Rex

The SMH of 15 April 2006 had an article on junk food advertising that gives a window into the attitudes of entrepreneurs and advertisers and their general lack of ethics in directing marketing at children. Here is the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/tighten-the-belt-on-childrens-advertising/2006/04/14/1144521506027.html

The Australian Association of National Advertisers’ (AANA) self regulation has a policy permitting advertising to be directed at children at 14 years and below.

Another way of putting it is that advertisers think all children are fair game. Well they would, wouldn’t they?

The policy recognises that children are buyers and should be exploited. The AANA link is below:

http://www.aana.com.au/pdfs/A2CCode.pdf

If you are saying that it is impossible or impractical to regulate advertising for children wouldn’t this also mean that the AANA’s self-regulation Code for children’s advertising is a sham?

The AANA Code is so broad and open to interpretation it is like trapping a rat in a wire netting cage. Advertisers know that children are highly susceptible to advertisements where children their own age are depicted having fun and that is but one of the proven psychological ‘hooks’ used to trick and snare the young.

Again, if it is unrealistic as you imply to have a minimum age for advertising, why then does the AANA claim its policy is for children aged 14 and below? What is to stop the Code putting children under a certain age completely off limits?

I am interested to know what you think the minimum age should be under the AANA Code. After all, Code has no minimum age at all.

What possible justification could there be for not having a minimum age?

Is it reasonably to a government Minister to shrug his shoulders and blame the parents for allowing children to watch TV when he knows full well that advertisers target children during their peak viewing times?

We all know that advertisers target children [if appropriate to what they're pushing]. Don't complain to me about it, Cornflower, it's not my fault. You obviously feel very strongly about it, so I suggest you try and do something about it. If you haven't already thought about this, why not contact the Australian Family Association?

I've already told you what I had a small hand in regarding stopping tobacco advertising. I'll tell you what else I do now. Because of the strong company link between Kraft Foods and Phillip Morris Tobacco, I will not buy anything made by Kraft. A very small drop in a very large ocean, but something anyone can choose to do if they wish.

A sweet biscuit made by Kraft is very popular in America with children and would certainly come under the category of junk food. In an endeavour to sell even more of these to kids, Kraft is using the same marketing people as their associate company, Phillip Morris, used to promote cancer sticks. I know how it works and what I am saying is that, except for goods which have a definite link to ill-health, there is probably little or nothing we can do about it.

You think differently? Fine. Go for it.

Getting back to childrens' clothing. It's a warm, sunny day here in the Perth area and I've just come back from the shops. I noticed a very pretty young mother with a very pretty little daughter. The mother was attractively and lightly dressed. Her little girl had a light, flouncy skirt and a little sun top, a bit like much older girls wear. I thought that they both looked very nice. And if it weren't for threads like this, I wouldn't have given it another thought. The mother, without much apparent effort, was keeping her daughter close at hand where she could keep her eye on her. And surely that's the answer.

I'm doing an outcome on this very serious issue of the sexualisation of children. I was wondering if anyone has a link to any online journals, online newspapers or blogs that express the opinion of being for the sexualisation of children? I need to supply articles that are for and against this issue, and if anyone can find some "for", it would really help...as I'm having a lot of trouble finding any.

I dare attract a fire for suggesting that this article highlights explicitly stupidity a day-by-day ideology imposes on people, that is something of freedom of choice and possibility to make the best suited solution in any situation REGARDLESS OF surrounding, “no society, but men, women and families”.

Clarifying such an “authoritarian subversive out of this land” even “to some extent un-Australian” approach is to point on a bulk of pseudo-adult gadgets such as laptops, mobiles, electro-toys targeting kids as young as a few months old to factually accustom they with a notion that “the most expensive thing is the most necessary” in a place where for too many to-have-what-a-neighbour-has is a very living priority only.

Anyway, as toy shops provide no condoms yet for toddlers playing in sandboxes, things are not so alarming, seemingly.