Are you lovin' it?
The people of LA aren't.
Correction: a mother that takes her kids to McDonalds once a month is not lovin' it, she's downright mad! (click here for full story in the LA times)
The LA times is reporting that the woman considers the offering of Shrek toys to her kids a form of parental circumvention of her parenting control.
This is a very sensitive issue where marketing and morality (and legality) being to cross swords.
Here in Australia it is illegal to advertise fast food at particular hours, or on particular channels. Why? Because we don't want our children being communicated to by these skilful advertisers! Clearly, in the US this isn't the case.
The parent in this law suit is someone that takes her children to McDonalds once per month, or thereabouts. This is an existing customer that we are talking about that is suing the company for advertising to her children. The problem? The advertising is making her kids want the food more often that what she is willing to give her kids. The problem isn't so much that the toys are provided with the happy meals, it is more the fact that to collect the entire set she would have to go McDonalds much more frequently than she currently does.
The Role and Responsibility of Children:
Children are the consumers. They have influence over the purchase of food but very really do they have the means to buy it themselves. They need a purchasing agent, which usually comes in the form of parents, or a babysitter/uncle/other that has been forced into taking care of the children. Children, by nature of their lack of perspective and cognitive skills (namely cause and effect in a long-term sense) are hedonists. They live for pleasure, and if that food looks to be pleasurably they will ask their parents to have some. They can be skilful and persistent negotiators, and at the peak of their powers they may play the high ace: the public tantrum. There is no more highly influential act upon a parents' behaviour than the public tantrum. It causes huge embarrassment to the parent, and this embarrassment is something parents will go to great lengths to avoid. Children seem to become aware of this at a very young age.
Luckily for the child he or she has no responsibilities. They are kids, and they are learning the ways of the world. They are innocent.
The Role and Responsibility of Parents:In terms of consumer purchasing models, parents are considered the ultimate buyer. They are the ones that control the money and have final say in how that money is spent. By virtue of the public tantrum, what the neighbours think, the cost of food and the amount of time it takes to care and prepare for meals the purchasing decisions for food are amazingly pressured. Parents have often been known to do or buy things for the sake of relieving pressure. I think every parent has done this at one stage or another, whether it's allowing the children to watch TV all, allowing them to eat chocolate all day (note – chocolate companies are not being sued) or simply letting the little brats jump all over the furniture – there are countless examples of parents giving in to this pressure. The crazy part? These acts of pressure relief usually work in the opposite direction of what the parents think of as right or good parenting. Why? Because, as all marketers should know, emotion influences more (purchasing) decisions that logic does, especially in the consumer space. The parents feel the responsibility to feed their children healthy food, to take them to the part and to spend cash responsibly – but the reality is that this repsobility often gives way to pressure. Personally I don't think this makes large companies like McDonalds immoral, but if this tension is deliberately increased for the benefit of the company's bottom line, there may be an issue.
The Role and Responsibility of the Company:
In true marketing speak, the company is there to provide profitable value. That is, they need to provide something valuable to the population so that some members of that population will part with a portion of their income in order to obtain it. Most marketers will suggest methods of increasing customer share of wallet, customer lifetime value and customer frequency of purchase. If your product is one that is a 'sometimes' product (e.g. Alcohol, music concerts, unhealthy food, caffeine drinks) you need to be careful. Your product may be fun (hence, value adding) but damaging to your customer if over-consumed (value-taking). A company will always try to increase sales and profitability, but Governments (such as the Australian one) will begin to step in when they see people in their jurisdiction being adversely affected. Even tobacco, the tax cash cow of the last century, is now being regulated in terms of advertising and packaging.
So it is up to companies that sell these products to avoid presenting them as everyday items. What is the alternative? Present them as fun! Present them as cool, present them as a special treat. However, these products should never be presented as unrealistically common. (e.g. Supermodels eating hamburgers and saying to each other "I can't believe we eat this everyday and can still be this thin!)
The alternative is to create new products! McDonalds actually did this with their new Healthy Choices menu. Great! What a great idea! A company with the brand strength of Maccas selling salad as a lunch option! Cynics will say they're only doing it for the money and to save a PR disaster. That is most likely their motive – but I don't see any other fast food chains releasing healthy options.! Well done McDonalds – I hope they begin to rival Subway as the 'healthy' fast food provider. (I said hope, not expect.)
Public health studies are a massive eye-opener in the realm of passive effects.
In this world of increasing selfishness and individuality it seems to be a strange side effect that when things go wrong consumers start to blame companies. But there are certain patterns of health that show areas that have higher densities of fast food have higher rates of obesity (and lower rates of gyms and personal trainers). Until I get my hands on detailed statistics I will refrain from pushing any argument drawn from this, but it is hard to ignore the fact that EVERYTHING influences purchasing decisions. EVERYTHING.
So…..Advertising to kids: right or wrong?
I might get shot down in flames for this – but I think it is absolutely fine to advertise to children. Each company has the right to try and build its sales with audiences to which its products are suited. Each parenting team has gateway control over what their kids consume until the kids re given money to make purchases of their own. Whilst advertising sends a message promoting fast food, parents need to be sending an equivalent message to their children about moderation, or the cons of eating fast food. In a broader sense, governments need to observe the overall health of the population. If obesity rates are up (or other negative health outcomes) then certain influences or access to the cause of obesity need to be regulated and legislated. For this I congratulate the Australian government. And my suggestion to the lady quoted in the LA Times article is to send her protests to the regulatory advertising body, not the individual company of whom she is already a customer.
So what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment