Ban Marketing That Targets Children Under 10?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Advertising doesn't give you choices, it only alerts you to their availability.

And the dichotomy in your next sentence is a false one. What about the middle ground of a society with plenty of market choice, but no (or limited) advertising?

You only have choices when you know about the options. There may be dozens of options, but if they are unknown to you they might as well not exist.

Advertising at its worst can be annoying. You don't have to listen, watch or read. Turn it off, throw it away. Now there might be some argument about the extent of advertising, and how much it adds to the retail price of products. There competition in the market may modify the ad practices of players.

At the end of the day, it is the consumer who determines the effectiveness of any advertising. Probably the most entertaining ads are the car insurance ads from Allstate, Geiko, and State Farm. I have State Farm, but I love the Geiko ads.

Originally posted by normbenign
You mean like the Soviet system? I'd rather get propaganda from commercial sources than from the government.

No, it's like the British system. The BBC remains one of the most widely respected broadcasters in the world. Of course, we have commercial television stations as well - though they're usually not so highly respected.

Originally posted by FMF
So would you support a ban on unaccompanied children of 10 or less buying unhealthy food or drinks, to ensure that the decision to consume or not consume is taken by parents as opposed to by children who may be influenced by the marketing and unable to make an informed choice?

No. Some parents will just give kids money to spend as they wish. What happens after that isn't our business. The point remains that 10 year olds rarely have their own money. It is a fool's errand to attempt to replace or substantially substitute for parents with government regulations. For a dark look at a society that has done that Ayn Rands "Anthem" takes only a few hours to read.

Originally posted by normbenign
You only have choices when you know about the options. There may be dozens of options, but if they are unknown to you they might as well not exist.

Scarcely. If the consumer is interested in a particular area, he can find out what the choices are. I'm interested in wine. Most of the wines I like are made by small producers that can't afford to advertise widely. I go out of my way to find them and buy them. The available choices can be discovered by anyone who cares enough to seek them out.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting advertising should be banned!

Originally posted by kmax87
So McDonalds targeting the young through TV advertising when they get home is okay with you? Why should McDonalds be the one who gets to exercise their liberty to sell you patently unhealthy food? Name one rspected nutritionist who would suggest that a typical McDonalds meal, (with fries and a Coke) is good for you.

Yet with the power of advertising ( top ...[text shortened]... dom. Seeing an oncoming storm and standing eyes wide shut in its path is just plain stupid.

"Seeing an oncoming storm and standing eyes wide shut in its path is just plain stupid."

Yet that is what many people do in the face of actual hurricane warnings, or tornado watches.

Ok, MDs can be unhealthy. On the other hand, the chain has healthy choices, and calorie and nutrition info available on their menus and placemats. They can't force me to buy stuff I don't want, and up till now I can buy and eat the unhealthy stuff if I so desire, and occasionally treat my grandchildren to something they like as well.

I reject the notion of giving up these choices to bureaucrats. Your idea promotes the notion that regular people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions. That's offensive to me, and to liberty.

Smoking sadly became the norm in the 40s largely due to the government's giving several cartons a month to GIs during WWII. The result was a growth in tobacco farming (subsidized), and massive influx of tax dollars. Now if you kill MDs, and cigarettes who is going to pay those tax dollars, the rich?

Originally posted by normbenign
I reject the notion of giving up these choices to bureaucrats. Your idea promotes the notion that regular people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions. That's offensive to me, and to liberty.

But restricting advertising isn't "giving up those choices to bureaucrats". McDonalds will still be allowed to sell its burgers; it just won't be able to advertise them on TV. This is the situation with tobacco in Britain; it's legally sold, but it's not advertised. People who choose to smoke still can. But I suppose restricting the advertising does something to reduce the likelihood that people start smoking in the first place, which is probably a good thing.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Scarcely. If the consumer is interested in a particular area, he can find out what the choices are. I'm interested in wine. Most of the wines I like are made by small producers that can't afford to advertise widely. I go out of my way to find them and buy them. The available choices can be discovered by anyone who cares enough to seek them out.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting advertising should be banned!

Thanks for not suggesting an end to advertising. As you know from your wine experience, lots of products besides wines do fine without massive advertising, and others do nothing until they advertise.

In a free market, there are numerous ways to succeed, and as many ways of getting your product recognized. During the 90s, I sold a product which enjoyed only local distribution. My wholesaler desired to increase sales, so advertised in a paper that had Statewide distribution. The advertising didn't match the ability to deliver, so it backfired by generating requests for delivery where no capacity existed nor could exist.

Even your small wineries often do some kind of marketing, which may not be as blatant as large billboards, or super bowl commercials, but that tend to reach consumers like you.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
But restricting advertising isn't "giving up those choices to bureaucrats". McDonalds will still be allowed to sell its burgers; it just won't be able to advertise them on TV. This is the situation with tobacco in Britain; it's legally sold, but it's not advertised. People who choose to smoke still can. But I suppose restricting the advertising does ...[text shortened]... e likelihood that people start smoking in the first place, which is probably a good thing.

That's somewhat the situation in most of the US with regards to tobacco advertising. I don't smoke anymore, but I still think banning advertising infringes on individual liberty. That you may argue it benefits society as a whole is a dangerous argument which leads to government power to ban virtually anything and favor almost anything.

Bans evolve incrementally. Smoking is legal in most States here, but in ever fewer places. The latest suggestions are to ban smoking in cars and private residences. After that, where will people smoke?

That something is a "good thing" is not necessarily a qualification for it to be legislated. In the long run, almost everything in life has something to do with health or longevity, and if it only has to be a "good thing" there is no limit on what legislators can do, or worse yet what judges can impose.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
No, it's like the British system. The BBC remains one of the most widely respected broadcasters in the world. Of course, we have commercial television stations as well - though they're usually not so highly respected.

Government TV , radio, and newspapers are a tricky thing. PBS in the US is quite widely respected, however over the years it has leaned further and further left, and become very political. From what I've seen of BBC productions, some of them very good, the inclination to propagandize leftist ideology is present there as well.

Still the UK has a long history of civil rights, individual rights preceding those of the US, but those can be preserved only with great diligence.

Two things that can strongly influence the direction of a society are its media, and its schools. I would prefer to see government out of these areas as much as is possible.

Originally posted by normbenign
That's somewhat the situation in most of the US with regards to tobacco advertising. I don't smoke anymore, but I still think banning advertising infringes on individual liberty. That you may argue it benefits society as a whole is a dangerous argument which leads to government power to ban virtually anything and favor almost anything.

Bans evolve in ...[text shortened]... thing" there is no limit on what legislators can do, or worse yet what judges can impose.

So where do you stand on legalisation of hard drugs?

I'm never very impressed by these kind of slippery slope arguments, because they necessarily construct any sensible, pragmatic step that might infringe individual liberty in any small way as a stride towards the gulag. It could be argued that all workable societies make trade-offs between individual freedoms and the public interest, and that, consequently, questions such as this can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really have a problem with the government saying: "This activity is unhealthy. We're not, of course, going to ban it (because adults have the right to make their own decisions). But we're certainly going to ensure that advertisers don't encourage it."

Originally posted by normbenign
No. Some parents will just give kids money to spend as they wish. What happens after that isn't our business. The point remains that 10 year olds rarely have their own money. It is a fool's errand to attempt to replace or substantially substitute for parents with government regulations. For a dark look at a society that has done that Ayn Rands "Anthem" takes only a few hours to read.

Don't do it; you'll never get those hours back and Anthem is a complete waste of time. It's about the dumbest piece of laissez faire propaganda ever written (and that's saying something).

Are you suggesting that 10 year olds should be able to go down to the local 7-11 and pick up a six of Bud and a pack of smokes?

Of course, back in the days you crave a return to, 10 year olds did have their own money - from working 14 hour days in the mills or mines.

Originally posted by normbenign

From what I've seen of BBC productions, some of them very good, the inclination to propagandize leftist ideology is present there as well.

British right-wingers have long accused the BBC of tending left, and British left-wingers have levied the opposite accusation. I think that suggests it's about right, really.

Two things that can strongly influence the direction of a society are its media, and its schools. I would prefer to see government out of these areas as much as is possible.

I would like to see big business out of those areas as much as possible.

Originally posted by FMF
The existence of laws protecting children from the tobacco industry is not being "ignored" - indeed it has been mentioned repeatedly, and has been cited of an example of government intervention, although it's still not clear if you agree with it or not. And as for you thinking that your agreement or disagreement "matters not in the slightest" then it is not clea ...[text shortened]... this debate: that's what people do here - state what they agree and disagree with and why.

The existing body of laws, regarding the sale of certain products, and even sexual relations between adults and children, have indeed been mentioned a few times, but only as if they wouldn't somehow apply normally, or rather as if they have to be debated alongside marketing that targets children. Is this thread about this type of marketing or about the existing regulations with regards to the age of consent and/or the sale of tobacco products to children? Make your mind up.

Originally posted by FMF
Thanks for your input.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Is this thread about this type of marketing or about the existing regulations with regards to the age of consent and/or the sale of tobacco products to children? Make your mind up.

It's page 6 of the thread. People can contribute what they want to it - and they have. Clearly. You can contribute whatever you want to it. You can restate the same thing over and over again, if you want. You can explore the issue more than you already have, if you want. You can continue to try to make whether or not you understand what the thread is about the issue, if you want. You can continue to post as if a discussion hasn't been going on for pages and pages, if you want. There are many choices before you. Perhaps you need to make your mind up. 😵