Does advertising to children infringe their rights? On the surface, it sounds rather an extreme proposition. But there is a growing consensus from parents, regulators, civil society as well as businesses themselves, that children are particularly vulnerable to an evolving range of modern marketing techniques that can compromise both their physical and mental health.
“Children are at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to advertising,” says Josh Golin, executive director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. In their early years, he explains, their brains are not sufficiently developed “to process adverts in the same way adults do. Until the age of eight, they don’t even understand the concept of “persuasive intent” - the fact that the advertisers are trying to sell them something. So they treat the ad uncritically - in the same way as they would information from a parent or a teacher.”
The rise of the internet, which has not been accompanied with a rise in the regulation of activities online, means advertisers have a new set of channels to reach children. Many of these channels are less regulated than traditional media such as broadcast and print. More than half of all Dunkin’ Donuts and Wendy’s advertisements, for example, now appear on Facebook. And digital media lends itself to more compelling marketing methods, such as brand-boosting “advergames”, of the sort used by Subway and Burger King, which can win over the brand loyalty or brand recognition of children much more effectively than conventional commercials.
Although there is little research as to their relative effectiveness in relation to marketing as a whole, games can be seen as a subtle way of getting “under the radar” of susceptible children. In 2012, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled that “sections of the website of confectionary firm Swizzels Matlow Ltd, in particular child-friendly interactive games, irresponsibly encouraged poor nutritional habits and an unhealthy lifestyle in children”.
Then there are new (and unregulated) techniques, such as neuromarketing, which use an array of methods – including brain imaging, skin and facial response studies – to monitor directly how people react to products or adverts, rather than rely on what they say. This is a crucial distinction, says Heather Andrew, CEO of marketing consultancy Neuro-Insight: “There’s a growing recognition that our reaction to advertising is emotional rather than rational. A lot of our decision-making, including on purchases, is driven by the emotional response. This is located in the right brain, while our speech capabilities are in the left. When we ask people how they feel about things, the stuff going on in the right brain is ‘translated’ into speech by the left, which typically puts a more rational spin on it.”
Even if no existing legislation addresses these new channels and techniques, to date, no company has admitted to using neuromarketing on children, and within the industry, some say critics are becoming alarmist. “We wouldn’t feel comfortable researching on children, and I don’t know anyone [in the industry] who would,” says Andrew. Neuromarketing expert Roger Dooley agrees: “If people were putting little kids in brainwave scanners to figure out how to make ads more diabolically effective, they really would be crossing a line … It would just take one grainy mobile photo of some kid in a scanner going viral - and you can be sure that it would do so – and the result could be brand suicide.”
What about drawing on neuromarketing’s findings from adult research and applying them to children? Andrew insists that direct extrapolation would be difficult. “Physiologically, children’s brains are very different from adults.” Yet the concern remains that broad insights from neuromarketing – of the role of strong brand narratives, for example – is still applicable.
Seen in this light, the wider application of neuromarketing could be seen as an infringement of children’s rights. The UN has already fired a warning shot. A report by its special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, points out that the Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically protects freedom of thought. If a child is being impelled to do something without informed consent, then it’s hard to square that with such a right. Responding to such concerns, a few UN member states are already taking action, notably France. It has restricted the use of brain-imaging techniques to scientific, medical and judicial purposes, specifically excluding use in advertising.
Even if neuromarketing is not done directly on children, we know that smart advertising aimed at children and teenagers works – ironically in part because of neuroscience. For example, one study in 2012 found that food logos stimulated the parts of children’s brains associated with motivation.
In light of such concerns, UNICEF believes that companies have to take a more responsible stance when developing marketing materials. According to UNICEF, inappropriate marketing and advertising can have a powerfully negative influence on children’s behaviour and self-esteem. The Children’s Rights and Business Principles argues that corporates should ensure that communications and marketing do not have an adverse impact on children’s rights.
Some businesses are already taking action. Unilever has a range of principles, which rule out all advertising to children under six, as well as product promotion in primary schools. And it stipulates that its marketing should promote good nutrition and active lifestyles. The Coca-Cola Company’s Responsible Marketing Policy (pdf) claims that the company does not market any of its products directly to any children under the age of 12.
For some, though, any advertising intending to target children remains unacceptable. Jonathan Kent, founder of the campaign group Leave our Kids Alone, is among them. “When as a society we are so keen to protect our children, when we are so keen to make sure they only come into contact with adults with their best interests at heart, when we vet ad infinitum teachers, care workers, doctors and those who work with children … When we do all those things, why on earth do we let a £12bn a year industry loose on children without the experience, or even the cognitive abilities, to process what they’re being told? If you reduce it to the bare bones, who could really argue it’s morally acceptable?”
Content on this page is paid for and produced to a brief agreed with UNICEF, sponsor of the child rights and business hub
