"Do you have a sudden urge for a candy bar?"

Just reading these words may make a person's mouth water, as they think of their favorite snack. Commercials often contain words like "new", "fantastic", "natural", "the taste of real ...", "better tasting", "because we care", or "for a limited time only". When weasel words are used, they suggest something positive and appealing about a product. Children are easily misled to believe in its perceived benefits.

Another popular way to entice children is to display excitement and fun with the product. A commercial may show a scene such as children enjoying a pool party and dancing, while they drink fruit punch. Or, a child could take a bite of a candy bar and all of a sudden be surfing in Hawaii.

Commercials are often repeated several times during a thirty-minute cartoon segment. The name of a product may be shown or said several times during the commercial. Advertisers know that the more a product is mentioned, the more likely a child is to remember to buy the product. Though, repetition can also have a negative effect when the audience is forced to view the commercial too often and a resistance to the product is created.

The "scale" or visual portrayal of a product can be easily deceitful to kids. The camera can make food look aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The child is unaware of the possibilities that the food is actually made of synthetic material, and enlarged to show texture. Maybe, there should be a warning similar to that of a rearview mirror – "objects on screen may be different from the actual product".

Music is used as a sure thing in ads to create certain moods. Food products will contain cheerful, playful music to add to the fun of the special treat. Music can also provide jingles that can become a part of a child's singing repertoire. Catchy jingles can remind the child of the commercial and product at any time.

Children watch animated characters in movies and on screen. Why not identify with them in advertisements too? Popular cartoons are shown with products to allow the child to identify and trust these friendly characters; therefore, they in turn trust and like the product. If Tony the Tiger says, "Frosted Flakes are great", they must be!

Kids can be deceived by the use of disclaimers or omissions (used so an ad does not give the full story). For an advertisement to say "part of this complete breakfast" does not clarify that the sugary cereal is not a meal. Misleading statements can be easily misinterpreted. The disclaimer should say "to eat a healthy breakfast, you must eat other things too". Advertisers have changed the message to say "part of this good breakfast", but still do not clarify what that means. The phrase does not say that you must also eat everything that is displayed with the product for it to be considered somewhat of a "good" breakfast.

With the discovery of these tactics, I decided to sit down during the popular hours of Saturday morning cartoons, and analyze a commercial. There were several ads that used the techniques just mentioned, but the commercial I found of most interest, was an ad for Parkay Fun Squeeze margarine spread. It was advertised several times on the Warner Brothers station from the eight to nine o'clock hour. The product comes in a squeeze bottle and has a color selection of blue or pink margarine.

The setting of the margarine commercial takes place in a "Secret Kid Science Lab" with kids from the ages of five to ten. There are four main children in the scene and several extras busily engaged with experiments in the background. All of the children are wearing white lab jackets. The lighting and shading consist of a white and light-blue tint. The brightest tones are the pink and blue colors of the spread. Several kids in the background are working at tables with big flasks, full of bubbly, light pink and blue liquid. There are big television screens in the lab that show the regular Parkay change to the new spread. The kids point and focus their attention on this transforming process.

The scene starts with a nine-year-old boy and seven-year-old girl walking towards the screen, as the boy begins to talk. He says that the "Secret Kid Science Center" has done something no parent would ever do, by taking regular Parkay and making it pink and blue. A younger boy jumps up on the screen to say, "it tastes like butter", as he bites into a piece of bread with the Parkay spread on top.

The main boy jumps back in to explain that "top researchers are now putting blue on bread, pink on potatoes, watching colors change on corn," and with a pause, "testing the crucial parent gross-out factor". A mother is offered some bread with the Electric Blue Parkay and is repulsed by the idea. The seven-year-old girl tells the main boy, "We've got to share this stuff". Then a Parkay bottle shows up on the right side of the screen and says, "buttery tasting new Parkay Fun Squeeze". The four kids run to the middle of the screen holding the squeeze bottles and ask, "What have we created?"

The music that is used in the commercial is light and cheerful. In the beginning it has a whistling sort of tone and changes to the sound of a timer, when the kids show how they changed the margarine. The music has a crescendo, when they start to explain how the spread can be used. Then, there is a pause and deep tone, or thud, as they test the crucial parent gross-out factor. The music builds up again when the girl assistant announces that they must share the spread. Another pause follows for the kids to say, "What have we created?" Then the music completes, ending in the same key it started in.

The dialogue contains several "weasel" words. Words like "buttery tasting", "new", "fun", and phrases such as "we've done something no parent would do", give kids a chance to try something new and exciting that parents will hate. The dialogue directs the idea of challenging authority. Kids very often want something that parents will not approve of, or like.

The idea of excitement and fun are used throughout the ad. The music is cheerful and interesting. It changes to different tones when it is necessary. The kids show how fun it is to draw smiley faces and squiggles on the food. The talking butter is almost a cartoon character that the child relates to. It has a high-pitched male tone so it will not sound like an adult, but more like an older kid who is excited about the product. The biggest focus for this ad is to let kids think that other kids created the product, to have more fun with food, and to gross out parents. The only portrayal of an adult authority comes with the grossed out mother. This commercial influences children to buy the product, because it implies the product tastes good, will provide fun, and helps them challenge authority.

Recently, I happened to come across the bright pink and blue bottles in the grocery store. The ideas of efficiency and simple access for children ran through my mind. The bottle was not as big as it seemed to be in the commercial. It was the perfect size for kids to handle. The bottle is plastic, making it possible for a child to not need any adult supervision when grabbing and squeezing the bottle. The appearance is that of a fun, easy-to-use product that just needs to be placed in the refrigerator.

There have been various studies, which have asked children about the personal effect that an advertisement has had on them. In the book "Harvesting Minds", Roy Fox talks to several youth about their opinions of commercials. It is focused on the commercials that are seen in a school setting, but the idea is the same for a child watching commercials at home. A number of his interviews brought up the fact that the kids bought a food product, because they saw the advertisement. Here are a couple of interviews that show how the techniques in the ads influenced them.

First Interview: Beth: I saw Fruitopia on a commercial and bought that. RF: Did you try this drink as a result of the commercial? Beth: Yeah. The commercial's, like, really psychedelic and they have prismatic figures. It's like a kaleidoscope. And the bottle is really cool, too. RF: Why is the bottle cool? Beth: It's just real colorful and has weird designs on it. It has bubble letters and little people, and it has your brain and the world on it. RF: Your brain? Beth: Yes. It shows life and the mind. It's trying to say it's good for your mind, and it's good for your body, and good for the earth. It has, like, symbols, kind of, of what this means. RF: So, why is Fruitopia good? Beth: I don't know. I don't pay any attention to that stuff. (Fox 76)

Second Interview: Becky: I buy Skittles and M&M's because I like their commercials- the one when they're at camp and two M&M's say, "Rise and shine", and another one is writing home. Mora: They're earning their M's- their letters. RF: Had you tried M&M's before this commercial? Becky: Well, yes, I had. But I didn't eat 'em very often- and now I eat 'em every time I can. I think they're so cute! (Fox 143)

These interviews prove that the techniques directed to kids in an advertisement can influence their buying power. Can children have the same desire for healthy food, if it is presented in an exciting way on screen? Research has shown that any type of food advertised can give a favorable impression on a child's mind. If fruits and vegetables were advertised, instead of sweetened cereals, a child would prefer the fruits and vegetables.

An experiment conducted by Gorn and Goldberg, in the "Journal of Consumer Research", tested this question. They invited children to attend a summer camp that had four different treatments of voluntary television viewing. They showed candy ads, fruit ads, public service announcements on lowering sugar intake, and programs without ads. After watching TV, they were able to select beverages and snacks from another room. Those who watched the candy ads selected more candy. Those who watched more fruit commercials, or no commercials, chose fruit over candy. The researchers said these children knew what to eat, "but whether they acted upon this awareness and actually chose more fruit seemed to be a function of whether or not they had been exposed to commercials for candy" (McNeal 82). It is the constant portrayal of food on the screen that persuades children to want the substance.

Once a child has been exposed to the commercials, they influence their parents to buy the product. Parents feel guilty about purchasing junk food, but are also afraid to say "no". "They worry that always saying 'no' will increase their child's depression or worsen an already strained parent-child relationship" (Kanner and Kasser). Many parents, who allow their kids to choose what they want to eat, give children a greater chance to select what is advertised. The parent is often willing to buy the easy-to-make, inexpensive product to keep their child happy.

Unfortunately, many parents are neglecting the importance of a healthy home-cooked meal. Parents find themselves with little time to cook nutritious meals for their kids. They end up giving children what is convenient and keeps them happy. Parents often do not think about reading between the lines to recognize that something advertised, "as part of a nutritious breakfast" or "fortified with 12 vitamins and minerals", may not necessarily mean they are giving their children the best nutritional substance. Popular, processed brand name foods do not guarantee quality provisions.

Many countries have banned commercials from children, because of the potent influence. Sweden and Norway governments prohibit targeting children under the age of twelve. Quebec restricts ads under the age of thirteen. Even some advertising agencies find it unethical to advertise to children. Managing director of a Swedish Agency, Ingrid Lindstrom, says, "We should let children be children. We shouldn’t make them into consumers too quickly" (Ruskin 4).

In America, marketing to kids is viewed as a First Amendment right. Yet, the advertising industry is split over the issue to ban commercials; some think that the attacks toward marketing are farfetched, while others say the standards should be different between children and adults.

An unhealthy environment surrounds young children everyday. Some may say that we are all surrounded in a society of predominant fats and sugars; advertising has nothing to do with it. However, there is a systemic force that drives us to these products. A persistent need develops to find cheaper and faster means to feed children, while also rationalizing that the processed inventions are somehow nutritional substances.

So, what is the point of analyzing advertising techniques and finding a link with children's health? Is there a correlation between these ads and American children's deteriorating health?

At first, it seemed apparent to me that because of the strong and direct affect that television advertising had on influencing children's choices, banning advertisements may be the best way to protect them from being persuaded to buy processed food products. As I have analyzed the concept even more, it seems as though banning commercials would not provide a definite solution.

Though, television advertising has the strongest influence, there are several other minor ways to persuade, such as print images, product displays, and vending machines, in which, marketers sell their products. Since all types of advertising can be persuasive, maybe a more reasonable approach would be to air television commercials that focus on healthier food substances. There can also be time given for public service announcements, which can teach children the importance of nutrition. This could offer a positive influence on children's choices, as the products that are advertised could shift to promote nutritional foods.

As parents become more aware of the importance of a balanced diet, they have the responsibility of teaching their children. Parents should not allow their children to persuade them to buy the newest 'fad' junk food. Of course, many parents are also addicted to processed foods, and feed their children the same. If parents will concentrate on eating correctly themselves, it will be easier for them to influence their children.

There is a blurred line between what are right and wrong foods for children. People will always have different perspectives on what is appropriate for a child's diet, and debate about what shortcuts can make eating easier and more efficient. Yet, most everyone can agree that the products displayed on television, at the present time, are not of any true value for a child's diet.

Children have not been integrated into the world for a long enough period to recognize the strategies people use to get economically ahead. "Americans spend billions of dollars and suffer tremendously as a result of chronic diseases linked to high-fat diets, low in fruits and vegetables; yet, food manufacturers spend billions of dollars pitching that same unhealthful diet to the littlest most vulnerable consumers - those who have the most to gain from getting a jump start on good eating habits" (Tufts University Diet and Nutrition Letter). The irony is that children obtain these unhealthful products, but will end up needing to obtain healthcare in the future to counteract years of bad diet decisions.

Society is moving without caution. The need to be fast and competent will run us into a wall. At the present time, childhood obesity has escalated. For these future adults, they will find a continued increase in their health problems and addiction to these products. There will be a discovery of more health problems in their future generations, as they teach their own children to enjoy the same toxins.

It is important that parents and children recognize persuasive commercials. Parents can teach children to decipher the products for themselves, and not let the commercials do the work. Children should receive quality foods for the basis of their diet. Future generations can be greatly blessed to have a head start on healthy eating.

Then maybe commercials will be able to say, "Obey your thirst, drink water." "Carrot sticks; they're great!" "How much spinach can you handle?" "Did somebody say, whatever happened to French Fries?"

Bibliography

(1) Anderson, Robin and Lance Strate, eds. "Critical Studies in Media Commercialism." Oxford: NY, 2000.

(2) "Advertising Strategies" Media Awareness Network. 9 Mar. 2002. www.media-awareness.ca.

(3) "Fast Food, Fat Children". CBSNEWS.com. (21 April 2001). 14 Mar. 2002. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/21/eveningnews/main287029.shtml.

(4) Fox, Roy F. "Harvesting Minds: How T.V. Commercials Control Kids." Praeger: CT, 1996.

(5) Jones, John Phillip, ed. "The Advertising Business." Sage: CA, 1999.

(6) "Just the Facts about Advertising and Marketing to Children". The Center for a New American Dream. 6 Feb. 2002. www.newdream.org/campaign/kids/facts.html.

(7) Kanner, Allen D. PhD and Tim Kasser, PhD. "Stuffing Our Kids: Should Psychologists Help Advertisers Manipulate Children?" The California Psychologist. 6 Feb. 2002. www.commercialalert.org/psychology/apalet.html.

(8) McNeal, James U. "Kids As Customers" Lexington Books: NY, 1992.

(9) O'Mara, Sheila. "Kids a Powerful Market Force". Home Accents Today. (July 2001). 2 Mar. 2002. www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0BCU/7-16/76842751/print.jhtml.

(10) Packard, Vance. "Our Endangered Children: Growing Up in a Changing World." Little, Brown and Company: MA, 1983.

(11) Parkay Fun Squeeze Commercial. KFVE, Hawaii. 9 Mar. 2002.

(12) Ritzer, George. "The McDonaldization of Society." Pine Forge Press: MA, 2000.

(13) Ruskin, Gary "Why They Whine : How Corporations Prey On Our Children" www.mothering.com/10-0-0/html/10-3-0/10-3-whine97.shtml

(14) "Target Market". Child's Play Communications. 1 Mar. 2002 www.childsplaypr.com/target.html.

(15) "TV Food Ads Feed Kids the Wrong Message". Tufts University and Nutrition Letter. 12:11 (Jan. 1995): 7. Academic Search Elite. Online. 14 Feb. 2002.

(16) Zoll, Miriam H. "Psychologists Challenge Ethics of Marketing to Children". American News Service. (5 April 2000). 6 Feb. 2002. www.mediachannel.org/originals/kidsell.shtml.

Links To Articles on Banning Soft Drinks in Schools: www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_1354918,00.html www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/26/health/main516520.shtml www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/business/coke/0602/15debate.html