanced, home-by-home discussion. Critics are quick to critique this development of the family structure because they feel that ‘family time’ is no longer a priority in homes because parents prioritize work over their family (Buckingham, 2011, p. 144). This, however, neglects why parents feel the need to put more time into their occupation over their family. The cost of living has increased significantly in recent years, and parents are forced to put more hours into work to provide for their families. In addition, while the average level of disposable income has increased on average, the financial inequality gap between the rich and the impoverished has widened (Buckingham, 2011, p. 146).
In households where both parents need to work to keep up with the inflating costs of living, the power of marketing towards children strengthens since the children spend more of their time watching advertisements. In addition to this, families are now having fewer children on average, so while they may have more to spend with fewer children, the children have less companionship among siblings. As previously stated, this leads to an increase in the effectiveness of advertising. (Buckingham, 2011, p. 144-145)
In recent times, children have become more relevant in consumer culture due to the practice of giving allowances becoming a staple in many households (Buckingham, 2011, 150). With the rise of allowances, children have greater access to disposable income than previous generations, which means marketing teams are more likely to try to appeal to recent generations’ children than older generations’ children. This demonstrates an interesting shift between generations; in the past, children went to work to help provide for their families, but now, children are given money by their parents to make purchases for themselves. In some cases, the conditions of the allowance can mimic employment, such as doing chores, but others receive the money because there’s an expectation for parents to provide an allowance.
Outside of their allowance, children have seemingly developed a greater influence on their household spending in recent years: “Children appear to have more influence over the purchase of food, holidays, hardware (such as electronic goods), and gifts for friends and family…” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 151). Clearly, this shift shows another reason advertisers allocated more resources into advertising to children; the means of reaching children became easier through electronic devices, such as television and cell phones, while the amount of pull children had over household spending increased. One theory of this shift in dynamic is that mothers are now working more often and have less time to keep up with trends and new products, so parents are more likely to consult their children about the best items to purchase when shopping (Buckingham, 2011, p. 151)
On the surface, ‘pester power’ seems to be an idea that marketers would love to use to their advantage over consumers; using children’s persistence to get their parents to buy products they wouldn’t normally buy sounds like a great proposition for companies that produce those products. Interestingly, for that reason, the UK and several countries across Europe prohibited advertisers from blatantly encouraging children to use this ‘pester power’ to get their parents to purchase their product. The following is an interesting example of this: “the famous 1950s advertising slogan ‘don’t forget the Fruit Gums, mum’ would be proscribed under current legislation” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 152).
‘Pester power’ is a reductive term and does a poor job of describing the dynamic between parents and children. While pestering may occur in some instances while shopping, children should be encouraged to articulate their wants with their parents, and parents should be able to respond in the way they see best fit. Parents shouldn’t be encouraged to always deny their children’s desires while shopping, and likewise, children should learn to show restraint and avoid jumping at everything that catches their eye. Some parents may use instances of their children expressing their wants as a learning opportunity; parents may take their child into a toy store but not allow them to get anything. The rationality of this is arguable, but a parent who does this may argue that this teaches the value of restraint as well as savviness when shopping. Children may learn not to jump at the first price they see for something they want and instead, look for alternative purchasing options from second-hand shops (Buckingham, 2011, p. 155-158).
The desire to please one’s child is inherent in parenting, so assuming that the relationship between child and parent is as simple as the child pestering and parent complying is harmful to the family dynamic. With this in mind, though, marketers may try to take advantage of this affection in order to sell goods. They may try to get parents to feel guilty for not buying their child a particular product (Buckingham, 2011, p.158). Ultimately, the relationship between child and parent is incredibly complex, and it cannot be reduced to the idea of ‘pester power.’
We hope that you enjoyed our exhibit on ‘Children as Consumers’, and that you found the information intriguing and thought-provoking! As we can see, many aspects of daily life include some element of marketing and consumerism – even down to the food we eat – and children are not spared. Going forward, it is important to consider:
- What are the effects of consumerism and marketing on children, adults, families, and communities?
- What types of marketing is ‘good’ – if any – and who dictates what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ marketing?
- Are some products and services considered appropriate only for certain demographics, and who determines appropriateness?
- How are diversity and consumerism interrelated, particularly when it comes to children?
- How do families resist or embrace marketing and consumerism?
- What role do communities and societies have in the proliferation of marketing and consumerism?
- What are your thoughts on child consumerism? How do you feel about marketing geared towards children?
References
Amazon.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2023, from https://www.amazon.com/Fisher-Price-Experience-Toddler-Sports-Educational/dp/B09P4GVD9Z
Amazon.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2023, from https://www.amazon.com/Toy-Story-Lightyear-Authentic-Collectable/dp/B09CGCD5XN
BBC Stories. (2017, August 16). Girl toys vs boy toys: The experiment – BBC Stories [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu44AqF0iI
Buckingham, D. (2011). The material child: Growing up in consumer culture. Polity Press.
Dangerfield, K (2018). Facebook, Google and others are tracking you. Here’s how to stop targeted ads. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/4110311/how-to-stop-targeted-ads-facebook-google-browser/#:~:text=Online%20targeted%20advertisements%20use%20data,you%20may%20be%20interested%20in.
ISTE. (2020, January 9). What’s the problem with kids these days? Maybe it’s us [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WKUAhJHcN8&t=32s
In Philly, the Neighborhood You Live In Could Determine Your Lifespan. Activists Are Pointing to the Food We Eat [Sponsor Content]. (2020, January 28). Philadelphia Magazine. https://www.phillymag.com/sponsor-content/philly-neighborhood-lifespan/#:~:text=Food%20deserts%20develop%20as%20grocery,between%2040%20and%2050%20percent.
National Geographic. (2014, November 14). How food connects us | National Geographic [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C7vFHeos8U
S Palmer. (2015, September 13). Toxic childhood how the modern world is damaging our children and what we can do about it [Video]. https://youtu.be/5JDuzRpDrNw?si=lJXGAhEAc9s0txmg Simon & Schuster Books. (2010, February 10). Author Martin Lindstrom on Brand Sense [Video]. https://youtu.be/lbCMt8Qe2yo?si=1-MVcIxVcuh1tRxM
Simon & Schuster Books. (2010, February 10). Author Martin Lindstrom on Brand Sense [Video]. https://youtu.be/lbCMt8Qe2yo?si=1-MVcIxVcuh1tRxM
This exhibition has been my favorite so far! The content and resources were so interesting and relevant to today! In the video about toxic childhoods the part that really stood out to me was the increase in children having TVs in their own bedrooms. Now, before I go any further I’m not passing any judgment on any mom or dad who’s reading this today! I just thought it was a really interesting point that they are spending more alone time away from their families playing and choosing to watch TV. Also, what is stopping them from turning it on past their bedtime with the volume really low and an inappropriate show on? Now I know that parents can set controls on certain channels so that’s good, but I just feel like they can still go on it whenever they want. I also think that it’s a lot more screen time for kids than it was in the past and a lot less playtime.
I loved the video about the gender toys because I thought it was so interesting to see how the random volunteers acted with them. I feel like people are so much more open to “Gender neutral” baby showers, nurseries, and colors in toys. The traditional blue only for boys and pink only for girls seems to be less popular. I think it’s so important for all children to have toys that they enjoy playing with and not just stereotypical toys for boys vs girls.
Great job!!
Katelyn, I agree about how fascinating the video about gender marketing was! It was interesting to hear the adult volunteers acknowledge their unconscious biases (I especially liked the lady who admitted “I’ve always thought I was rather more open-minded than that”). Recent arguments about how toys are toys and shouldn’t be gendered are great to rally behind, but hard to realize that even if we think we’re more open-minded, adults are still so conditioned to think in terms of “boy toys” and “girl toys.” I can’t help wonder what ways I may have unintentionally shown my own subconscious biases in my interactions with children.
As one of the curators of this week’s exhibit, I was intrigued by the gender marketing video as well. I thought that though the outcome was obvious it was still interesting how much people changed which toys they chose and how they played with the children, even more physically of handling with the “boy”. I like you began to wonder about how I had to have those similar biases as well and it was demonstrated to me perfectly last night. I had gotten my niece and nephew a “boo basket” for Halloween, I filled my niece’s up in a pink basket with a witch’s bubble wand, a pink dress, and a black/pumpkin stuffed animal (among other things). My nephew’s I filled up in a blue basket, with a mummy’s bubble wand, a grey dinosaur pj set, and a bat/Frankenstein stuffed animal (among other things). I placed them on the kitchen table when walking in as we got instructions on how to put them to bed. My niece found them and shouted to her brother “Look Austin we got a present”. She instantly grabbed the pink and blue and handed the blue to her brother. She knew immediately which one was hers. Though my niece is a true girly girl and loves pink, I couldn’t help but think what other things she might be interested in if we didn’t all lean into the pink and princess?
It’s interesting to think how conditioned we, as adults, are! Intellectually we know how arbitrary gendered colors and toys are, but we’re still guilty of falling into the trap! When my kids were pre-school age, they participated in several child studies through the University of Virginia’s child psychology department. My son did one where he was offered a broad selection of toys to choose. If I remember it right, they included, among other toys, some identical toys in two different colors. The students noted, by gender and age group which toys children picked. As suspected, the younger kids picked whatever appealed to them, but the older kids went for the “right” colors. Even knowing that adults are responsible for leaning into those stereotypes, I was still guilty. Now how do we de-program ourselves?
Hi Cheri,
You are so true the younger children go with what appeals to them that day and it changes, but the older kids, I believe to try and “fit in” tend to follow suit with peers. I like your question, “how do we de-program ourselves?” That is a very hard question and it makes me feel that I need to look closely with my interactions in the classroom and how it is presented.
As I watched the BBC video, I couldn’t help but think about how I might have acted if I were a participant in the experiment. So many of the participants were shocked at their own behavior, as it didn’t line up with their perception of themselves as “open-minded.” I can’t help but feel like I might have done the same thing as them – and I perceive myself as open-minded, too!
Hi Emily,
I agree it was shocking when the teachers found out! I also might have done the same thing even though I try my best. I feel unconsciously we connect with experiences from our own childhood. It was an eye-opening video!
Katelyn – Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts here. The gendered toys video is definitely eye-opening! I liked the ending adult reflections and commentaries.
Thanks again!
Stephanie
Katelyn, I appreciate your thoughts on the TV in the bedroom. I remember growing up doing the same thing, and I use to sneak to watch TV when it was past my bedtime as background noise and something to relax my mind when I couldn’t fall asleep. Back in those days, you either could find The Cosby Show, Full House, George Lopez, or Friends late at night. Regardless, I remember that I always tried to be careful because I would always listen for whenever I could hear my parents walking around downstairs and turn the TV off before they had a chance to see the light when coming up the stairs. Wow, now I see why this topic is being covered in this light, figuratively and literally. Regardless, your comments about that just reminded me of some of my own childhood memories.
Thank you for sharing the video of What’s wrong with kids these days, maybe it’s us. I think it can be so easy to blame the next generation for all those parts of their lives that seem important for them that the past generation can’t really understand as it has not been a part of their childhood. It is unsettling to think how adult’s inability to navigate children’s worlds can create disengaged parent-child relationships which can lead, in part, to teen depressions. It was interesting to experience how emotional the presenter became near the end when giving recommendations to parents and advice to children – children who are active and engaged despite living in a period of constraints. Really makes me think twice about the difficulties children face today and their being in a position to tackle these changes with limited adult support in many cases. Upon reflection of the video, kids these days might just be some of the most resilient!
The second video you included here which, for me, was another “Ah ha” moment was the gender/toys experiment. Although I am not particularly surprised about the results, I did think the experiment provides an opportunity for us to reflect on how we, without really realizing in, play into the gendered stereotypes. For someone who is not a fan of the pink-blue divide, I can, upon reflecting on the video, see myself like the volunteers, making choices for children based on their gender without realizing. Interesting!
Appreciate all the links and videos to take some of the big ideas from Buckingham’s chapters a bit further.
Hi Lindsey!
I also really enjoyed the gender toy video, because when I worked in a daycare I observed many teachers doing just this. They would section out toys into boys’ and girls’ toys. After having a similar conversation as the video in a college course, I went back to the daycare and asked if we could reorganize the toy section. The teachers were open to my suggestion and amazed to see how the boys and girls would play with all the toys regardless of the label a toy had on it. It was really interesting and helped me not stereotype genders.
What a great initiative which I am sure the children really appreciated! I wonder how many of the children wanted to play with toys that were not in their section before this was done and then felt that it was okay to play with toys that “belonged” to the other gender after the reorganization. It really makes you wonder how an experiment like this might play in toy stores or clothing stores if nothing was colour coded or sectioned out according to gender. I’m sure it would be quite confusing for everyone at first, but would be interesting to see what choices children and adults make when the gendered colours and organization is removed!
Hello! Along these same lines, I remember teaching 4 year olds years ago and the boys would never touch the dolls- and it even got to the point where they were hitting the dolls. One day they and I got into it and I asked them why they were doing that and they said “dolls were for girls.” I pretended the baby doll cried and I held it in my arms and starting bouncing it and talking to it and said, “oh baby, don’t cry, don’t worry, those daddies DO like you.” Not 3 minutes later, strollers appeared out of nowhere and a bunch of boys started racing around the room with their dolls in the strollers.
By 4 years old those gender roles had solidified to the point where the boys were actually violent and angry towards the dolls in order to help them reject the lure. All they needed was to redirected and given a role and play identity in order to make it ok to do so.
Lindsay:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! Watching the adults pick the toys for the children was interesting because the choices they made were without realization. It makes you think about what implicit biases we all have when confronted with choices like the toy example!
Thanks again!
Stephanie
Lindsay,
I also really liked the video “What’s the Problem With Kids These Days? Maybe it’s Us.” The presenter’s calling attention to and defining ephebiphobia (“inaccurate, exaggerated and sensational characterization of young people”) really struck a cord with me as I am parenting my third daughter who turned seventeen a few months ago. He is so right in that we need to encourage and engage with teens, not criticize and shut them out because we are afraid of, uncomfortable with, and ignorant of the serious issues they face on a daily basis. They are people who need a listening ear, and discipline and guidance, not punishment. What can I do to provide opportunities for my teen to engage positively and wisely in this wide world in which there is beauty and joy and peace if we train our eyes to see it?
And as parents, we do not have to be passive because we are fearful of our child/teen and their unhappiness or dejection at not getting what they think they want, or what advertisers are saying they should want or deserve. We need to take courage and as Agnes Nairn tells us in her TEDxGhent talk on consumer kids, we parents/adults can effect change in children’s lives if we band together with other parents/adults in response to the circular character of advertising exposure which leads to purchase request, which leads to arguments, which leads to disappointment and which finally leads to low life satisfaction. As adults, we need to positively empower the children in our lives to think critically and truly choose for themselves for good purposes and positive outcomes and delight.
Whenever I think about an older generation complaining about a younger one, I always think of how ironic is that they are the ones that raised that generation. Like you were the influence, you created the environment, and you made the rules for how they were raised. There was this comedy talking about what kids these days cannot do like: read a paper map or write in cursive. I was like, “wow but we (the older generation) are the ones that replaced cursive with typing class and computer screens for outdoor activities in their lives.” It was us we are the ones, the reason they cannot do those things. So, when the video, “What’s the Problem with Kids These Days? Maybe it’s Us.” It reminded me that we are the ones that are actually influencing teens. We are the ones that can’t just toss our hands up and say, “Kids these days!”
Linsday, I also thought that the gender toy video was very interesting. I am also not a fan of the gender divide in toys and realize that I have an unconscious bias toward certain aesthetics for boys or girls. My husband and I are designing our nursery right now and he pointed out that I chose mostly florals for a girl and space themed things for a boy and made the comment, “Girls can like space too.” I felt like part of the problem in that moment because I, like others, have made the biased decision for what my children will be exposed to before they get the chance to decide or attach identity to it themselves. In instances like this I find myself leaning toward Montessori style toys, but then feel like I’m falling into the “sad beige child” category. I think it’s important to expose children to a variety of things, experiences, and identities so taht they can figure themselves out on their own. I wonder how my own unconscious biases will play out in motherhood.
This topic of the child as the consumer caught my attention when I first saw the book on our class materials list. Your group’s presentation of the material in the book was a great blend of a summary of the Buckingham’s chapters and a further fleshing out of some of the topics.
So many aspects resonated with me as I was viewing all the material, but the sections on making a consumer and the history of children’s consumption sent me on a trip down the hall to my 17 yo son’s room. His walls are full of shelves full of hundreds of Toy Story figures. There are armies of Buzz Lightyears and gangs of Woody dolls reinforced by gangs of Jessies and Bullseyes! He has spent years collecting every toy, cereal box, tissue box… anything associated with the Toy Story movie franchise. Over the time that it has taken him to amass this collection, my thoughts on it have evolved. I’ve gone from amusement at his insistence on “needing” Toy Story toys each time a new movie was released to an appreciation for how he’s turned toys into a hobby and even a monetized YouTube channel. He researches toys and toy companies. He knows the history of which company released which body style which year. He knows of promotional items released in other countries (and we are often receiving and signing for international packages of his latest purchases).
This hobby hits many points covered in the material on the child as a consumer. 1) He truly represents the “child as a collector.” 2) He has his own money to spend and knows that he is a marketer’s dream target when it comes to Toy Story memorabilia. 3) He’s leaning into a newfound nostalgia (also played on by the Toy Story franchise itself), as he nears the end of his high school career and faces going off to college (like Andy, in Toy Story 3). 4) He’s also fully aware of the marketing ploys used by toy companies and movie franchises. I once jokingly asked him if there was ever going to come a day when he owned every Toy Story toy created. He scoffed and said “no because it’s Disney! They’re experts at milking a franchise for sales.”
Cheri:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! It was interesting to see how you connected the material to your personal life. I will admit that I am not much of a collector! What do you think drives your son to amass such a collection, while being aware of the marketing ploys?
Thanks again!
Stephanie
I’m not much of a collector, either, so the mentality is a little foreign to me. We joke that he gets it from his grandfather, who has collections of all sorts! That’s a good question about what drives him. I wonder, sometimes, if it was the whole Toy Story franchise, in general. Even though Al the collector in Toy Story 2 is the villain and the whole point is that toys should be played with, my son is now realizing the monetary value of many of his toys that are “well loved” to the point of being devalued. Some of his collecting is an attempt to find “mint” condition versions of his items that he was especially rough on. I also think some the drive is his YouTube channel where he reviews his items, garners more views, which leads to more money which he uses to buy more toys to review. He does have an awareness and sense of humor to acknowledge and joke about the cycle. So that’s good, I guess!
Hearing about your son’s role as a consumer is really unique. It was interesting to read about this connection you had from reading this exhibit. It makes me curious about how I have been a consumer on my own needs and trends of the moment as well. I remember growing up collecting shot glasses from different places I had traveled because I noticed one of my uncles did that when he was part of the Coast Guard. I wonder if it’s also genetic because my late grandfather had a fascination with collecting antiques. Who knows, thank you for sparking this curiosity.
Cheri, thanks from me also for telling us about your son’s hobby! I love your phrasing in “He’s leaning into a newfound nostalgia.”
I think that what you have touched on here, is that it is not all bad. I think that sometimes when we are talking about the topic of marketing, we think this bad, but it is not completely. Sometimes we come across something that has made our lives better and that thing was marketed to us. Our human need to make everything black and white always pops up but the truth is, is that it may lay somewhere in the grey. That while marketing sugary cereal to little kids is bad but it is only actually bad if the parents allow a child to eat it all the time. Sugary cereal a few times a week is certainly not going to make a child sick just like them eating an apple is not going to make them healthy. When they find something they love and that evolves over time into something makes their lives better like your son and his love for all things “Toy Story” turning into a YouTube channel and a collector.
Hi! The first picture you included in this exhibit of the baby covered in logos really caught my attention and intrigued me. One of the quotes you used stood out to me…“Commercial marketing” is seemingly “acceptable” when promoting “‘healthy’ or ‘wholesome’” products but is criticized when associated with what society considers to be “harmful” (Buckingham, 2011, p. 11). When I read this, I thought about even how books are being banned in some school districts. The debate of what is “good” and “bad” for children can extend to so many different avenues. I find it also fascinating how ads often use children as well to gain popularity of their products and attract customers. It shows how children are used in more ways than one in commercial marketing. Another quote also stood out to me “A significantly higher proportion of people’s income is now spent on discretionary ‘luxuries’, and on services and entertainment, and less on ‘necessities’(Buckingham, 2011, p. 69).” I am not sure why, perhaps due to the influence of social media, but I found this to be so true within my specific teaching context. Many of our students do not come to school with basic school supplies, but have new iPhones or Jordan shoes every year. This topic really lends to the innocent child versus knowing child topic and would be interesting to explore more deeply. I think the group did a great job at summarizing all the different aspects from this week’s readings!
Amanda, your point about “how ads often use children” made me think of a local, low-budget commercial I once saw for tires. They threw in a cute baby to catch your eye, but had nothing to do with the tires (not even a “our tires are safer for transporting your precious cargo” kind of an angle!). It made me laugh at how obvious and heavy-handed it seemed. Like a checklist of things that sell. Cute baby? Check! You are so correct that children are used in more ways than one; from targets of advertising to props.
Amanda, thank you for sharing your personal perspective with regards to the quote about luxury items. It reminded me of the section in which Buckingham discusses the socio-economic dimensions of consumerism in Chapter 8. I wonder whether part of the reason so many children do not have school supplies, yet do have luxury brand items like Jordans, is because their parents want them to fit in and not feel burdened by their socio-economic status.
Amanda:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! Your ending comments about luxury spending really spoke to me. I try not to judge family choices, but I will admit that it is hard to not pass judgement on parents who send their kids to school seemingly ungroomed in every sense of the word with torn backpacks, no school supplies, but brand new Yeezy or Jordans. It goes back to marketing and consumerism but I think it also speaks to societal values.
Thanks again!
Stephanie
Amanda, your insights about the quote from Buckingham (69) are thought provoking! I think you’re onto something big about the influence of social media, and I’m intrigued that you’re linking this phenomenon with exploring the innocent child versus knowing child. Wow, I think you have a great research idea here!
Amanda, interesting observation about the increase of “luxuries” over necessities. I also found that to be true when I was teaching high schoolers. They often did not have pens or pencils but often had designer clothes or the newest technology. I definitely think part of it is the high visibility in luxury goods through marketing and social media, but I think another important part is the psychology of being a part of the “in group.” Social media has made it more widespread to show the nicest things in one’s life, which puts pressure on people to feel like every second of their day has to look like an influencer’s. This causes people (especially teenagers who are still forming their identities) to prioritize the appearance of the “it” person over necessities. I asked this to my high school juniors last year and one mentioned that it was more important in the rest of their life to look like the people around them than to have a piece of paper for one class that takes up about 70 minutes of their day. I would like to explore the psychology of marketing and social media on the “in-group” dynamic that people have, I think that would be really interesting to understand better!
I really enjoyed the way this exhibit was laid out. The content was structured in a very straight forward manner–and I know chronological. But I guess it highlights the nuances of the book and how we only focus on problems that we create for children. I like how we started from that and then we could see how consumerism and marketing are all problems–not the children have–but that adults define that children have. I especially liked the section on the “pester power” specifically how you call attention to the fact that adults and teens think they are less likely to be coerced by TV commercials or ads. That was my initial reaction until I realized I made a purchase online just 24 hours ago based on a targeted ad.
I also wanted to focus on you piece about non-nuclear families anymore because I think the importance of “family time” adds a lot to the situation and problem set. In my opinion the family can be non-nuclear and it isn’t a problem for the child’s development so long as they have a community of caretakers. I think so long as there are people talking about the dangers of social media, or exposure of child and security, and how to live a healthy life, then that is what the child needs. But this is also coming from a person who doesnt have children–so please ignore if I have missed the mark on this one.
Overall these chapters out of “The Material Child” certainly point to a bigger problem than cause and effect like Buckingham says. There isn’t one family aspect that will stop obesity, or one company that will market to children correctly and safely, or one social media platform that doesn’t expose children to harmful content, I believe it to be a line we have to constantly walk in order to make sure our children are growing up the way WE want them to, and not the way the masses want them to.
Robert,
I really appreciate the fact that you are very honest and open-minded about children being exposed to things on social media. I think the scariest part about social media is the fact that as a parent or teachers, we can try our best to monitor and control what apps our children see. However, there is always a company that wants to take advantage of a child’s mind through an app. It’s very frustrating as a teacher who wants to expose students to fun and interactive apps but has to worry about if an inappropriate add pops up.
Hi Robert! You make some really great points–I find it interesting that adults and teens think they are less likely to be coerced by marketing. I agree with your experience about purchasing something from a targeted ad, because the ads that come up on my social media accounts certainly catch my attention. I spend too much time looking at things online because an ad told me it was great. I also do not have children, but I agree that a positive adult caretaker environment can definitely help the child’s development and support them as they grow up. It is so important to have a strong support system surrounding children and young adults, as they are navigating a very difficult and uncomfortable stage in their life. I discussed last week in one of my posts the effects of social media and the internet on children, and I think caretakers need to manage the impact now, as it will only continue to grow in the future.
I think the targeted ads are one of the big reasons I deleted my social media apps. I was tired of being influenced by companies that I may have not aligned with or just didnt need at the moment. I heard a quote recently that said “compassion is the thief of joy” and I have been thinking of that when it comes to children and social media. We use social media as a platform to compare our lives and it becomes very dangerous because we think the grass is greener or we are always seeing what we want but may not need. I have been trying to synthesize more astute conclusions on the effects that social media has on children but right now all I can muster up is that all things must be balanced because they cannot be avoided.
Robert, I appreciate knowing that you deleted your social media apps in a large part because of the targeted ads! I’m not on FB, but I have an Instagram account, and I’m seeing more and more how the ads are targeted to my own interests … e.g., yoga-related stuff and healthy food items. The algorithms are very effective!
Hi Robert, I agree the targeted ads are too much, I understand your frustration. Social media can be very hazardous for young children.
Robert:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! Your ending comments spoke to my soul, and I think they are applicable to lots of situations. When there’s a will there’s a way – but there has to be a will and a feel of internal urgency, not passivity and placement of the blame on others (like marketers). I think where the problem lies is that generally speaking large masses of people have trouble agreeing on what core values should exist in society.
Thanks again!
Stephanie
Hi Robert,
The targeted ads are a whole other level of insidiousness! And as kids move from TV and movies to more online content, it’s hard to track what’s an ad and what’s not as many times they are embedded into the game or site. That, along with targeting, it can get so murky so fast! I love that you shared you thought you were immune and then caught yourself buying something- it’s great to be mindful of that and so difficult sometimes, especially if something catches you at just the right moment!
I think it’s important we talk to kids early on about ads and algorithms as part of the larger package of manipulation, opinion writing and mis/disinformation.
Thank you to the group that curated this exhibition! Something that I found interesting from the Buckingham readings this week is the idea that while parents and pundits often see children as weak and needing to be protected from advertising, marketers see children as autonomous and empowered. Buckingham returned to this idea in almost every chapter we read. While I appreciate this perspective, and I agree that children are not nearly as weak as we often make them out to be, I couldn’t help but feel like he was letting marketers off the hook a little bit. At the end of the day, marketers are conceiving of children as empowered because it is in their best interest to do so – if they can prove that children have their own tastes and preferences, and target those tastes and preferences, they can potentially make more profit. Advertising is never neutral, regardless of age, product, or gender. And yet it almost seemed at times as if Buckingham was elevating advertisers over parents and the public as empowering children. While I don’t think advertising to children or for children is in and of itself a “bad” thing, all advertising has underlying motives… so to say that marketers are the ones who empower children the most is misleading, as they empower children only for their company’s own, self-interested purposes – as a way of influencing children into wanting to consume their product.
Hi Emily! I think it is interesting that children are viewed as needing to be protected from advertising as well–children are so capable, and strong. We do not give them enough credit in terms of adaptability, however, in terms of consumerism, children certainly need a certain level of protection. I agree that marketers portray children as strong and powerful because it appeals to their audience more and is in their best interest, rather than the best interest of their consumer. You are also correct in that marketing is NEVER neutral, now matter how they attempt to present themselves, they always have another agenda in mind. I agree that marketing to a younger audience is not necessarily a bad thing, however, I think that the alternate agenda is what makes for more problems.
Hi Emily,
I agree that advertising is never neutral, it is always geared towards one group or people or another. However, like I think you are saying, this is how marketers gain money. They target a specific group and run with it in order to make a profit. It is interesting how some parents try to protect their children by not letting them on the internet or watching TV, but even just going to the store can show children targeted advertisements. I also agree that this is not necessarily bad, but it does put children in vulnerable positions. I have also learned that it is not possible to protect children from all advertising especially now that it is constantly on every social media platform. Marketers do see children as powerful in a way that they can influence the buying of their product. At the same time though, they take advantage of their vulnerability.
Emily:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! I can see what you are saying about Buckingham letting marketers off the hook. I agree that championing children as empowered is in the company’s best interest because it kind of lets them off the hook in a way. I do think, though, that it is a parent’s responsibility to set boundaries for their children. Parents can be proactive before going into the grocery store by reminding their children whether or not they can pick out a treat. Children may be upset when they cannot get everything they want. Parents can be empathic and firm at the same time. Disappointment and sadness are both aspects of life that do not go away, so helping children to deal with these emotions is part of parenting, in my opinion. By giving our children whatever they want – including unlimited screen time with, yes, advertisements – we are not setting them up with realistic expectations.
Thanks again!
Stephanie
Hi Emily, I agree with your post. It is interesting to see how companies view children versus parents when it comes to being a consumer. Marketers know how to reach children’s attention.
Hi Friends,
I thoroughly enjoyed this module and the readings. The first thing I have to comment on is Palmer’s Toxic Childhood. Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD are developmental differences in neurology that you are born having; they are not caused by television. Dr. Hallowell has introduced VAST (SM) which stands for Variable Attention Stimulus Trait in his book, ADHD 2.0. In the book, the author says it is a person’s environment that can cause them to demonstrate some of the ADHD-like traits while not actually having ADHD. When I went to look up what VAST stood for as I never remember it, I was dumbfounded to see that Drs. Hallowell and Ratey are now stating that they coined this new name for ADHD as VAST (SM) – which stands for Variable Attention Stimulus Trait in order to reach millions of people. This is on the Hallowell Center’s website. Wow. So, now I feel as if they sold out since they have millions of profits to be made by doing this. But, since when can we just coin a medical condition? Or am I ignorant to this – doesn’t it have to be in the DSMV? (I also wanted to see if Palmer had updated her stance on neurodiversity as it pertains to tv and video games. I did not find anything, but did find this gem: Autism in Film and Television: On the Island on JSTOR which I can not wait to read. The table of contents is amazing)
In Solon’s article about Prodigy Math, I could easily empathize with the views of the parents and critics. However, it isn’t just Prodigy anymore. It’s other games they play, too. I feel bad when I create a Prodigy classroom for my students because they always ask if they can use their paid account at school. Instead, I have everyone sign in with my class code and their Google school credentials. It used to be very disappointing to kids who worked all summer and wanted their progress reflected. I could be wrong, but I think now it somehow links my class and any previously worked-on subscriptions. I say this because I just recently went through all of this with my 5th graders and I watched them log in correctly. They reported to still have their progress. I wouldn’t even use it, but we have so few things on our approved list.
Many of the online tools offer a free and a paid version. Often, the free version does not have data privacy protection. You don’t get that until you pay which is extremely unethical. So, children are not protected unless you pay the ransom. I did not realize this early on.
My kids also love chesskids.com so much that I was thinking of buying them subscriptions until I saw the price. It’s outrageous so schools can’t afford it. And if your kid wants to keep learning, they need the platinum subscription. This platform is how many schools including mine, run a digital chess club, and most of the kids, if not all of them, now have a paid subscription.
Did you know that Google changed its terms, stating in the fine print that everyone clicks through that they now share data with 3rd party apps? Our whole district signs on with Google, so we are anxiously awaiting Google’s new update to be released this month.
It’s a lot to keep up with for schools and parents.
Sources
(n.d.). Autism in Film and Television: On the Island. Jstor.org. Retrieved October 7, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7560/324912
(n.d.). ADHD 2.0. Amazon. Retrieved October 7, 2023, from https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-2-0-Essential-Strategies-Distraction/dp/B08775GG3K/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2CH5YACYAHQ9X&keywords=ADHD+2.0&qid=1696799628&sprefix=adhd+2.0%2Caps%2C118&sr=8-1
(n.d.). Hallowell Center. Hallowell Center. Retrieved October 7, 2023, from https://drhallowell.com/2018/10/23/the-future-of-adhd-is-vast/
Jeni:
Curator here. Thanks for your thoughts! You bring up a lot of good points. The ad experiences in educational apps are definitely challenging. I can imagine it would be hard for a school or district to pay for every single app that a class might use!
Thank you!
Stephanie
Jeni, thanks for the heads-up about Google’s change in terms! We really need to be diligent about reading that fine print.
Murray Pomerance and R. Barton Palmer’s Autism in Film and Television: On the Island looks fascinating! In browsing the contents, I’m especially intrigued by the first three items listed … Pomerance’s “Who Am I?,” Palmer’s “Before Neurodiversity,” and Ina Rae Hark’s “Autistic Android? The Curious Instance of Star Trek’s Data.”
I forgot to say how much I loved the exhibit!
Jeni:
Curator here. Thanks so much!
Stephanie
Great exhibit Group C! I love the organization, the videos, and the info you guys have provided for us. The section that particularly stood out to me was the section entitled, “Histories of Children’s Consumption.” This is the main section that my group built our side exhibit on, as we discussed gender-specific toys and the impact they have on children. I think in the beginning of this section, where you discuss feelings of nostalgia for adults is so true–stores use toys to stir up old memories of adults to appeal to the children. If a child sees their parents get excited about a toy, it will lead to the child being excited as well. Buckingham writes, “children were seen as emotional assets, whose role was to serve the psychological needs of adults; and adults looked to childhood – and indeed their own ‘inner child’ – as a source of timeless moral and personal truths” (Buckingham, 71). This was an interesting quote to me because it explains that adults see themselves in their own children, and therefore explains the child-parent connection even deeper.
Additionally, the clothing movement intrigued me as well. I will never forget when I was younger and I came home with my first pair of jeans with holes in them because that was the trend, and everyone was wearing it. My mom, of course, is the one that bought them for me, and my dad was not too thrilled. However, I have seen an evolution in my parents, because now my 15 year old sister wears things because “it’s what the big girls wear,” and my mom and I used to try to convince my sister things were cool and trendy because I was wearing them. “The unique physical and personality characteristics of the toddler came to be defined through the wearing of a particular style of clothing, especially for girls” (Buckingham, 77). This made me think about the evolution of clothing, and how things that I wore at my sister’s age that I gave to her because they are too small, she thinks are not cute or cool enough for her. We have a seven year age gap, which makes it crazy that things came in and out of style that quickly.
Allison:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! It is interesting to see how trends and fashions change generationally! It is equally interesting to see how gender plays a part in fashion marketing and construction of clothing.
Thanks again!
Stephanie
HI Allison,
I am glad you brought up the nostalgia piece. I think nostalgia can really impact how we view toys and consumerism. It doesn’t take much to take me back to my childhood other than just walking down the toy aisle at Target! The concept of seeing themselves in their children could be a great topic to explore more deeply. I wonder how this has lasted through generations. The evolution of clothing is also so interested. I always see teenagers on social media wearing clothes I would have been grounded for wearing at their age! I wonder how social media has influenced this evolution and how it has impacted consumerism. Ads can be dangerous for adults, let alone children! Something from the exhibit I found interesting is the topic of separation between children and the economy. However, it is clear that they are intertwined.
Hello Allison!
Thank you for your reflection on the clothes piece! It would be interesting (and difficult) to list all of the fads and “rages” of clothing and toys for kids. For me it was Gloria Vanderbilt jeans, which were to- DIE-for! Had to have! It’s funny how the fervor can really get to you!
The other piece you mentioned about the ego of the parents from the Buckingham quote- when I was putting together my group’s side exhibit for the week I kept thinking of how many of the baby items had nothing to do with the baby and everything to do with soothing the parent’s ego and establishing their “new identity” as a parent. As someone without kids, I often see this as many people my age are just beginning to emerge from the identity cocoon of their own child or family’s life.
Great breakdown and exploration of the reading! I especially liked the exploration of the history of marketing toward children. It feels so first hand now that children are marketed to as a consumer group, but that hasn’t always been the case. With the advent of educational toys targeted toward different learning ages, and an explosive market of child-centered media and entertainment there is now a multibillion dollar industry related to children’s toys, clothing, media, and so much more. Mattel, Fisher Price, and Hasbro are still giants in the children’s media/entertainment sphere to this day. I think it’s also interesting to see the generation of children who grew up in the 70s-90s when advertising directly to children began who are still being marketed to as adults. The nostalgia craze is an interesting phenomenon. For example, bringing back Dunkaroos was not initially to capitalize on children who might like the snack, rather, it was marketed directly towards adults who gew up eating Dunkaroos as children. We see this same phenomenon in movies where the toys and games adults now grew up with are being rebooted for adult-centered entertainment.
Thank you for saying this! I find it so crazy recently to see revivals of products coming out specifically for the older nostalgic audiences. I keep asking myself “who asked for another “Goosebumps” or for 3D Doritos to come back. This exhibit summarized a bunch of great concepts from the readings and allowed us to see how marketing has shifted over the years. I think you are completely right in saying that there was always marketing towards children but it was just done in different ways before the “.com” boom. Thanks for sharing.
Robert,
Thanks for your insights into the exhibit. The group did an amazing job! Your comment about the .com resonated with me. Marketing was there for a long time, and the rate of technological growth has exponentially thrived at a rate we can no longer keep up with as humans. I wish I could keep my online shopping, but do away with email. I remember being at the movies as a kiddos and seeing someone with a beeper and you knew that person was a doctor or surgeon. Today, we are all on call, ALL THE TIME. It is not healthy nor sustainable. The more parents are pulled to work ridiculous hours, the more those with purchase power will buy all the things to occupy the children and ease their minds. It is really quite sick. The family unit has been under siege by bureaucracy, ignorance, greed, and innovation. Quite the complex stew.
Jeni,
Your post reminded me of what Agnes Nairn said at TEDxGhent on the topic of consumer kids:
“Children can spontaneously recall 200 different brands, but they couldn’t even remember a twentieth of that of wildflowers or birds or indeed trees.” What should occupy our minds and our children’s minds? And what is it that can ease our minds? What role does nature play in all of our lives? What effect does it have on us?
Ecopsychology: How Immersion in Nature Benefits Your Health
https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1500x1500_fit_center-center_80/lr-ye360-illustration_Ecopsychology_web.jpg
Kendall:
Curator here. Thanks so much for your thoughts! Your point about the Dunkaroo marketing is so interesting- and so true!! I may or may not (but definitely do) have Dunkaroos in the pantry now. I never had them as a child – schoolmates did – and always wanted them in the worst way! They didn’t live up to the hype. 🙂 But, it is certainly interesting to think about how marketing can span decades for one particular audience or item.
Thanks again!
Stephanie
Kendall, I guess you won’t be surprised to know that when I saw your mention of Dunkaroos, I was curious to learn more about the comeback. And General Mills says this … “A fan favorite from 1990 made its return to the shelves in 2020. And the taste everyone remember has stayed the same, and a few new flavors and products have been added including the highly requested chocolate frosting and unexpected but totally awesome flavors of cotton candy, birthday cake and strawberry!” (https://www.generalmills.com/food-we-make/brands/dunkaroos). I can imagine they did quite a bit of marketing research to find the “sweet spot” for this “reboot.”
This is an incredible exhibit!
I enjoyed watching the “What’s the Problem With Kids These Days? Maybe it’s Us” video from one of the many ISTE conferences. Sean Arnold has given great presentations, and I had the opportunity to see him live during the ISTE conference in Philadelphia this summer. Having said that, he provided another similar explanation of the generations similar to my group’s side exhibit provided in our last lesson. Regardless, it’s interesting to hear how some of these social issues become “problems” for various generations and concerns that these children may have as a “consumer”.
I also enjoyed the Ted talk from Agnes Nairn. She beautifully explained some of the similar behaviors that children may have, but it was also terrifying to hear that regardless of culture and portion of the world, these behaviors may still be similar. It was interesting to hear from the marketing standpoint in this presentation and how company influence can impact the way that parents may want to “parent” their children.
I would like to address the following question: When adults criticize children’s attraction to bold and unconventional products, it can intensify the child’s appeal to said product! Can you think of a time when you were criticized by an adult as a child for being attracted to something that was considered unconventional? How did their criticism influence you? I felt that a lot of the decision my parents made about my consumer choices made me feel like I didn’t know what I was talking about even if I had logical explanations for the things I asked for. Some things were an automatic yes to “make me happy” where other decisions were quickly “no you don’t need that”. Regardless, it’s unfortunate how some parents may know best, but some children may have valid reasons for the consumption choices they are trying to make.
Finally, the entire chapter “The Fear of Fat” has a lot of remarkable information that I could go on and on about. Food influences us, impacts us, and shapes us. Just as a hint, I hope some of the pieces in my group’s side exhibit explain how this has become such a powerful chapter from an educational and personal perspective.
Overall, this is was an incredible exhibit to explore!
Katherine, it’s great to know that you saw Sean Arnold in person during the ISTE conference in Philadelphia!
Your insight about how a child can have a valid reason for a consumption choice is such a great reminder of the importance of active listening when there can be a tendency to make a habitual response.
Thanks for creating such an informative presentation. The marking towards children is very high. I have often seen children at stores wanting and begging their parents for a certain type of food that has their favorite characters on it. For example the juices with Disney characters on it. When children see this is is probably difficult for them not to want it. It makes you wonder why all of this marketing is towards young children.
Just look where they place the “fun” cereals (down low where children can see) and the “healthy” cereals (up high for parents) at the grocery store!
Gabriella,
I do not have children yet, but I noticed that every-time I want lucky charms I am always bending down to get it and if i want RaisinBran its always high up. It definitely works because if parents don’t want to listen to their children, they will just buy the product. So unfortunately they are catering to the children, because it sells.
It is also so interesting to me that the things children want often have nothing to do with the taste of the food, for example, the juices you mentioned, all they care about is the appearance of their favorite character!
Hi Everyone!
Great exhibit here- you all put a lot of work into each section and it really showcases everything we read so well. Something I’ve been fighting from the very start of this reading is how fast we are taken into the world of consumerism even before birth and from there, it’s an onslaught. It’s as if we have no choice but to consume, which I can’t stop thinking about from an environmental perspective.
Reading that advertisers portrayed the child as “powerful” and the “protectors” saw children as “weak and vulnerable” or in need of protections, it reminds me of how hunters have slowly turned into the authority on deer populations- somehow the predators are now painted as “the saviors” of a species.
Regarding food deserts- it makes me so upset and angry that this is yet another way certain people are singled out and put at a disadvantage. Meanwhile wealthy families parcel out perfectly portioned lunches in little bento boxes. The disparity within our country is infuriating.
I also think consuming has become even worse within the last 10 years: the packaging alone is overwhelming!
Thank you again for putting together a great exhibit this week!
Hi Heidi, the food deserts also had me worried. We are often reminded of the growing disparities between classes and the inaccessibility of fresh fruits and vegetables. In climates that can support it, community gardens have been useful in combatting some of the food shortages….especially the more nutritious foods 🙂 Also, related to the happiness issues as discussed last week, community gardening can also support the building of community relationships. Not to mention supporting sustainability and climate change solutions! If you want to read a bit about some initiatives….
https://climate360news.lmu.edu/urban-gardens-aid-in-the-fight-against-food-deserts-and-climate-change/
Hi Lindsay and Heidi,
As a curator of this exhibit, thank you so much for your insight and commentary. Heidi, I totally feel your anger over the fact that food deserts exist. The widening gap between different socioeconomic classes is disheartening. Unfortunately, this has been repeated throughout history. (HELLO, FRENCH REVOLUTION!)
Lindsay, thank you so much for bringing into discussion how community gardens can be one solution to food deserts. Also, thank you so much for providing the article on the Ron Finley Project. It seems like he is doing great work and making such a positive change in the neighborhoods of Los Angeles! Urban Tree Connection is based in Philadelphia and does similar work. You can check more out about the organization below:
https://climate360news.lmu.edu/urban-gardens-aid-in-the-fight-against-food-deserts-and-climate-change/
Group C,
Your exhibit was off the charts. I loved the organization, summary, insight, and additional resources provided in each chapter. Overall, I found this week’s topic fascinating. As a young mom, I can relate to the forces of pester power, as I, too, have been a victim of it. And because of it, I shifted most of my shopping to online and pickup only. When we go to a store together, I find myself avoiding certain aisles or sections of the store. The struggle is real! I have to have an intentional conversation in the car before even leaving our driveway about what we are buying and why. Balancing children’s desires with responsible shopping is definitely a challenge! A question posed by the group that was a sticky point for me was: How are diversity and consumerism interrelated, particularly when it comes to children? I find this question interesting and timely. I think that diversity and consumerism are interrelated in a couple of ways. One via representation. Diversity in advertising can influence children’s perceptions of other races, genders, abilities, and backgrounds. I think there are positive messages sent when children can see people who look like them in the marketing. Two, via cultural Awareness: Exposure to diverse products and media can help children become more culturally aware and open-minded. On the flip side, I also think that there is stereotype reinforcement at play in marketing, which can negatively impact children’s perceptions of diversity and contribute to prejudice.
Raisa
Raisa,
I love your discussion on diversity in advertising. I think that it is so important to show different cultures and aspects. Something I didn’t think about was the stereotypes, so I think that was really important to bring up. I think social media definitely adds to this as well unfortunately.
Hi Sarah,
I appreciate your comment and insight. I also had not thought about social media. However, now that you bring it up, it makes me think about the complex role of social media in perpetuating and amplifying racial stereotypes. While it has the potential to connect people, raise awareness, and promote positive discourse, it has also been a platform for the dissemination and reinforcement of harmful stereotypes. Even, memes. Think about how the viral content on social media platforms can perpetuate stereotypes through humor and satire. These often simplify complex issues into easily digestible, but inaccurate, caricatures of racial and ethnic groups.
Raisa,
You make a great point about pester power, thanks for sharing your experience! I can remember this struggle as a child and anticipate the day that this will be a part of my life! I find that I still struggle with this within my own mind hahaha!
Sue Palmer’s video was an excellent addition to balancing the views on the effects of children’s exposure to and use of technology. I think she is right on in terms of children’s need to learn from firsthand experience and first hand interaction with human beings. And I agree that it is where we have to point them if we want them to grow into healthy human beings.
Our school district just adopted a new online and textbook ELD curriculum for which we were given our passwords to be able to access and present the lesson plans and resources on screen in the classroom. Just before this, as I was waiting for access, I used story books and realia to engage the students, and I can see the interest and attention wane as I v-cast the pre-curated lesson. Firsthand experience and interaction is what children deserve, and it is what they enjoy most.
Vera,
As a curator of this exhibit, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, and I think your experience using new technologies in your own classroom is important to highlight. Speaking for myself, my comprehension is much better when I have these first-hand interactions with other humans, as opposed to some online curriculum. While technology can be super useful in the classroom, there’s a fine line we have to walk to ensure we’re allowing students to experience the best of both human interaction and technology usage. Teaching in a hybrid classroom during COVID really demonstrated this for me; my students who were in the physical classroom seemed much more engaged than those who were in a video call from home. I don’t blame students for staying home if that’s where they feel safest, but there definitely was a difference in engagement between the two groups.
Thank you again for contributing to the exhibit and adding to the discussion!
I want to start off by saying that this group did a great job at putting relevant information in this exhibit that definitely supplemented the readings. I especially enjoyed the video on pester power. I actually think that, even though this video seems a bit old, that the lady did a great job at giving some advice to parents about “dealing” with pester power. I especially liked the advice of giving the child some say within the shopping experience. I think it is important to treat children with respect, in the sense that they just want to feel included, and their thoughts for truly wanting something are valid. I believe that i would probably be the type of parent not to give in because I see value in teaching children the value of money. For instance, my husband and I were brought up a little differently. I was from a lower income family and he was from a higher income, and divorced family. He was often given anything he wanted and never really understood how to save. Long story short, I see the value in understanding that you might not be able to get what you want all the time.
However, I also see the value in understanding that children have desires and that they should not just be shut down. My parents would often get mad and “punish” us for even asking for something. My parents never explained why I couldn’t have things. Often my Dad would say, that it is just dumb and useless. I think that If I was explained why I couldn’t have the suckers or candy and maybe given other choices, like the pasta, I would have felt like I was dumb for wanting them. I guess I am saying that as a parent I want to fall somewhere in between. I don’t want to give my child everything just because they want it, but I also don’t want to deny them everything and tell them to be quiet. I want to get them involved with shopping and help them understand what making good choices in the consumer market are.
Great exhibit and thank you for really making me think about topics a little further!
Hi Sarah,
We have a similar parenting style and background. I too believe that involving children in the shopping experience and allowing them to have a say is valuable. Doing so not only makes them feel included but also helps them learn about decision-making and budgeting from an early age. Understanding the concept of limited resources and choices is a crucial life skill, and it’s fantastic that you’re thinking about how to instill this in your child.
I worked with an organization called City Harvest who are trying to work with help with Food Deserts in NYC neighborhoods. I was actually really shock at how far access to fresh food was. It was NYC for goodness sake everything is open and everything at hands reach…right? But, its not. It may be a subway, bus ride, and a taxi just to get to the farmer’s market where the produce is fresh and not packaged or ready to be thrown out because it is been at the market too long.
Food deserts, food marketing, and access to health food are all modern western world problems. The marketing directly to kids has been a modern controversial topic that runs deep into the food chain and supple chain cooperate machine.
Hi Nicole,
This was an eye-opening post. I would never have imagine food deserts in NYC or even urban areas. Most often when I think about food deserts, I think of rural areas. It’s wonderful to hear about your involvement with City Harvest and your efforts to address food deserts in NYC neighborhoods.
Exhibition 106
Your exhibition was very interesting and had quite a bit of useful information. I thought the videos were great. One video that caught my attention was the BBC video on gender. I was amazed how the teachers chose toys for the children based on their gender. The BBC study displayed how through our own childhood experiences; we subconsciously chose toys that are gender based for children. I loved the video talking about “Pester Power.” If you are a parent, this was very familiar to you. I brought me back to a quote in our reading The Material Child which remarked, “Children are represented here as essentially innocent and helpless, unable to resist the power of commercial marketing and media.” (Buckingham, pg. 11) In the video, it talked about how in the stores they place children’s favorites at kid levels along with their bright packaging to entice the children into asking parents to buy the items.
Group C, this is such an awesome summation of the information presented in this chapter. I am particularly drawn to the “Fear of Fat” section, specifically the points made regarding the access to, and cultural attitudes toward food. I think it is so interesting to consider the cultural implications of food and eating when looking at obesity and asking or encouraging students to live by one specific definition of “healthy.” One of my favorite things to do is travel and try new things, particularly new foods. I have been privileged to travel to Japan, Spain, Mexico, Cyprus and Morocco and have found wildly different culinary cultures in each place. I have very vivid memories of the food I tried in Japan and how my family and I couldn’t bare to smell some things, let alone eat and enjoy them. I remember asking people if they liked this particular food and the response was “it’s really healthy” and I asked “but do you like it?” to which they responded “it’s really good for you.” which is something that always makes me laugh, but I think is really applicable here to consider what different cultures think about food.