A Summary and Response Essay - Kid Kustomers

Picking on Someone Not Your Own Size

            An experienced journalist, author,  and expert in the fast-food industry, Eric Schlosser, in his article, “Kid Kustomers”, published in 2001, addresses the ways American companies market and advertise to target children and argues that they are able to do so more often than ever before. Schlosser supports this claim by relating changes in society to the effectiveness of advertisements, then by illustrating techniques used by companies to target children, and finally he depends on concrete facts and statistics of the effects of advertisements and prevention of them. Schlosser’s purpose is to persuade the reader to support the ban of advertising targeted at children. Schlosser’s audience likely consists of those interested in the aspects that influence children as is evident through his references to the National Congress of Parents and Teachers and the Child Welfare League; he addresses readers with a tone that is reflective and informative.  

            In the first paragraph, Schlosser marks the start of marketing to children in the 1980s. This was the decade when many of both parents in a household started working thus spending little time with their children and as a result consuming more goods targeted toward them, as a compromise (353). Then, Schlosser complains that the creation of the internet is yet just another way companies can target and then bombard children with advertisement. Children, through the use of internet, supply companies with personal information, and as a result, the companies tailor their ads for children (356). Today, the average child in America devotes more time to watching TV than anything else besides sleeping, resulting in the child watching “more than thirty thousand TV commercials” a year (357). When Schlosser starts to relate the changes in society and technology to advertising, it doesn’t really affect me because I’m aware that society will always change due to scientific and technological advances. What did shock me however, are the ways advertising firms take advantage of these changes. It really is unfortunate that there is no existing concrete law, other than the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act as mentioned in the article, to regulate such cruel actions by firms. I can relate to this because on almost any website, one gets bombarded with advertisements based “cookies”, or things that relate to what a person previously googled or searched for. While I do agree with Schlosser’s stance on this, I do think that he should have addressed that parents are the ones responsible for putting a television in their child’s room. Also I do agree that children need to be shielded as Schlosser states “[children] cannot protect themselves (357).”  

            Schlosser reports the techniques used by companies to target children. American companies used children-targeted advertisements so much that ad agencies created sections and whole firms to only focus on children (353). Market researchers use surveys, focus groups, children’s artwork, and behavior observations to apply and incorporate the conclusions into ads (355). Companies not only looked to grow their current consumption levels but also gain a brand loyalty with the children so that the companies could project into future consumption. Advertisements started using mascots to connect to the target market and develop familiarity of the mascot just like the favorite voted ad of a talking Chihuahua from Taco Bell, according to the 1999 Kid’s Marketing Conference (354). The purpose of an ad with a mascot is to “perfectly fit the targeted age group’s level of cognitive and neurological development.” A children’s club is a good way for companies to collect information about the market and appeal to children (356). I definitely agree with what Schlosser has to say about the techniques that firms use to connect with children and develop loyalty with the brand. In the winters of my childhood for example, I only saw Coca-Cola ads - not Pepsi. These ads would use a big white polar bear as a mascot and so now when I chose which cola I want to drink, I mostly choose Coca-Cola because of the familiarity I have with the company from my childhood. I don’t have a problem with companies creating their own mascots. What I do have a problem with is when Schlosser says “they send cultural anthropologists into homes, stores, fast food restaurants, and other places where kids like to gather, quietly and surreptitiously observing the behavior of prospective customers (355).” First of all that sounds very invasive but most importantly that is extremely exaggerated, not only does that sound like spying but it is violating privacy rights and should definitely not be allowed. 

            Schlosser observes that it is easier for children to distinguish a brand logo than their own name. Advertisements imply a reason to kids for why they would want the product. As a result, children annoy their parents to buy the product (354). According to Professor James U. McNeal’s research, when children find a way to persuade their parents to buy a desired product, they will repeat the procedure next time (355). In 1998, eighty-nine percent of websites asked children for personal information, but by the year 2000 a federal law was passed prohibiting doing so (356). Studies showed that kids aren’t able to understand the purpose of ads and can’t distinguish between ads and television shows therefore would just trust what the ads showed. After the Federal Trade Commission suggested a ban on ads targeting children, supported by many organizations, it was quickly shut down by powerful companies that lobbied in Congress (357). I like how Schlosser, throughout the article, uses studies, statistics, and opinions of marketers, professors, and authority because doing so strongly reinforces his stance and persuades the reader effectively. Schlosser should have also expressed what parents, or other concerned people, can do to prohibit companies from excessively targeting children, because the reader may gain motivation in helping this cause. I am not surprised that it’s hard to change something about this since the government is basically run by large corporations anyway. It is still sad to see firms be so cruel and not mind whether or not what they are doing is harming children psychologically.

            Schlosser effectively uses examples, statistics, and facts to support his claims on the ways American companies market and advertise to target children. This article informed me of the impacts advertisements have on children I previously was not aware of.  It is obvious what Schlosser’s stance is, and he is able to express it without being judgmental. After Schlosser presents us with his argument, he exposes us to the blockade of industry groups lobbying Congress resulting in lowering our drive to want to change anything about the issue of advertising. Schlosser ends his article by explaining the situation of children encountering ads today.

Schlosser, Eric. “Kid Kustomers.” 2001. 352-57. Print.