13 Oct 11
Originally posted by WoodPushWhat do you mean? When it comes to decisions I make about my children - like which toddler group to send them to - yes it's me who makes those decisions. Those services target me with their marketing. Perhaps it's different where you live.
Oh, so you are the one making the decisions, not your kid?
13 Oct 11
No, but they are examples of marketing to kids under 10 that are't necessarily harmful and fall under your blanket ban. Obviously, I'm fine with banning marketing of drugs to kids. And then there are more debatable things in the middle -- say marketing of fast food meals.
And in my book, "fast entertainment" is pretty much in the same book as "fast food". I don't like it, but I don't believe it should be illegal to market it. Parents should make the choice, and as you illustrated, they do. Not the kids. My kid sees advertising for many things I refuse to buy him. That's part of parenting.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by WoodPushPersonally, I'm not proposing a 'blanket ban'. I am inviting debate on what protections there perhaps should be and what protections would be an unwarranted imposition.
No, but they are examples of marketing to kids under 10 that are't necessarily harmful and fall under your blanket ban. Obviously, I'm fine with banning marketing of drugs to kids. And then there are more debatable things in the middle -- say marketing of fast food meals.
And in my book, "fast entertainment" is pretty much in the same book as "fast f ...[text shortened]... My kid sees advertising for many things I refuse to buy him. That's part of parenting.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by FMFI have no problem with restrictions on advertising of tobacco and alcohol near schools - but the problem there is simply where you draw the line.
Children need to be protected from the compulsive consumerism and commercialism of the adult world.
Agree or disagree?
Why?
I would definitely have a problem with any advertising within public schools.
For the most part it is the parent's responsibility when it comes to television, for example.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhat about indirect advertising? Some beverage companies pay for things like (the school's track) in exchange for selling their line of product.
I have no problem with restrictions on advertising of tobacco and alcohol near schools - but the problem there is simply where you draw the line.
I would definitely have a problem with any advertising within public schools.
For the most part it is the parent's responsibility when it comes to television, for example.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAnd I object to the parent being made responsible for everything.
For the most part it is the parent's responsibility when it comes to television, for example.
These days, all children get exposed to advertising, and other undesirable influences such as porn whether the parent wants it or not.
You can filter internet, turn off the tv, refuse to give them cell phones, but unless you lock them in the basement, there is no way your child will grow up without at least some exposure - usually via friends. At some point, as a parent, you are forced to balance the lack of exposure to undesirable stuff with exposure to desirable stuff.
I, for example think it should be mandatory that cell phone companies provide child friendly phones where porn and advertising are blocked. I think the amount of sex etc depicted in moves targeted at a younger audience should be reduced. I think that the amount of swearing in computer games (whatever the age rating) should be reduced. As a parent, I have little control over these and much choose between allowing it, or essentially locking my child in the basement.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by rwingettBe careful. Google will ban you from their products!
Why not just ban all advertising? It's a huge expenditure of resources that brings no net benefit to society.
How would you define advertising? Would I still be able to access shopping web sites, and see a shops logo on its windows, or should all shops and products be unbranded?
Originally posted by rwingettThat's inaccurate. Some advertising is informational that's a benefit. Advertsing is an industry. It creates jobs and tax revenue directly and for the firm advertising. Would there be televison or sports or TV or newspapers without advertising?
Why not just ban all advertising? It's a huge expenditure of resources that brings no net benefit to society.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadGenerally, I would ban all obtrusive forms of advertising. Unobtrusive forms of advertising, such as specific sites, or locations, that require some action by the consumer to go to it, would be permitted.
Be careful. Google will ban you from their products!
How would you define advertising? Would I still be able to access shopping web sites, and see a shops logo on its windows, or should all shops and products be unbranded?
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by quackquackI'm sure some other model for funding sports, or TV, or newspapers could be found. Your problem is that you seem to think that since things are a certain way, that that's how they must remain. I'm sure a society where advertising played a minimal role would find perfectly good ways of coping.
That's inaccurate. Some advertising is informational that's a benefit. Advertsing is an industry. It creates jobs and tax revenue directly and for the firm advertising. Would there be televison or sports or TV or newspapers without advertising?
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAdvertising in public schools is already here. My kid brings home flyers for local businesses all the time.
I have no problem with restrictions on advertising of tobacco and alcohol near schools - but the problem there is simply where you draw the line.
I would definitely have a problem with any advertising within public schools.
For the most part it is the parent's responsibility when it comes to television, for example.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by quackquackWell, the school is run by idiots if they would allow the advertising in for free so advertising dollars would pay for something.
What about indirect advertising? Some beverage companies pay for things like (the school's track) in exchange for selling their line of product.
I would really only be ok with things like the school provides helmets for football so say Acme Football Helmets advertises by simply donating their brand of helmet.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't really disagree with much of what you are saying since you're kind of going into further depth into the kinds of things than I was thinking.
And I object to the parent being made responsible for everything.
These days, all children get exposed to advertising, and other undesirable influences such as porn whether the parent wants it or not.
You can filter internet, turn off the tv, refuse to give them cell phones, but unless you lock them in the basement, there is no way your child will grow ...[text shortened]... over these and much choose between allowing it, or essentially locking my child in the basement.
I can't really discuss this in depth right now, but I'll try to return with a lengthier post.
13 Oct 11
Originally posted by dryhumpI would definitely have a problem with that. I would probably tell my kid to throw them out immediately and I might just actually complain to the businesses and the school.
Advertising in public schools is already here. My kid brings home flyers for local businesses all the time.