Should advertising to young people be banned?
As I write this, I struggle to find a side to choose on the hot-topic of whether advertising to young people should be banned. On one hand, I say that it is wrong, that young people should be able to progress at their own rate and decide what they want to spend their money on. However, on the other hand I feel that advertising is unavoidable and even if consciously stopped, it will happen on another level. On yet another hand, I feel that young people are such a vital part of the economy that things would not be stable without them being targeted. By the end of this though, I will choose my side and lay down my allegiances.
Before I start on the main arguments, let's look at what advertising is by definition. "The act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc." (Dictionary.com). In my own words, it is the act of drawing attention to something through announcements. Keep this in mind.
"Teens are like Africa" (48 seconds into the first part). Hearing that said, so matter-of-factually is something that is quite unsettling. If you are of African heritage, or even not, you know what has happened when rich men in suits refer to Africa, seeing vast resources and opportunities but leaving the people ravaged. If teenagers are then like Africa, what does this say about what happens once they reach 20, and are no longer the target audience? They cannot think for their own and become fractured shells of beings, unable to function as they once were. Later another spokesman for an advertising agency says that "If you don't understand and recognize, what they're thinking and what they're feeling, you're going to lose, you're absolutely going to lose" (53 seconds into the first part). I'm sorry, are teenagers a game now? Are we suddenly the competition that you have to conquer over? Impersonal statements like this also leave you wondering whether all of these higher-ups actually care or even realize what they are doing to teenagers. In case you are seeking an answer, they don't care.
However, advertising is impossible to stop. Look at Britney Spears. Her music is not an ad., telling you to buy some product, it is instead a product itself with side effects of altered ideals. With her video Baby One More Time she is projecting a story that she can't bear to be alone, advertising the ideal of a couple. However, different interpretations of the lyrics can make it seem alright for girls to stay in abusive relationships because they really like the person. Songs like this also project the ideal of beauty. This therefore encourages the\at people invest in products that will make them prettier. And there is your ad right there, coming from a non-advertising source, one that cannot be altered as it is a deep-rooted part of the culture an changing it would be perceived as unconstitutional. Proof that, even without billboards and commercials, advertising cannot be stopped through mediums such as music, but on a larger level, word of mouth.
In many ways though, it would be irresponsible to stop advertising for young people if it were possible. Teenagers are responsible for anywhere between 100 and 150 billion dollars of our economy every year (3 minutes and 23 seconds into the first part). Now, say you remove the advertising, what do they spend their money on? That is what the marketing agencies of America want you to wonder. Granted, what would eventually happen would be a decrease in profit and in general sales, because kids would either not spend the money or they wouldn't receive it. As a result, the economy would dip, with major agencies having to restructure their companies. Also, even in this situation, the advertising would be focused towards the youngest audience they could approach, and this would trickle down through word of mouth. The only way to rid this effect would be to get rid of all advertising and word of mouth, which would destroy the economy.
All in all, I feel like the best way to approach advertising is to get rid of it. Let the product advertise itself. Companies spend upwards of $20,000 just to see what teenagers think is cool, when in reality they could just spend some money on interviewing kids to see what they think is cool. Over-exposure is never seen as cool, so this would make the products cooler as well. If companies focus on making a better product with all of this leftover money, they would end up with a larger profit and all in all a more stable and long-lasting appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment