|
On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:
Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy.
But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures.
Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working.
Moral high horse? Interesting... Some would call it coy or playful.
Childhood obesity is 100% the parents fault. Its funny, talk to a sociologist and they tell you how ads are the corporations arm that convinces and hypnotizes people to do their bidding. Talk to anyone in the ad business and they'll tell you just how ineffective ads really are. I watched both seasons of the GSL and have yet to buy a Sony Ericsson or a Powerade, nor do I really notice after it leaves my sensory memory.
Name all the ads on the billboards on your way to work. Name the last 10 commercials you saw on TV - precisely. I can only think of one billboard! And its only because I make fun of it all the time!
You want to reduce obesity? STOP SUBSIDIZING PRODUCE. The farm bill is the single most destructive bill to the American diet. Meat is cheaper in America than vegetables. It is the opposite everywhere else! A free market diet is different from a mixed economy diet. And while I don't believe we should ever tell people what the can or can not eat, the free market will provide incentives for healthy substitutes (in terms of lower prices).
On November 16 2010 12:39 Slow Motion wrote:
You think McDonald's puts in the toy because they love giving out free toys to kids? It's a deliberate marketing strategy targeted towards children. And yes it would be great if parents step in and say no. But many of them aren't. And it's far less intrusive to say McDonald's can't market unhealthy products to children than to say to parents we will take your kids away from you if they are fat.
I don't understand what this sudden fear of government taking away your freedoms in coming from. Government has long protected children in a paternalistic fashion. Kids generally can't make contracts, for example. The right to make contracts is a VITAL right that adults enjoy. I don't see people railing against the government for denying children this right. You get all your rights if you are an adult with normal capacity. However, kids and mentally challenged people are clearly vulnerable and we can't let corporations prey on their lack of decision-making ability.
I disagree the premise that children are being preyed upon. Does McDonald's want more customers? Sure. But I don't see the jump from, "hey, here's a toy, come back again" to "they're being manipulated by a multinational umbrella corporation looking to fatten up the world".
|
Osaka27089 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:48 BlackJack wrote:
Is there anyone here that actually lost interest in going to Mcdonalds once they got too old for a happy meal toy? Not because you made a concious decision to eat healthy but because the only reason you liked mcdonalds was because of the cheap 5 cent toy that came with your meal. Anyone?
On the other hand, there are probably more than a few people who started liking McDonalds because of the toy, formed a behavioural pattern of connecting McDonalds with joy, and then continued to go despite no longer caring about the toy. Habit forming is a major aim of all businesses and their advertising.
|
On November 16 2010 12:48 BlackJack wrote:
Is there anyone here that actually lost interest in going to Mcdonalds once they got too old for a happy meal toy? Not because you made a concious decision to eat healthy but because the only reason you liked mcdonalds was because of the cheap 5 cent toy that came with your meal. Anyone?
So you think McDonald's doesn't believe its toys and clowns have any effect on the desire of children for their product? Man those guys are nice for throwing in free toys! They just want to see the smiles of innocent children! And by they I mean the multi-million dollar advertising firms.
On November 16 2010 12:50 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:26 Slow Motion wrote:
Exactly. This statute isn't controlling the behavior of kids. It's controlling the ability of companies to market unhealthy products directly towards children. We've done this with good success when it comes to cigarettes. Poor people who have no choice but fast food can still buy fast food for kids. But now McDonald's can't try to hook kids who do have choices early. Unfortunately what you, and many other people don't seem to understand, is that the government has mandated that all companies sell unhealthy food by regulating what can be put in them. The movement away from (healthy and unhealthy) fat towards salt and sugar is what companies are obligated to put in their foods, because of tarrifs and other regulations. The government causes industries to sell unhealthy food because of legislation, and then punishes companies for following the law. There was a TL thread with a long youtube lecture in it about how this happened.
What do those poor policies have to do with our discussion of this particular statute? You're talking about a completely different set of legislation than what is here.
|
McDonald's's (?) marketing strategy is entirely centered on children. They market themselves specifically to children because believe it or not, children exercise enormous influence over their parents. Their specific mascot, the clown, was directly chosen to appeal to children. A parent will not mind eating at a restaurant as long as their child enjoys it, since parents aren't nearly as picky. So since the children go to the restaurant, the parents end up buying something for themselves as well.
I'm sure you are all excellent at theoryparenting, but it's a lot easier to agree with your children than to fight them irl. Also, McDonald's is pretty cheap.
|
its so true, its the power of the toy that made me want to buy a happy meal in the first place when i was a little kid.
Lion king
Antz
all those old school cartoon movies ( toys ) Made me want them more!
This sure is pissing McDonalds but oh well if people want toy i dont think they would mind drive another 20-30min to a new state and go that macdonald.
|
On November 16 2010 12:49 Luddite wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote:On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all. It's probably too much to expect every single parent to single-handedly fight against a corporation armed with the best marketers and millions of dollars to brainwash kids as much as they possibly can. No it isn't, each parent can simply not go to McDonalds. It is literally that easy. Children can't just go to McDonalds by themselves, it is the parent providing the McDonalds so it is very easy for the parent to simply stop providing McDonalds. It's not really an easy thing for a parent to ignore the constant whining of their kids. We're pretty much programmed to give our kids what they want. Sure you can ignore it for a while, and maybe some really strong parents can ignore whining forever, but most people are only human and will give in eventually.
I understand that because I am not a parent I do not fully understand what it is like to turn down a potentially crying child. What I do know is that as a child myself being in this situation where I really wanted to go to McDonalds, or buy that one toy and not being able to has made me a stronger person. Part of childhood development is the ability to accept "no" as an answer.
That said I don't want you to believe that I think that happy meal toys are a good thing because they make children cry when they can't have them, and tears make you stronger. It is more of an unintended consequence of the situation.
Also I want to ask this question again because it hasn't been answered.
Where do you draw the line?
What is acceptable in terms of marketing towards kids and what isn't?
|
Last thing I want is government coming into my house and telling me what can go on my dinner table, that's not their role, that's not why we pay these bastards
|
On November 16 2010 12:56 Mawi wrote:
its so true, its the power of the toy that made me want to buy a happy meal in the first place when i was a little kid.
Lion king
Antz
all those old school cartoon movies ( toys ) Made me want them more!
This sure is pissing McDonalds but oh well if people want toy i dont think they would mind drive another 20-30min to a new state and go that macdonald.
I used to beg my parents all the time for those Beanie Baby toys...
On November 16 2010 12:57 Moa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:49 Luddite wrote:On November 16 2010 12:23 Moa wrote:On November 16 2010 12:20 Luddite wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all. It's probably too much to expect every single parent to single-handedly fight against a corporation armed with the best marketers and millions of dollars to brainwash kids as much as they possibly can. No it isn't, each parent can simply not go to McDonalds. It is literally that easy. Children can't just go to McDonalds by themselves, it is the parent providing the McDonalds so it is very easy for the parent to simply stop providing McDonalds. It's not really an easy thing for a parent to ignore the constant whining of their kids. We're pretty much programmed to give our kids what they want. Sure you can ignore it for a while, and maybe some really strong parents can ignore whining forever, but most people are only human and will give in eventually. I understand that because I am not a parent I do not fully understand what it is like to turn down a potentially crying child. What I do know is that as a child myself being in this situation where I really wanted to go to McDonalds, or buy that one toy and not being able to has made me a stronger person. Part of childhood development is the ability to accept "no" as an answer. That said I don't want you to believe that I think that happy meal toys are a good thing because they make children cry when they can't have them, and tears make you stronger. It is more of an unintended consequence of the situation. Also I want to ask this question again because it hasn't been answered. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable in terms of marketing towards kids and what isn't?
But parents aren't telling their kids "no."
|
|
|
Osaka27089 Posts
On November 16 2010 12:51 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:
Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy.
But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures.
Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working. Moral high horse? Interesting... Some would call it coy or playful. Childhood obesity is 100% the parents fault. Its funny, talk to a sociologist and they tell you how ads are the corporations arm that convinces and hypnotizes people to do their bidding. Talk to anyone in the ad business and they'll tell you just how ineffective ads really are. I watched both seasons of the GSL and have yet to buy a Sony Ericsson or a Powerade, nor do I really notice after it leaves my sensory memory. Name all the ads on the billboards on your way to work. Name the last 10 commercials you saw on TV - precisely. I can only think of one billboard! And its only because I make fun of it all the time! You want to reduce obesity? STOP SUBSIDIZING PRODUCE. The farm bill is the single most destructive bill to the American diet. Meat is cheaper in America than vegetables. It is the opposite everywhere else! A free market diet is different from a mixed economy diet. And while I don't believe we should ever tell people what the can or can not eat, the free market will provide incentives for healthy substitutes (in terms of lower prices).
I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day.
And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start.
|
Meh, you cant sell baseball cards in cigarette packs anymore, how is this any different? The consumable is just as bad for you.
|
On November 16 2010 12:52 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:48 BlackJack wrote:
Is there anyone here that actually lost interest in going to Mcdonalds once they got too old for a happy meal toy? Not because you made a concious decision to eat healthy but because the only reason you liked mcdonalds was because of the cheap 5 cent toy that came with your meal. Anyone? On the other hand, there are probably more than a few people who started liking McDonalds because of the toy, formed a behavioural pattern of connecting McDonalds with joy, and then continued to go despite no longer caring about the toy. Habit forming is a major aim of all businesses and their advertising.
I'd bet 99.9% of those people also like pizza hut, taco bell, arbys, doritos, cheetohs, fudgesicles, chips ahoy, potato chips, sugary cereals, ice cream, donuts, soda, etc. and of those only the cereal comes with a toy  Just like you said, mcdonalds isn't the only problem so by itself this law is kind of useless. People that take their kid to mcdonalds more than 1-2 times a month probably have soooo many bad eating habits that removing a toy from a happy meal changes nothing.
|
On November 16 2010 12:57 Irrelevant wrote:
Last thing I want is government coming into my house and telling me what can go on my dinner table, that's not their role, that's not why we pay these bastards
I think people are still misunderstanding this particular statute. It's not banning kids from having fast food. It's banning companies from marketing certain products to your kids. You can still have whatever on your dinner table.
|
On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:31 reg wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores. Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors. Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no. Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution. Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy. But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures. Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working.
You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you?
|
On November 16 2010 13:01 XinRan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:On November 16 2010 12:31 reg wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores. Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors. Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no. Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution. Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy. But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures. Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working. You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you?
What kid is going to listen to their parents over a McDoanld's commercial?
|
On November 16 2010 13:01 XinRan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:On November 16 2010 12:31 reg wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores. Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors. Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no. Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution. Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy. But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures. Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working. You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you?
And how do you stop your kids friends from teasing them for not having the latest McDonalds toy? Life isnt a vacuum.
|
On November 16 2010 13:03 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 13:01 XinRan wrote:On November 16 2010 12:38 Manifesto7 wrote:On November 16 2010 12:31 reg wrote:On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores. Yeah, they're corporate motto is "first one's free" and they actively pray to Satan for addictive flavors. Seriously guys, its a toy. We all wanted Micky D's back in the day because of the fries; the toy was a bonus. Even so, if the toy was the only reason children wanted McDonald's, then why would a parent take their child to McDonalds more than once a day? Or once every few days? Or once a month? I remember wanting McDonalds succulent fries every day but, guess what, my mom and dad actually had the spine to say no. Children don't have money, they don't have a means of transport and they probably lack the social skills to engage in a conversation for their next McDonald's fix. Parents are the problem, punking McDonald's isn't the solution. Hey, the moral high horse is a great place to be, and I am glad that you didn't turn out to be an obese french fry craving lunatic because of a miniature plush toy. But if you look at obesity levels the reality is that you are the exception, not the norm. It is fine to say that parents should spine up, but looking around it doesn't seem as though that is happening. There is a real problem with overweight children in developed countries. So the government can either admonish people to "not take your kids to McDonalds, not buy soda, go for a daily walk, and ignore the billions in advertising dollars we are all exposed to", or they can take some other measures. Do I think this is going to solve the problem of fat kids? Nope, I think this is a pretty ham fisted (no pun intended) way of going about things. But this, in conjunction with numerous other changes, might give people more of a chance. Because right now, the evidence shows that the norm isn't working. You, as a parent, can prevent the billions of dollars worth of advertising from affecting your kids fairly easily. You can choose to Tivo TV commercials, turn on ad-blocker on Firefox, or even choose to not consumer any media. Even if advertising does reach your kids, you can convince your kids that the advertised product is not something they want. If a talking voice can persuade your kids, why can't you? What kid is going to listen to their parents over a McDoanld's commercial?
If as Manifesto said marketing is about saturation, it should be quite easy for the message of the parent to outweigh the message of the TV if it is constantly repeated. Also I feel like this argument has almost boiled down to "the government should make parenting easy."
"And how do you stop your kids friends from teasing them for not having the latest McDonalds toy? Life isnt a vacuum."
This is something that I don't believe has ever happened. Or at least doesn't happen on a scale large enough for the government to get involved.
|
The whole argument of whether parents can block these influences from kids is irrelevant. That fact is many parents aren't doing a good job of it whether you think they can or not. Yes you should take personal responsibility for your own poor choices, but why should the children take responsibility for the bad choices of their parents?
|
On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day.
You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them.
I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't.
On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start.
Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health.
|
On November 16 2010 13:10 reg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:I disagree with you about how ineffective advertising is, and I'm not going to just accept your statement as fact. In addition, I believe a lot of advertising is not about creating specific moments (although the super bowl is a good example of that) but creating saturation. I can't tell you the last ten ads I saw, but I can recite the ten most popular company jingles that I hear on TV and then subsequently hear in the supermarket the next day. You don't have to accept it as fact but it would be beneficial for you to consider it. But, riddle me this, have you ever acted on those ads? For an ad to be effective you have to do what they say. I've never visited freecreditreport or eaten at an Arby's or bought a Mercedes or drank a Bud Light, even though I'm exposed to those ads all the time, I never act on them. I refuse to believe, until given a good reason, that ads have some mystical power of children and adults. They simply don't. Show nested quote +On November 16 2010 12:59 Manifesto7 wrote:And again, this isn't a magic bullet. By itself this is ridiculous. Combine this with other measures such as removing corporate sponsorship of public schools by soda companies, creating incentives for healthier products, and public awareness and it might be a start. Well public schools can ban corporate sponsors if they want. Private schools should retain the right to have them. I don't know about creating incentives but I agree that getting rid of the disincentives would go along way for America's public health.
Here ya go, proof advertising can screw with little kids. And before you say oh thats smoking, its different- Food provides an immediate positive feedback loop, can be just as addicting as smoking, and teaches a lifetime of poor eating habits.
http://www.york.cuny.edu/yorkscholar/v1/pdfs/hull_tobacco_sp04.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
