“But mum, I really need it!

Usual weekly shopping at the supermarket. Shifting grocery aisles, you pop in a six year old offspring
jumping on their parent, screaming to get a particular item they immediately want, because it’ve just
seen a role model presenting it in TV. Obviously, the kid MUST have it. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
It’s a classical effect of advertising.

As children are constantly growing, educating and getting to know the world, they are much easier to
influence then adults. That’s why producers use them to increase their sells. Is manipulating young
minds ethically correct? You know the answear. Then why are still no legal actions taken in that area
by governments, even with so many calls? They say “If we don’t know what the deal is, then the deal
is money” and it works out in this case. It is well-known that the aim of entertainment is to earn
money. Apparently, the gain made on views of broadcasts is not enought and the major part of the
final profit is made by commercials. Children’s TV channels just wouldn’t be worthwile without
advertising.

I’ve recently read an article about the case in UK. The government banned promoting food
containing high level of fat in children’s TV programmes as a respond to fighting the level of obesity.
Suprisingly, it didn’t result it decreasing it. Why? Well, obesity is known to be a complex problem. It’s
depedent not only to eating habits, but also to genetics and working out. Advertising selling fast
foods have an impact only on one of the factor and, moreover, kids don’t just watch fairy tales. They
also surf the internet, see banners on buildings on their way to school and watch TV with their older
relatives.

Although banning advertisment on children’s TV would be a noble action, it’s unrealistic and cost-
ineffective. Furthermore, children are exposed to many more ways of advertising in total, so cutting
just one of them won’t make a big difference in their decisions, but may lead to less profits for TV
producers.