Ever since 1957, when James Vicary lied about splicing subliminal messages into a movie to incease Coke and popcorn sales, it has been fashionable—and handy—to accuse advertising of having powers it doesn't possess, and of causing society's ills. 

Enough. We don't know how to manipulate you or your kids against your will. And though I know of no advertisers who use subliminal practices, if there are cranks who attempt it, don't let them scare you. Scientifically valid testing has shown that subliminal advertising has no effect. At all. (Yes, I am aware of so-called tests that allegedly say otherwise. The tests are based on flawed methodology and are invalid.) (Speaking of matters sublimimal, those tapes that play while you’re asleep? Pure flimflam.)

As I write, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is pushing legislation to “eliminate the tax deductibility of fast food and junk food advertising directed at children.”

Advertising is a business expense. What is legal to sell should be legal to advertise. If you object to a product, seek to have it banned, not to make it harder to sell.

Meanwhile, try personal responsibility as a parent for a change. Yes, shocking as it may sound, I am suggesting teaching values in your home. You can use those dreaded media messages as launch points for great, values-centered conversations.

Do not blame your and your kids' bad habits on the media. No one is obese because the media made them that way. People get fat when they eat more than they burn. Kids get fat when parents don't ensure they get a balanced diet. Certainly the why behind a compulsive overeating problem is a more involved question, but ads are not part of the answer.

Ads suggest. You still get to decide what to do with the suggestion. And you remain accountable for the decision, no matter whom you try to blame.

Some related thoughts:
 
• Ever notice the double standards used by ad-blamers? Most will tell you that they are not controlled by ads; it's everyone else they're worried about. 
 
• People claim that fast food ads cause obesity. Yet people also claim that skinny models in ads cause anorexia and bulimia. Come on, folks. Pick one.

• Programming is far less regulated than advertising. You will see actors drink booze in movies and TV shows, but never in a TV commercial. It's illegal, even in a booze ad. Remember the old Playtex commercials that showed bras on mannequins but not on real women? That was because, until a couple of decades ago, you could show a lingerie-clad woman in programming—even naked, in a movie—but not in a commercial.

• If you want to save lives, I suggest raising your voice against Jenny McCarthy’s anti-vaccination crusade. Kids may be getting plump at McDonald’s, but McCarthy's actions are killing tens of thousands of children right now, with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands or more in the near future. And, sadly, someday putting them on a diet won’t save these kids.
Steve Cuno
 


Comments

towr
10/31/2009 16:55

It has been shown that children will eat more snacks when they watch TV when shown food commercials as opposed to neutral commercials. ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014399 ) I'm fairly sure there are more examples, but since I read this in the last few weeks it came to mind.

If commercials didn't have an effect on people's behaviour, then they would not be used. (Or shouldn't, by anyone with any economical sense.)
Children are more vulnerable to suggestion and less responsible for their own actions and decisions. So it does not seem unreasonable to me to regulate advertising aimed at children in a different and more stringent manner than advertising aimed at adults (who are expected to be fully responsible for their own actions, even though many aren't).

Simple fact is, advertising affects behaviour; it may not effect it, but it does affect it. And it may do so in ways that are not desirable (either by the persons affected, or society as a whole). You are right to say parents should take responsibility, and protect their children from overindulging in unhealthy food and sedentary lifestyles. However, the problem is that not all children have parents that are that responsible.
A society should protect its children, especially when their parents won't. The question is whether further regulating advertising will do this. The article I referred to suggests it will do so in at least one small way. I'd have to review more research to be able to say whether it will also do so in more significant ways, but I do think it's worth further examination.
If only we could split a population in two and "deprive" one half of advertising to see what the effects really are.


On a final note I'm sorry to say that, as far as argumentation goes, those "further thoughts" -- true as they may be in themselves -- read like a series of fallacies.
* Even if ad-blamers did have double standards, it doesn't mean they are wrong.
* Even if people claim two things, one of which is wrong, it doesn't mean the other is wrong also. Less so when they aren't even necessarily the same people.
* Even if there are worse offenders on TV than adverts, that doesn't leave adverts off the hook.
* Even if there are worse problems in the world, it doesn't make make this particular problem go away.
Although some of these things are worth saying, in the context I feel they detract from your argument.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply