Media Chatter

Advertisements aimed at children should have limitations on the material that is exposed! Even in the world in which we live in today there has to be some limits as to what children are exposed to.

It seems today that companies and advertising agencies want nothing more than to expose a product or idea at anyones expense. Unfortunately children are the some of the victims of such tactics. Companies/agencies know that children are very impressionable and can easily be effected.
Some regulations should be given, when it comes to marketing towards children. With some rules/regulations maybe there could be some restoration to our children’s innocense. With all of the inappropriate material in the media, children are exposed to material that they should not be introduced to, at least not until they are of an older age. Clearly the ones who should be the voice of reasoning are the parents. They are the ones who need to step up and lookout for the well-being of their children. Should there be limits on what advertisers expose to a young audience? Absolutely ! But with all of the junk that is out there, the real filtering needs to start with parents setting some ground rules for what material they expose to their children.

-Robert Stubblefield

Walk in to any Wal-Mart and on one of the checkout lanes there will be a whole aisle dedicated to “As seen on TV”, just ask my five year old daughter. My daughter can not only point out these items, but she can tell you what they do. Think I let my daughter watch to much TV? My daughter may watch a total of two hours a day including mornings before school and at night before bed and it’s only Disney, Nickelodeon at probably the worst offender for showing adult “As seen on TV” advertisements on a kids network Cartoon Network. Now it’s not fair of me to punish my children and not let them watch their favorite cartoons, but when an ad for a home alarm system comes on with a man breaking down a door while a mother and her children are at home, that goes way beyond to far. Another instance that have read about, but I have been fortunate not to have to address with my kids yet, is about certain billboards and the way they advertise to everyone not just certain people. I myself can’t take the time to read every billboard and certainly can’t shield my children’s eyes from potentially offense billboards while I’m driving. Now I can understand when you run a multi-million dollar business that it probably stings a little bit when someone criticizes your attempt to advertise your business to the general public, just ask R. J. Reynolds how they felt about being asked to remove their mascot Joe Camel from advertisements. I can guarantee they were not happy about removing a wonderful marketing tool as Joe Camel from advertisements, but they did, even with a fuss, they still removed it because people felt they were targeting our youth in a negative way. Even now companies still try and target youth with products that should be discussed with their parents and not with a TV commercial or a magazine ad, like Lifestyle Condoms and the million dollar offer to Miley Cyrus to peddle their condoms. Now if fifteen and sixteen year old kids were the only ones to watch Miley I might could understand, but even my five year old daughter knows who Miley Cyrus is and I don’t think five is the age, yet, to have a discussion about condoms and sex. My daughter would probably get upset if her father tried to suffocate a banana with a weird shaped balloon. Now I know there are plenty of parents who don’t know how or don’t care enough to raise their kids and I believe there should be some kind of education for certain subjects that kids should have to listen to in a public school and if I wouldn’t take the time or care enough to take the time I would rather it come from a teacher than from an advertising company whose only goal is how much money they can make and how big the can make their target audience. I personally would rather see Beatrice Arthur advertise for condoms than Miley Cyrus. Why not target the elderly and scare the youth. So until the government decides its time to start protecting our youth a little more and stop worrying about their kickbacks and a companies bottom line, I ask you to look through someone else’s eyes and don’t be an idiot and lash out at someone proclaiming that you are trying to help people when your more than likely trying to expand your profits. If your targeting adults, guess what, most of us know how to get help on our own we don’t need you exposing our youth to your condoms, your cigarettes, or whatever problems you think our families may have, they’re our problems and if we need your products we know where to find them. If you want to target adults try direct mail next time. Who knows you could get lucky, I might actually read it. Just remember most of us have kids or will have kids one day and it’s our duty to try our best to protect them and when someone politely expresses their opinion about your advertisements, be nice and respect them, the next person may not be so polite.

My view on smoking is simple: it’s disgusting!  I never thought it looked cool and I never will.  It’s a bad habit that only ends in bad health.  I view alcohol differently though.  It’s okay to drink, as long as it’s in moderation.  The purpose of one’s drinking shouldn’t be to get drunk, that would be just pointless.  Cigarette and alcohol ads should be prohibited.

The less ads there are pushing cigarettes and alcohol, the better off my children (if I had any)would be.  I don’t want my children to have to look at those types of ads every time they look through a magazine or turn on the television.  Cigarette ads always show people having fun and that’s the message they’re sending to children.  They portray smokers as looking or being cool, but they fail to show them all the terrible health problems that occur because of smoking.  And my children don’t even need to be thinking about alcohol until they’re twenty-one!

There is a growing number of people trying to quit smoking today and recurring cigarette ads are not helping them.  That goes the same for recovering alcoholics.  If you keep waving it in their face, they’re going to have a harder time recovering. These people could be in life or death situations (regarding their addictions) but yet they are forced to come across cigarette or alcohols ads every time they turn a corner.  How unfair is that? Ads are meant to help people find what they need easily, not lead them into what they’re trying to forget.  Cigarette and alcohol ads only benefit themselves; they really don’t help the consumer.

If cigarette and alcohol ads were to be banned, it still wouldn’t effect their sales.  People who smoke and aren’t trying to quit will continue to buy cigarettes to accommodatetheir habit.  Smokers aren’t really interested in the advertising of cigarettes, they’re more interested in the product itself.  Those who drink won’t stop drinking just because they don’t see the ads anymore; and I don’t mean alcoholics.  I’m talking about wine conisorsand the like.  A lot of wine advertising can come from word-of-mouth at tastings or even everyday conversation.  Items such as cigarettes and alcohol don’t need ads because their prominent on their own.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”  Just because people abuse this right doesn’t mean it’s okay.  They may think they’re just doing they’re job, but they’re hurting thousands of Americans in the process.  As tabloids today, they take this amendment and ruin people’s lives for no apparent reason.  Something should be done to keep advertisers from abusing this right.

Although advertisements for tobacco and alcohol promote unhealthy habits and lifestyles, I believe that these ads should not be prohibited. Advertisements for tobacco and alcohol products promote substances that can deteriorate a consumer’s health, both physical and mental, and cause detrimental, and even deathly harm. Although I disagree with the consumption and production of these products, I believe that the tobacco and alcohol companies have the right to advertise their products. Every company has the right to advertise its products. Without any advertisements, consumers won’t know or hear about the products and the companies won’t be able to sell their products.

Advertisements play a major role in the profits and success of a company. The more advertisements and the more effective the advertisements, the more likely a company will sell its product. Denying a company the right to advertise and promote its product is like denying a company the opportunity to excel and succeed. Every company should have the same opportunity to advertise its products, no matter what the products may be. It is unfair and unconstitutionally sound to discriminate against a company because of the product it sells. The First Amendment says that American citizens have the right to freedom of speech, and these tobacco and alcohol companies are no exception.

However, I do believe that these advertisements should be regulated. The advertisements should have to present all the facts about its product, both positive and negative. Consumers should know the risks and effects of these products, and the laws concerning consumption should be clearly presented. Ads should also be appropriate for all viewers to watch. Ads are everywhere, and viewers of all ages have access to the material. If an ad is too controversial or presents its product in a misleading way then the company should be fined or be held accountable for its actions. Although companies have the right to freedom of speech, an absence of regulation would lead to highly controversial ads and the deterioration of morals and standards of American society.

We should work with companies and advertisers to produce a successful, efficient business community without degrading the moral standards and perceptions of society.

Advertising particularly in the area of politics has stepped completely over the bounds of democracy. The over expenditure of politicians to create ads that lure the public into supporting them based on very little evidence has reached an unacceptable point in any democracy.

In this year’s elections candidates have spent almost three billion dollars on advertising. That is more than twice as much as last presidential election year and where has it gotten them. Currently the United States economy is in crises and the people who are going to lead the nation for the next four years are willing to spend superfluous amounts of money on slandering their fellow politicians.

Not only does this show a staggering flaw in our future leaders but it confirms that only the rich can become leaders. Democracy advocates that everyone is equal and that we all have an opportunity to participate in government but the exorbitant amounts of money that politicians spend on getting into office prohibits the average person from involvement. The average worth of the presidential nominations in this past primary was $56.23 million, which is not middle class. Furthermore if we look at the last twenty years of presidency we see that either a Clinton or a Bush has been in office. This means that my whole life the United States has been headed by one of only two families and it could very easily have carried on for at least four more years if Senator Clinton would have received the candidacy. Simply by themselves these stats don’t reflect too poorly on the state of our democracy but they do act as a warning for the future.
If the advertising that candidates produced were an honest look at themselves than spending $3 billion to better inform the public may be worth it but the thirty second bites that promise amazing changes in confident tones and slander the opposing person are often based on little evidence. The public is not being informed just brainwashed. “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties, and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education” this quote by John Adams demonstrates how without information democracy would cease to exist. Slowly through misinforming the American people this is happening.

Many people may argue that without advertisements many people wouldn’t vote because they don’t know anything about the candidates. But wouldn’t the nation be better with only those who desire to be informed about the true character of a leader picking the leader. Not even colleges pick students based on solely what the applicant says about themselves or how they look. Why would we do this for the people who are going to lead our government? It undermines the whole philosophy of democracy because Americans should know whom they are voting for not just who the candidates say that they are. Otherwise the election is just a really expensive popularity contest.

Three billion dollars could go a long way toward national debt, schools or providing the poor with healthcare. If politicians would put their advertising money where their mouth is so much good could be accomplished. The ideas of democracy including freedom for all, not just the wealthy, equality and equity, and the common good, would be better met. While under our current process the trend is a slow migration toward the domination of the upper class.

If you see something desirable, good or bad, you think about it, talk about it, and you want it. Isn’t that the natural tendency? Yes. Advertisers know this human behavor all too well, and they use that to their advantage when creating and posting tobacco advertisements. As awareness of the health risks correlated with tobacco use continues to increase, more and more people are going to want to stop using tobacco and avoid the temptation and addiction altogether. The only effective way to accomplish that is to prohibit tobacco advertising altogether. Reverse the natural, human tendency by putting the products ”out of sight, and therefore, out of mind.”  

Even though the Surgeon General’s warning is stamped on every tobacco product, these advertisers know how to make their tobacco ads look good, and cool. They grab your attention and make you think about buying the product for the first time. Most often, that one “try” gets people hooked for life and continuing to buy the product. That explains why 1.1 billion people in the world smoke, according to The World Bank Group’s article Economics of Tobacco Control. That also explains why the tobacco manufacturers spend around $250.8 million on smokeless tobacco advertising and promotion, according to the Fact Sheet by the Department of Health and Human Services.

So, what if issues are brought up dealing with the First Amendment regarding controversial ads? Well, those skepticisms are irrelevant because the government’s position regarding the tobacco industry and advertising has already been changing since the mid-1990s. It was during this time that new reports revealed that tobacco companies had known that nicotine was addictive in the 50s and had withheld that fact from the public. After being threatened with expensive lawsuits, the tobacco industry agreed to a $200 billion settlement placing significant limits on advertising and marketing of tobacco products. This banned the use of cartoon characters, such as the Joe Camel character, and the sponsorship of concerts and athletic events. It is important to remember that these measures are mainly designed to limit certain kinds of advertising that appeal to children, but this should ultimately apply to everyone.

When people look at television or read magazines they seen many different advertising ads some more edgy than others, and then its the one that crosses the line and leaves many people offended at what they seen. But why be so critical of the advertising when you have the option of changing the channel or flipping the page.

What we fail to realize is that companies are trying to appeal to all people meaning race, religion, social background, etc… So you really can’t be so critical of ads because they don’t appeal to you but they do to someone else. So why waste the time raising such a arguement? One might say its to protect the kids or it is degrading. Im pretty sure it won’t a multi-million dollar company to lose a handful of costumers but just to gain somewhere in the market. So if you really look at its not worth the time to be so critical of advertising and you really don’t win the battle in the end.

So the next time you are watching TV or flipping through the newest magazine and you see an advertisment that is somewhat edgy just ask yourself is it worth blowing it out of content, or will I continue to use their product which I really like.  Because in the end its a win-win situation for the Big Global Business.

Forms of advertising have long existed – at train stations, in airports, at high schools, in yearbooks, newspapers, television shows, radio commercials, billboards, business ads and more.

In terms of advertising products, they have always been awful, which explains why people are so critical of advertising.

In national advertising during the 1850’s, rural communities were self sufficient and advertisement agencies worked within a high advertiser no-payment rate, which kept commission on ads sold.  Essentially, advertising agencies get their money from the number of ads they sale.

Depending upon the amount of ads sold depends on how profitable a particular individual or organization is – this can be described when trying to sell a business ad for a school yearbook.

When trying to sell an ad, one may go to a particular business, for example, Moe’s restaurant.  The student trying to sell the business ad will invariably dress modestly and present themselves, or what they have to say, in the most efficient way possible.  The student wants to oblige to the restaurant owner’s desires and do everything possible to persuade the owner to buy an ad.  Even if the owner refuses, the student selling the ad may try another venue of persuasion, such as, “Even though you will not buy a full page ad for ‘x’ amount of dollars, think of buying only an eighth of a size ad – essentially your business is being advertised to ‘x’ amount of people,” depending on how many students at the local school buy a yearbook. This method may be a way in which the student persuades the owner to buy an ad; thus, raising the amount of money the student makes for the yearbook staff and funding of yearbook supplies while the owner pays money in order for his business to be advertised to a vast amount of people.

Within this advertisement, the restaurant (for example), if they are smart, will design a killer ad, which will instantly grab an individual’s attention and draw them into what they are trying to sell.  This includes color, perhaps, attractive font, and short bullet points of the information presented.  

People are so critical of advertising because it’s what makes or breaks them.  If one don’t get the amount of money or support they need, something has to go, and realistically, the last thing one wants to vanish is their job or career.  

Many businesses exist solely upon their advertisement.  Radio and television are two examples – how effectively they draw in their audience and how attractive their ad(s) are depends on whether or not they get customers, which in turn determines an amount of money!

Advertising is a competitive business – one needs alacrity, determination, grit, and hard-core people skills accompanied by a persuasive attitude.

Sock’em Bobbers, Sock’em Bobbers, everyone has to remember this as a child.  Just the thought of you beaten on some random person with a pillow sticks with you.  This is probably one of the earliest commercials I remember. My little brother and me didnt get it as a child, so we resorted to wrapping a bunch of sheets around our hands.  After that we would attack each other until my mom threatened to beat us.

The ads that mostly attracted me and my friends were the one’s with catchy songs that you would remember when it was time for you to get that toy or whatever.  Also what attracted me was the fads or whatever my friends thought was cool.  An example of a good fad was Poke’mon cards.  I remember like in 4th grade that was the big craze everywhere in New York.  We would go everywhere and show all the other kids what cards we had.  We did the same with yo-yo’s, giga pets, and other things.  An extreme example of a fad was when people started wearing the colorful goggles Puff Daddy and Mase were wearing at the time.

Commercials that hated though was the commercials that tried to hard.  An example of that would be the car dealership commercials that always be loud and some random guy yelling at you.  Other commercials I hated were the commercials that made no sense at all.  You can see the new computer commercials with the people jumping out the windows into bubbles.  Those are the type of commercials that drive me crazy.  I like most commercials because they make me laugh for a split second, so for the most part I like them.

For many, advertising is an annoying pop up when you go to check your email. It is a song that you find yourself singing aloud in the grocery store because it won’t get out of your head. It is the reason your kids are never grateful for the toys they have. It is the reason you second guess your decision of buying Crest instead of Colgate.  For many- advertising is nothing but an annoyance.  

People are critical of advertising because it is in every corner of our lives. Most people are unaware of advertising tactics and reasoning. They are confused by its purpose and want it to simply go away. Unfortunately, many are not aware of the crucial role advertising plays in our lives. Retail stores, restaurants, magazines, and other businesses all stay a-float by advertising.  In fact, most of the population listens to advice given by advertising whether they realize it or not. They may hate the Credit Report dot com commercial with a burning passion, but when they decide to check their credit, chances are it is the first website that comes to mind. When saying 1-800-Safe Auto- most people will immediately begin singing their annoyingly catchy jingle. It may drive you crazy, but you remember the name and the number no matter how hard you try to forget it.

Advertising is everywhere. New strategies are being used to catch our attention, and while they may annoy us, we must admit- they work.

In making a list and examining all possible responses to “whether alcohol advertising should be prohibited” I was, without question, swayed to answer one way more so than I was the other, and with good reason.

In drinking several Diet Cokes and watching television, it hit me: were it not for the ads I’d seen over the course of the past 20 years, I wouldn’t be drinking this Diet Coke, watching this made-for-tv movie, wearing any of the clothes that cover me, or type this entry from my MacBook Pro. The majority of the decisions I make are influenced, to a degree, by the advertisements I see around me.

Now, don’t get me wrong. That may come off sounding as if I can’t think on my own; Like society and the ads within dictate my choices. That isn’t the case, however, had I not seen an ad as to why a Mac is better than a PC, I would have never bought one in the first place.  Instead of telling us how to think and act, advertisements merely bring light to areas of products, music, clothing, entertainment, etc. that we may have had no prior knowledge of.

Given the fact that ads for tobacco have all but been banned altogether, the issue now is presented as to whether or not ads for alcohol should be treated the same.  Tobacco is banned from advertising from basically any form of media, magazines excluded. But should we censor alcohol ads? Not hardly.

Censoring tobacco ads is a smart move, I think. Tobacco and its Nicotine are some of the leading causes of addiction in the US to date. The addiction to Nicotine caused by tobacco is a despicable aspect of American life, one in which reflects poorly on the character and ethics US companies involved in producing tobacco products. But, to play the devil’s advocate, people have to make a living somehow…

Alcohol, while proving on occasion to be a problem in the context of underage drinking, does not lead to an addiction.  Alcoholism is a disease, one which cannot be cured by simply taking away the source.  With tobacco, when you take away the Nicotine, the body goes through a process of detoxifying itself, and eventually can function again without it.  As with alcohol, however, when you take the alcohol away from an alcoholic, the problem is not solved.

That notwithstanding, when someone is an alcoholic, they don’t need ads to make them want to drink.  They’re going to drink with or without advertisements for it.  If you don’t want to drink, don’t buy the alcohol. It’s that simple. Saying we should censor ads on alcohol is like saying, “because I choose not to drink Diet Coke, you shouldn’t be able to see ads for it.”

But then again, let’s ask Joe the Plumber, since his opinion is seemingly the only one that matters anymore…

When I was younger my parents made it a point to limit the amount of television that I watched.   Although my memories of commercials from my chilhood are limited there is one in particular that stands out in my mind.  The fabric softener commercial that featured Snugglethe bear was always my favorite as a child.  I suppose the reason that I remember this commercial is because I related Snuggle to the hundreds of stuffed animals that I had as a child.  As I have gotten older however, my TV watching habits have changed little from my childhood as I still do not watch very much television.  One of my favorite commercials from current media advertisements is a Corona ad that has run every Christmas since 2001.   The ad features a small hut in a tropical setting surrounded by several palm trees.   In the background one can hear someone softly whistling “Oh Christmas Tree” as one palm tree is illuminated with colorful lights and Feliz Navidad flashes across the screen.  I always felt that this was a fun and creative way for the company to illustrate their “laid-back” philosophies.   On the other end of the spectrum, there is a new as that has been running recently that I absolutely cannot stand to watch.  The new “I am a PC” ad seems completely pointless to me.  This ad features several people, famous and ordinary, repeating their version of the phrase “I am a PC and I…..”.   The ad itself tells you nothing about the actual system or its programs.  In my opinion, this is a poor attempt at trying to get consumers to choose PC over their competitor MAC.  PC would be much more effective if they would promote the good qualities that there brand features rather than trying to relate so closely with their consumers.  However, no two commercials are alike just as no two people like the same things so I am sure that there is someone out there that would argue with my opinion.

 People need to lighten up a bit. There is nothing wrong with companies and television station that run advertisements on alcohol or tobacco companies.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with these ads being on television.  Not because I drink or dip, but because you still have a choice to choose not to use these things in your everyday life.  People are always trying to regulate things on television that they do not like, but how would you feel if someone wanted to take an advertisement off of television of a product that you enjoyed using during your life.  As long as the ads aren’t personally attacking a person or group of people, then the ads should not be removed from television.

When people are talking about ads and how they should be taking off television, they need to remember the first amendment.  I know they have the right to say how they feel about the ads, but the ads have the right to be there in the first place.  As I stated earlier, if the ads are not attacking someone personally, then they should be able to remain on television.  Another argument that parents usually makes are that their sons and daughter do not need to be seeing those ads because it will cause them to do things they shouldn’t do.  Well my argument is if this is the case, then the parents need to do a better job of teaching their kids to make responsible decisions, instead of blaming others for their lack of parenting.  The first amendment is correct and should be left alone, as long as nobody is directly being attacked through ads on television.    

I believe that people are critical of advertising because advertisers have lost their credibility.  They place ads claiming all these wonderful things that the products can’t deliver.  Once the public realized that advertisers were not telling the entire truth in their ads, the public lost respect and began to take ads with a grain of salt.  Most ads today show off a certain product and make it out to be better than it really is.  Car commercials for example boast about how wonderful a certair car is and the price but the fine print tells you about hidden costs and fees that most viewers cant see.  These type of tactics have cost advertisers their credibility and consumers do not take ads at face value any more.  There is always a catch and if it looks to good to be true it usually is, and this is especially true with modern day advertisments.

Advertising permeates our society.  Although estimates vary, researchers believe that the average American is exposed to at least hundreds – probably thousands – of ads every day.  Many citizens have expressed concern over these monstrous numbers, claiming ads are harmful to democracy.  Advertising is often credited with sabotaging society and duping consumers.  While there are advertisements that are out of line with decency and honesty, appropriate ads should thrive in free countries.  Advertising is not at odds with the ideals of democracy.

In the first place, ads are not contrary to democracy because consumers are presented with product options and are free to choose which merchandise they prefer.  In a national market as large as the United States’, consumers would never be aware of their many product choices without advertising.  Consumers can and do ignore the ads for products that do not appeal to them and benefit from the information provided by the ones that pique their interest.  No one is forced to buy a product.  Every consumer is free to evaluate his or her options and choose the best.   

Second, ads are not at odds with democracy because they promote a free market, which is essential to any democratic society.  Although many Americans despise ads, they actually benefit from these annoying promotions because advertising encourages competition.  As companies compete and clamor for the consumers’ attention, they attempted to be more appealing than their competitors in every way.  This drives them to lower product prices.  In this way, consumers profit from ads.    

Advertising, therefore, is not in opposition to democracy.  In fact, ads are important in America’s modern-day democracy.  Through advertising, consumers are given a variety of product choices and are presented with information to help them make the best decisions.  In addition, consumers benefit from the free market competition that ads promote.  Advertising is a help, not a hindrance to democracy.     

When I was younger I remember watching many commercials that entertained me. At the time I don’t think I knew that they were necessarily advertisements for a product or anything of that nature. I just thought that they were short skits in between a TV show.  I first remember seeing the 7 UP commercials with the red dot thing with shades on. Most of the time the red dot character would jump around and end up sliding up next to a bottle of 7UP. I enjoyed this commercial because it was entertaining but I had no clue it was an advertisement to buy the product. Although when I was at the grocery store I would quickly remember the red dot man and want my parents to buy the product. So the commercial worked even at such a young age.

Over the many years there have been good commercials, but my favorite commercial is the Nextel phone commercial. The commercial involves two men at work and they use the phone during the commercial. The reason that it is my favorite is that it has great humor in it. The humor makes the commercial appealing to the audience allowing them to remember the product. Even if the viewer doesn’t even like Nextel phones the customer is going to think of them next time they hear the song from the commercial. The impact of the commercial on the viewer is the reason that it is a successful advertisement.

The commercials that I absolutely can’t stand are the most recent Sonic commercials. These commercials are based on either two guys or a guy and a girl in a car talking about Sonic. They try to have funny conversations that don’t even make the viewer laugh. Since the humor is bad in the commercials it makes the viewer not want to buy the product. This is bad advertisement for Sonic because it turns people away from their product instead of bringing them to it. The commercial should increase the need of the product and invite viewers to come to buy the product.

You dont have to think too hard to remember what you liked when you were a kid. Many different memories come to different people. Some memories vary from child to child, but there are also some which are almost always present in every child. Those which are normally present are those of cartoons, toys and candy.

Now that I am older, I look back at the things i once loved and realize it is obvious as to why I liked them. As I watch a cartoon which I viewed when I was young, I realize it is usually based upon a line of toys. If the cartoon is not based upon a line of toys, they often feature commercials which suggest a line of toys or candy. Another thing I now realize is why my parents disliked the fact that I liked cartoons, toys and candy so much. This whole subject is one which suggests a major question to many. That question asks whether advertising which is aimed towards children should be regulated.

My personal opinion and answer to this question is simply “no”. I feel that advertisers are well within their rights to target children with their products advertisement. I believe that the problem exists not in that the advertiser targets children for childrens products, rather the only exists to parents who are unable to say no. I can remember seeing many advertisements which represented things which I would have loved to have, but my parents did not always say yes. I was not upset to hear “no” when I was a child and I believe that children who are must be spoiled. Therefore, I believe that it up to parents to be able to tell their children “no” and advertisers should be left unregulated.

Tobacco and alcohol advertising should be prohibited because they promote products that are detrimental and they increase the number of users.  

Tobacco products cause cancer, heart attacks, strokes, Emphysema, bronchitis, and many more illnesses. Each year, cigarette smoking kills an estimated 178,000 women in the United States.  Drinking too much alcohol causes loss of brain cells, high blood pressure, liver failure, epilepsy, stomach ulcers, nerve damage, certain types of cancer, and heart failure.  Many groups have been created to prevent to use of these dangerous products.

Tobacco lobbyists argue that advertisement does not recruit new smokers, but it enhances the market share of a particular brand.  Yet, econometric research from the United States Institute of Medicine, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the World Health Organization show that tobacco advertisement extensively increases tobacco sales.  Also, in 1988, R. J. Reynolds advertised its revived Joe Camel cartoon character with hipper clothes and sunglasses.  A study showed that before 1988 less than 1 percent of teenagers younger than eighteen smoked, but afterwards, 33 percent of this age group smoked Camels. 

Because of the First Amendment, the advertisements cannot be prohibited altogether.  I think they should at least be regulated.  Tobacco and alcohol ads should only be allowed in places where this kind of activity would already be taking place such as bars or clubs.  This would ensure that the ads are only exposed to an audience that is already using these kinds of products.  This way, the advertisements cannot recruit new users but can only encourage users to choose the advertised product over the one they are already using.

When I sit here and think about my first recollection of watching a television commercial a food advertisement is the first to pop into my head, for Frosted Flakes. The song, “Frosted Flakes are more then good….they’re GRRRREAT!” Because of that catchy song is why I think it just stands out in my memory. 

I would have to say one of my favorite television ads are the ones about the iPhone. They make each commercial more and more desirable. Makes the urge of needing the iPhone to a greater power, even though it is just a luxury. To me, having the good music in the background is very helpful so people do not change the channel before they even see what’s being advertised. 

The ads that really annoy me are the ones that try to get you to buy ringtones, funny jokes,  pictures, or try to predict your future. Those annoy me because that are just dumb. All they want to do is to rip you off and steal your money, in a sneaky way. And to predict your future by just having your phone number and knowing nothing about you is just plain ridiculous and impossible. 

Overall I like commercial that have a good beat to them and are trying to weasel you out of your money. Ones that actually give you something of interest and can actually help benefit your life.

Many people are very skeptical and critical about advertising.  The culture has adapted the “sex sells” them in almost all advertising.  However, these advertisements are never controlled as to who sees them.  Victoria’s Secret doesn’t wait until late night to show their most sensual commercials.  The perfume ads and beer ads won’t necessarily be found on the Disney channel or Nickelodeon; however, children can still see these on basic cable channels that parents may be watching.  This was also the controversy years ago with the tobacco company Camel.  Their advertising and logos with the Camel was too “kid friendly” and were aimed to get the upcoming generation of children to becoming tobacco users.  Also the dilemma of children getting their “sex ed” classes from advertisements seems ludicrous but seems to be what is happening in today’s society.  Most of society is skeptical because of the path that the advertising has taken. 

When I was young, my mom hated taking me to the grocery store.  I wanted everything I saw, and I never understood why she would not let me have everything I wanted.  Like most children, I did not understand the value of money.  I was provided for by my parents, so I just assumed that buying things was fun and easy for adults.  It isn’t until we begin to earn our money–either through a family allowance or getting a job–that we realize how difficult it is to buy the things we own and still have money left over for the things we need.

I believe that many advertisements target children for this reason.  If you can convince a child that something is “neat,” he will want it.  He has no understanding of what it takes to get it, so he doesn’t mind begging his mother for it in the store.  I have even seen younger children throw tantrums in the store if their parents say no.  Parents want to give their children the best, and, quite frankly, many parents just want their children to shut up, so often they give in and the child leaves the store happy.

If this happens too often, I blame the parents.  While it may be unethical to aim ads at children, successful marketing is all about earning business.  it is up to the individuals to decide whether or not to be influenced by it.  I do blame advertisements, however, when they target children for items that are intended for adult use only.

No one under the age of 18 is allowed to buy tobacco, and no one under the age of 21 is allowed to buy alcohol.  Why is it, then, that movies often show the “cool kids” smoking cigarettes or drinking beer?  Specifically, why do they show labels to popular brands such as Camel or Marlboro or Budweiser?  It seems to me that they are trying to send a message to children–”drink this or smoke these and you can be cool too.”  They are cheating the system by advertising this way, and I think that something needs to be done about it.  if it is frowned upon for children to do certain things, specifically things that are illegal, then the media should not be the ones encouraging them to do them.  Children can only comprehend what they see; therefore, we should be more careful about what we are putting in front of them.

Since the 1970’s, tobacco ad’s have been band from T.V., and in 1998, tobacco companies were also prohibited from using cartoon characters in there adds anymore. Many different strides have been made to keep tobacco and alcohol adds away from mainstream media.

But should tobacco and alcohol ads be prohibited? I say yes. The reason it should be prohibited is simple. It is harmful to the body! Since the 1950’s tobacco companies such as Marlboro have know that nigatine was addictive, but did not make that aware to the consumers. Why wouldn’t you tell anyone that it’s harmful? Because it makes them money! What we have is a company that is going to reap benefits off a person that is addicted to their product. To me it is the same ideal as a drug dealer.

But does this go against the first amendment? No, first off speaking one’s mind is different, then selling a product. Someone expressing an idea, and trying to sell you away of thinking can’t bring harm to you, but on the other hand with someone trying to sell you cigarettes. People find out about alcohol and cigarettes without ads, why should we support the stupidty?

Everyone is a critic, or so that is what it seems when it comes to advertising. Someone is always griping about the commercials they see on the TV., or through some other forms of media.

First let’s start with the content. This is probably the main category in which all the “unwanted” commercials fall under. A lot of things can fall under this category: alcohol, sex, nudity, drugs, tobacco, etc… Truth is that no matter what you put into an ad some bozo out there will have a problem with it.

The major one is sex, or nudity. I have never heard so much controversy over one commercial than by a Miller Lite commercial. In which two girls fight over a beer in a water fountain. It is a rather revealing commercial, but the only people I can see complaining about it is married women who are insecure about there marriage. 1.) I don’t see men having a problem with it, and 2.) I don’t see a woman who is completely confident in her husband making that big of a deal of it, and 3.) if your worried about your kid watching it, my question to you is why is the kid on that channel anyways? My guess is that this said kid is not watching the programs that are geared for his age. Personally I find the ad to be genius. Who is a beer company’s number one customer? Men, most likely single so why not put to attractive girls on the TV to duke it out.

People are so critical about advertising because they are stuck in the 50’s. They cannot overcome the fact that America is different, and to appeal to people’s interest you have to do more risqué stuff.

Let’s face it nothing is the same as it used to be back in the “good ole’ days.” People are more and more likely to critique advertising because they are not willing to adjust to the paradigm of they culture that is who we are.

If you do not want your family to watch it then get Tivo.

Advertising is everywhere. It is a survival of the fittest world in which those with the best ads usually get the buyers. Service is a key factor in any industry, but those companies who can saturate the market with copious amounts of advertisements are the ones who usually have the customers. Is this right? Is it inhibiting the flow of democracy? Advertising, on the surface, seems to do just that, but it is just a natural part of democracy.

How do we arrive at that conclusion? Democracy is generally known as rule by the people. Taking America as an example, democracy goes hand-in-hand with free market capitalism. The freedom of the individual or the masses to choose what businesses to have business with is a key facet of the economy. Advertising allows the customer to get a better understanding of what that company brings to the table. Advertising between two competing companies has the ability of one company to show what they have compared to another. Whoever has the better advertising will naturally do better business-wise.

This applies to politics also. Political advertising is vital to campaigns these days. However much it is lamented, negative political advertising sways many a vote come November in an election year in the United States. With advertising, the candidates can clarify their positions on issues or point out the flaws in the other campaign. It is an effective and deadly weapon in the political campaign.

Advertising shows the consumer which product they should choose. The consumer is not forced to buy any product. The advertising provides information that helps the consumer make the choice. This applies to politics with positive or negative advertising. One advertisement can be the difference between winning and losing an election. Democracy and advertising are intertwined in our culture. Despite what some might conclude, democratic principles are at the heart of advertising.

   When asked do i think advertising aimed at children should be regulated im torn between two answers.  Finding out that in chapter 11 children and teenagers are considered to be “consumer trainees” its kind of sick to hear.  Finding out that Children and teenagers are targeted by advertisers because they influence up to five hundred billion dollars a year in family spending on everything from sugar coated snacks and cars was actually really surprising.  As i think about it more and more it just goes to show that when it comes down to it people are being played like puppets with advertisers telling us what we absolutely need and that you’re not  somebody with out having the new and improved version of something you may already have that might be just as good, especiallyif you dont need it.

  Since were dealing with childrens mind though i do believe there needs to be some boundries on what is being advertised in front of them.  Of course when you think about it there doesn’t need to be adult material advertised or stuff that is just redundent like car comercials or makeup that can make you look like your favorite barbie because there is just really no need for things like that for children to want.  Children are obviously too young to be thinking about these types of issues or things since they really have no need for them. Its just more ways to corrupt the youth and cause parents to go out and spend more money on useless stuff that the child will eventually get bored with in weeks or matter of days, and by that time the parents will be forced to go out and purchase practically the same thing over just because the advertisers find some way for the product to look new and maybe have a new and simple feature to it.

  Now the part that is leading me to the thought of maybe it really doesn’t need to be regulated as much is the fact that its not all the advertisers fault.  Of course their the ones that are creating the ads that are causing children to want and want and advertising all the sugary snacks that can be bad for their health but the parents of the children can be just a guilty.  When you think about it all the advertiser is doing is putting the product out there with a catchy tone.  Now yes i understand that they manipulate the product to seem better than it is and that can be very deceiving to children but that is why they have parents.  The parents should know better and they are the ones with the final decision on whether the product is purchased or not.  When it comes down to it the parents are the ones that are going out there and purchasing these objects and snacks that are causing the children to want more and more and which is why a lot of the snack foods have became unhealthy for children as well.  I honestly believe its the parents who need to do the regulating more so than the advertisers because its the parents that have the final say in what type of toys their children are playing with and which type of snack foods they are eating along with how much their intake is.  Another reason i believe that it doesn’t really need to be regulated to children is because of the fact that parents are out there contradicting themselves.  I don’t see how they can go out there and say that it is so wrong for others to advertise to their children when they them self have most likely been sucked up by some bran named clothing they are wearing or have fell for some advertising for the new car their driving.  To me that would be a little more confusing to the children by saying it’s not right for my child to own it but it is all right for me to want to buy it.  That goes the same for the people that are fighting in the many different groups against advertising to children such as the group Action for Children’s Television (ACT).  Though their would need to be more research to prove as a true statement i am more than positive that it is safe to say that these activists are just as guilty for wanting to go out there and buy all the new stuff being produced and are just as guilty of wearing labeled clothing that is advertising to children in all the same ways.

Tobacco has been advertised all over the place ever since it was first developed. Wooden signs, word of mouth, billboards, radio, and television have all at one time or another promoted this grotesque hobby. Whether it is cigarettes or cigars or some sort of chew or dip, tobacco has always been promoted and advertised in all sorts of ways. The same can also be said for alcohol. When asked whether or not these products should be advertised, I find myself at a standstill. For myself personally, I believe that the consumption of alcohol is not a bad thing, but I do believe that it should be taken only when one is of age and never for the purpose of drunkenness. I think that tobacco is just disgusting in general and a terrible habit to practice. So as far as advertising is concerned, I think that absolutely it should be prohibited for tobacco but not necessarily for alcohol.

Tobacco is a terrible habit and has absolutely no positive side effects. Tobacco destroys the body and can cause several different diseases. According to the ATOD Prevention Center tobacco can have effects on bad breath to miscarriages or stillbirths, and everything in between, such as:

1. Heart Disease
2. Cancer
3. Emphysema
4. Chronic Bronchitis
5. Abnormal Sperm Cells
6. Smelly hair and clothes
7. Yellow and brown stains on teeth
8. Damage to respiratory System

As one can see, this is a terrible habit. Nothing good can come of it. Because of these feelings, I think that advertising should be terminated. By advertising something so harmful we are basically promoting or advertising, in a sense,…death.

There is one problem though…the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives the freedom of religion, speech and press. Mainly for this topic the freedom of speech and press. As much as I believe that the promotion of any type of tobacco should be illegal and banned, it does not matter because the First Amendment allows whoever to have the freedom of press and speech. As a result, these companies can advertise their products whenever and however they like.

I do not agree with the advertisement of tobacco but there is nothing that I can do about it unless the First Amendment gets changed, which I do not see happening anytime in the near future. People can push whatever they want on society to gain customers. An outrageous example is the Porn Industry. This just shows you how much perverse our society is becoming. Decide what you believe and stand for it. Never let down.

While watching television the other day I happened to run across three different McDonald’s adds. Every single add had some young child in it chomping down on some sort of greasy cheese burger and french fries with a smile on their face, disgusting I know. Also another add that I happened to run across was one for a child’s video game site, needless to say every game that was being advertised had some sort of violence in it. Whether it was shooting, fighting, running people over in cars, than they proceeded to say get your parents’ permission before going to this website. No kid I’ve ever met does that.

The point I’m trying to get at is this, advertising that is directed towards children needs to be regulated to the T. Research has stated that children under the age of eight are unable to tell whether or not advertising is true. So basically that translates as children will believe just about anything you or the television tells them. With that being said it is clearly evident that advertising towards children needs to be regulated. For example McDonald’s makes it a point to advertise to children at a very young age. Many studies have shown that kids would prefer fries labeled as McDonald’s fries over the same fries in a different bag.  Needless to say this also goes for McDonald’s burgers, chicken nuggets, and anything else that the leading cause of child obesity tries to throw at us. So what I’m saying is McDonalds has brain washed the youth. Disgusting isn’t it?

Children these days are beginning to recognize alcoholic advertising that is being aired on television and also on billboards throughout the country. 

Media Wise states that

Advertisers are aware that children influence the purchase of not just kid’s products anymore, but everything in the household from cars to toothpaste.

This is great emphasis on how there is so much underage drinking throughout the country today. Mostly teenagers, and also children look at the beer commercials and think that it is “cool” to drink beer. They have probably heard all of the stories and rumors that go around most public schools about everyone drinking, and then they see it on commercials and it influences them to go out and drink.

Seattle pi  states that

the exposure of youth to beer and other booze ads on TV jumped 38 percent since 2001. 

This is very crucial to today’s youth in the choice of underage drinking. The more commercials and advertising of alcohol is the same as saying its not a bad act to drink. The way I feel about it is if society would cut down on so many alcohol commercials then in a couple of years the percentage of underage drinking would lower itself and also lower alcohol related deaths.

Public television stations and public radio stations are always in need of funding.  This is because they typically do not broadcast what is popular in America.  Instead of reporting the latest celebrity gossip, they are informing listeners about conflict in foreign countries.  Rather than playing a “top ten” list of well-liked music, they are giving their audience the privilege hearing a renowned violinist perform a piece of their music.  For these reasons, corporations are reluctant to spend advertising dollars on a media that isn’t going to offer them the majority of American audiences. 

Radio stations such as National Public Radio and television stations like PBS are thus left with little funding.

But I believe this is the way it should be.  If these stations were funded with the same advertisements as local hit-radio stations or popular television channels, they would lose the uniqueness they pride themselves upon.  The people that listen to NPR and watch PBS are generally the types of people who are not typically interested in what mainstream America has to offer.  Thus, the advertisements would, in all likelihood, ineffective. 

These media outlets can instead, gain funding by continuing to host fund-raiser programs or accepting donations from wealthy listeners or viewers.  This is not to say that they can’t have any advertisements, just not mainstream ones.  For example, listeners of NPR would most likely enjoy an ad about a famous author’s new book or one for a classical musician’s album that has been recently released.  The type of advertisements must be exceptionally relative to the audience to be effective.  If these medias were to start advertising things other than these, they would likely lose a majority of their audience.  They primarily have these audiences because they do not air these types of advertisements.

Everywhere kids look, there is advertising aimed at them.  On television commercials, products used in the children’s television shows, the video games they play, in the packages of the toys they get – it goes on and on. An article in Global Issues gives these stats about kids and the amount of advertising they see each year:

Children are a captive audience:
*The average American child watches an estimate between 25,000 to 40,000 television  commercials per year.
*$15-17 billion is spent by companies advertising to children in the US. The marketing seems to be worth it: *Teens in the US spend around $160 billion a year.
*Children (up to 11) spend around $18 billion a year
*“Tweens” (8-12 year olds) “heavily influence” more than $30 billion in other spending
by parents, and “80 percent of all global brands now deploy a ‘tween strategy.’”
*Children (under 12) and teens influence parental purchases totaling over $130-$670
billion a year.

With all this exposure, any idiot can see that the negative influence of products and foods that are bad for kids needs to be regulated. Kids see a product and they want it. Parents most of the time buy what their kids are begging for or face a conflict with their child. We aren’t helping the kids or their parents with all of this.  The American Physchological Association has come out recommending that

Children under the age of eight are unable to critically comprehend televised advertising messages and are prone to accept advertiser messages as truthful, accurate and unbiased. This can lead to unhealthy eating habits as evidenced by today’s youth obesity epidemic. For these reasons, the APA is recommending that advertising targeting children under the age of eight be restricted.

And all of this is just evidence that advertising that is supposed to be for children, can be harmful for them. That doesn’t even begin to cover the advertising that kids see that should be aimed at adults – cigarettes, alcohol, casinos, movies, etc. Cigarette companies put young, good looking people in their magazine ads and tweens and teens think it looks cool. You can’t convince me that the tobacco companies aren’t targeting teenagers so they’ll get hooked and be lifelong buyers. The same goes for all the athletic events who have their main sponsor being beer companies. Young kids up through teenagers are watching these games and seeing how “cool” it is drink. And violent video games are affecting kids and their aaggression all the time. The American Physchological Association also says:

“…beer ads are commonly shown during sports events and seen by millions of children, creating both brand familiarity and more positive attitudes toward drinking in children as young as 9-10 years of age. Another area of sensitive advertising content involves commercials for violent media products such as motion pictures and video games. Such ads contribute to a violent media culture which increases the likelihood of youngsters’ aggressive behavior and desensitizes children to real-world violence.”

Should advertising for children be regulated? Absolutely, without question it should.

The children of the world are our future.   Many video games, movies, and TV shows that are geared toward children deal with violence for boys and false beauty for girl.  Advertisers for these products use violent scenes, such as people being killed or fighting people.  They are taught at an early age that violence is ok.  Girls are taught at an early age that you must wear heals and have the best hair to be “pretty.”  In the past years children have began growing up much faster, than in the past.  Children are not as sheltered as they once were.  Thinking that children are our future do we really want them brain washed by these violent and misunderstood advertisements, games, and shows?

In 1998 Gary Ruskin opened a non-profit organization called Commercial Alert.  Commercial Alert watches advertising and alerts culture about the negative things that the advertisement may portray.  One section of the group’s main focus is to prevent exploiting children.  Children can be taught many things at an early age, such as, they need to be a certain size to be beautiful, or you have to play a sport to be “cool.”  Commercial Alert monitors these things and tells the companies how they could change the advertisements to not portray these negative messages.

At an early age children are being taught these negative things by the media and culture.  Little girls believe now at an early age that make-up will make them beautiful.  Little boys believe that pretending to shoot each other is an acceptable thing to do.  Thanks to movies and shows such as Star Wars, Pokémon and Bratz children are getting the wrong idea of what they “need” to be.  Culture is not focused on all the great things they can grow up to be, rather they are focused on selling items based on negative characteristics.

Advertising is a major influence in our society today.  It has changed the format of purchasing items and the way in which we view products.  Advertising single handedly changed the way we shop.  We use to go to the store and browse around; advertising allows people to enter a store with a product already in mind.  This is the power of Advertising.  I am a strong believer that advertisements aimed at children should be closely monitored.  Advertisements have the power to make adults believe that they cannot live without a certain product image the impact they can have on young innocent minds.

There are many advertisements that are aimed directly at children, especially on children’s television stations.  They are extremely persuasive and portray a certain product as a ‘must have’.  Gary Ruskin, founder of ‘Commercial Alert’ set up a non-profit organization to help monitor advertisements that go out to different audiences.  More people and organizations need to be more aware of what advertisements go out.  Parents cannot always censor what their children see.  Advertisers need to be more aware of the ad’s they put out into main stream society.

I would strongly recommend that the government step in and take on this issue.  They should set up a government funded system which regulates advertisements that go out into the public, especially those that are aimed at children.  Children’s television stations such as Nickelodeon, and Cartoon Network should be aware of this and help to prevent children seeing advertisement after advertisement brainwashing them that they must have this new toy.  They are young and innocent and should only be exposed to a certain number of advertisements, as society changes so must advertising.       

I believe that the advertising of tobacco products should not be allowed. Tobacco has been proven to cause permanent damage to the human body; therefore it should not be publicized. We need to emphasis the dangers of smoking to younger generations, so that the habit can die out. To help achieve this I would make every tobacco company place health warnings on the packaging of cigarettes. If when you pick up a packet of cigarettes it reads “these will seriously harm your body”, then less people are likely to smoke.

In the case of alcohol I would deal slightly differently. I would make sure that commercials for alcohol were promoted in a decent manner and not advertising excessive drinking. I would also make these commercials only accessible at certain times, such as after 9 at night so that children will not witness them. Finally I would, like with the cigarettes, make the alcohol companies put messages on the bottles to warn consumers of binge drinking and drink driving. Alcohol companies need to promote the fact that friends need to have a designated driver or a form of transport home after a night out.

I think currently the amount of tobacco and alcohol advertising is being dealt with correctly. You rarely see commercials during the day for such products, which stops the corruption of children. I think that tobacco and alcohol advertising should be restricted from sporting events or teams also. Millions of people watch sports each and every week, including sport fanatic kids. Having their favourite team sponsored by “Benson and Hedges” would send out the wrong message. Once these things have all taken place then I feel the media will have sufficiently stopped the alcohol and tobacco companies from promoting their products.