Emircan Cikar
Freshman Comp. Spring 2015
03/16/2015
The Horrible Invention:
Television
As it
was first introduced to the society, there had been debates whether television would
improve the relationship in a family. Over the years, families that were able to afford a television, were thought to have a
stronger bond. But, some of those families have shown that television is a distraction, and caused the families to
watch television instead of spending quality time together. Later on, it was clearly established
that television has negative influence on family relationships.
Since
the introduction of television, families do not spend enough quality time together to build
a healthier bond amongst them. Today, financially stable families have a television in each room, which means that they can
lock themselves up in their room, and watch television in private. Even when it is dinner time, which is a very common
traditional way of a family to get together, the kids would be allowed to eat their dinner in
front of the television, while the parents get a quiet dinner time. Author, Marie Winn, in her essay “Television:
The Plug-In Drug” talks about how, ever since televisions were introduced, families had been spending
more time watching television instead of having a family time. She states, “Their ordinary daily life
together is diminished – those hours of sitting around at the dinner table, the spontaneous taking up
of an activity, the little games invented by the children on the spur of the moment when
there is nothing else to do … all the things that form the fabric of a family, that define a childhood. Instead, the children have their
regular schedule of television programs and bedtime, and the parents have their
peaceful dinner together” (p 468.) Winn believes that due to the domination of
television on families, the silly, but fun, activities made up to have something to do at the dinner
table, is lost. Those types of activities
that bring the families closer have been taken over by television, and the family quality time
is lost. Televisions not only diminishes the family time, but also has become the
medium of youth-targeted ads.
During
the 1980s, youth-targeted advertising was a technique used by many companies to
attract more consumers. The ads are strategically placed in-between the Saturday
morning cartoons. Since most children are babysat by the family television, the medium of
youth-targeted ads, the children can, unintentionally, become a future long-term consumer of a certain
product. Journalist, Eric Schlosser, in his essay “Kid Kustomers” writes about why the
youth-targeted ads became a common technique used by many companies: “to
increase not just current, but also future, consumption. [Companies] Hoping that nostalgic childhood memories
of a brand will lead to a life-time of purchases”, and he also states that
“companies now plan cradle-to-grave advertising strategies.” (p 354). Schlosser gives an example
of the discontinued Joe Camel ad campaign, and provides results from a study to prove his point. Schlosser says, “The discontinued Joe Camel
ad campaign, which used a hip cartoon character to sell cigarettes, showed how easily children
can be influence by the right corporate mascot. A 1991 study published in
the Journal of American Medical
Association found that nearly all of America’s six-year-olds could identify
Joe Camel, who was just as familiar to them as Mickey Mouse. Another study found that
one-third of the cigarettes illegally sold to minors were Camels” (pg 354.) Schlosser believes that
this technique of advertising is a commonly used by many companies to create a
long-term consumer. Schlosser also talks about how the youth-targeted advertisement causes
the children to nag to their parents, and misbehave.
Youth-targeted
advertisements can cause the children to nag to their parents, and even misbehave when
their parents deny their request to buy an item. In his essay, Schlosser illustrates the
seven types of nagging used by children, and those seven nagging techniques can be seen as
misbehavior. As Schlosser explains, “A pleading nag is
one accompanied by repetitions of word like ‘please’ or ‘mom, mom, mom.’ A persistent nag involves constant requests for coveted product and
may include the phrase ‘I am going to ask just one more time.’ Forceful nags are extremely pushy and may include subtle threats, like ‘Well, then, I will go ask Dad.’ The demonstrative nags are the most high-risk, often characterized by
full-blown tantrums in public places, breath-holding, tears, a refusal to leave the store. Sugar-coated nags promise affection in return for a purchase and
may rely on seemingly heartfelt declarations like ‘You are the best dad in the
world.’ Threatening nags are youthful forms of
blackmail, vows of eternal hatred and of running away if something isn’t bought. Pity nags claim the child will be heartbroken, teased, or socially stunned if the
parent refuses to buy a certain item.” (p 355.) Schlosser means that the youth-targeted ads aim to
get the children to request their product, and the children will use techniques that can later
cause them to misbehave.
No comments:
Post a Comment