Ban Ronald McDonald?

[maiforpeace]

40% of advertising targeted to children is, in my personal opinion, excessive.

With all due respect, because seraph said it doesn't make it true.

Actually, I believe you were the one who provided us with that information when you posted the link to Corporate Accountability International's Ban Ronald McDonald campaign, I couldn't find it there though.

According to its 2006 Annual Report, McDonald's is the leading global food service retailer with more than 30,000 local restaurants serving 52 million people in more than 100 countries each day. Its 2006 revenues were $21.6 billion, up 16% from 2004. In 2006, McDonald's spent almost $2.5 million a day on traditional advertising in the United States. About 40% of McDonald's total advertising budget is directed at children.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022334.html

[mistermack]

This crap about how the food gets into the kids' mouths, and who buys it, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
I don't give a toss if parents do buy that shit for their kids, under pestering duress or not. The reality is that the ads get the kids to want it, and kids get what they want. Kids are innocent and gullible and need to be protected, and that is part of the job of a government.

I think a government has every right to place controls on ads aimed at kids, if it's going against what that government is aiming at, healthier eating.
Advertising is not a basic human right. If we as a country don't like what it's doing, we have the right to change it.
And the government got elected to do a job, and that is to govern as THEY THINK is best for the country.
If the public don't like it, they will choose another one next time.
Protecting people like McDonalds on the grounds of some kind of "liberty of advertising" is bollocks. They will survive it, and adapt. If they could show that their kiddie food was less shite, they might even sell more stuff.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

40% of advertising targeted to children is, in my personal opinion, excessive.

With all due respect, because seraph said it doesn't make it true.

Actually, I believe you were the one who provided us with that information when you posted the link to Corporate Accountability International's Ban Ronald McDonald campaign, I couldn't find it there though.

According to its 2006 Annual Report, McDonald's is the leading global food service retailer with more than 30,000 local restaurants serving 52 million people in more than 100 countries each day. Its 2006 revenues were $21.6 billion, up 16% from 2004. In 2006, McDonald's spent almost $2.5 million a day on traditional advertising in the United States. About 40% of McDonald's total advertising budget is directed at children.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022334.html

Interesting source, but it doesn't explain how they arrive at that figure. I read the article and the allegation is made, but they didn't go into what they considered "directed at" children. Does it have to be on a children's television channel or in a children's magazine? Or, does it just have to be in a place that children might be? Is the advert on the roadside sign "directed at children" since they know children will be in cars? Considering the source of the report, I think those are fair questions.

Mind you, I don't know what the number is, so 40% might be true. I'm not just going to accept that number, though, just because someone with an already anti-McDonald's bias says so. Someone must have calculated the number through some methodology. I'd like to know how they did it. I tried to get to the 2006 Annual Report, where the stat is from, but I can't seem to access it.

[maiforpeace]

Don't accept it then CES.

Of course, all of your links and sources are always unbiased and fair, whereas when someone else posts something they are always biased.

Just Google the appropriate question. That was only one source, there were others too, some of them suggested that as much as 67% of their advertising budget was geared to children. I picked 40% since it was the average of what most articles and papers quoted.

Even if it's just 20%, it's still too much especially if, as you assert, it's the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat.

[sandinista]

Didn't we go over all of this already?

If you live in a city, and you walk home from school, the likelihood you will pass a McDonald's on the way home is huge. I live in a more rural area, that actually is pretty evolved when it comes to healthy eating habits, and the one McDonald's that isn't even near the high school is always jam packed full of teenagers. Then there are the vans galore of parents going through the drive through to buy the "kids who can't drive" their snacks. The dollar menu was designed specifically for after school snacks.

I can't be arsed to look for the post now, but earlier in this thread I posted a quote, directly from Mr. Kroc himself, that said he was happy they could now do fly overs in a helicopter instead of a plane (back in the sixties I expect), because it was a lot easier to find where the schools were, so they could open McDonald's stores nearby. I also posted numerous facts about how McDonald's includes gift certificates in school report card envelopes, does teacher promotions in schools, etc. etc.

To insist that McDonald's doesn't specifically target children in a huge portion of their advertising is utter bullshit.

[Gallstones]

This crap about how the food gets into the kids' mouths, and who buys it, is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
I don't give a toss if parents do buy that shit for their kids, under pestering duress or not. The reality is that the ads get the kids to want it, and kids get what they want. Kids are innocent and gullible and need to be protected, and that is part of the job of a government.

I think a government has every right to place controls on ads aimed at kids, if it's going against what that government is aiming at, healthier eating.
Advertising is not a basic human right. If we as a country don't like what it's doing, we have the right to change it.

NO. Interference is not asserting a right. What you have the right to do if you don't like advertising is ignore or boycott. But you do not get to silence on my behalf without my agreement or permission.

And the government got elected to do a job, and that is to govern as THEY THINK is best for the country.
If the public don't like it, they will choose another one next time.

For the citizens of the US it is government "of the people, by the people, for the people,". The prepositions 'of' and 'by' are pertinent.

Protecting people like McDonalds on the grounds of some kind of "liberty of advertising" is bollocks. They will survive it, and adapt. If they could show that their kiddie food was less shite, they might even sell more stuff.
.

They offer salads, fruit, yogurt......less shite enough?

McDonald's is not a people, it is a business.

I don't need, nor do I welcome the government to be deciding for me what protections I need.
My son liked the toys in the Happy Meals, he liked the play room. He isn't obese, he likes a variety of vegetables and fruits and whole grains and vegetarian meals. He is seventeen now and I think he survived the brief Happy Meal period unscathed. I didn't need the government to protect him from me or McDonald's.

Maybe it is because my son is just more intellectually competent than the other, poor, suggestively vulnerable children?

[Gallstones]

McDonalds sells far more food to adults than they do to children. Their advertisements are mainly not geared toward children.

40% of McDonalds' advertising is aimed at children. The children get their parents to buy the stuff for them, frequently by badgering them into giving in.

(Another libertarian lecture about freely made choices and decisions in 9... 8... 7... 6...)

Have I obliged?

[Gallstones]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

I don't think you've established any percentage, and you're the one making the positive assertion that advertising to children is excessive and is the cause of obesity.

Children watching child targeted programming are bombarded by advertising targeting children. And among all that noise McDonald's is the most egregious and influential culprit?

Seriously?

[Coito ergo sum]

Don't accept it then CES.

O.k. - but, for the record - I read the article and looked for the sources, and tried to open the original source to see what the method was. It's not as if I just tossed it out. I also specifically stated that I don't claim that it can't be the number - I am just accurately stating that nobody has established it yet, and the source provided has an incentive to want the number bigger, and there was no disclosure of how the number was arrived at. It's just a conclusory statement. I wouldn't accept it at face value from anyone.

Of course, all of your links and sources are always unbiased and fair, whereas when someone else posts something they are always biased.

Every source has a bias. However, there are some principles we can use when addressing bias: (a) if you rely on a source that is antithetical to your position, it's more reliable -- example - if the anti-McDonald's source published a statistic that actually cast McDonalds in a good light, one is warranted in relying on that number since the anti-McDonald's source would have an incentive to make McDonald's look bad, not good - like an admission against interest; (b) Even a biased source can be accurate, which is why we ask all sources to cite their backup - if someone publishes a statistic, it's fair to say that statistics don't come out of thin air - if they do, they aren't reliable - right? If they didn't come out of thin air, then there must have been a methodology, right? And, a good methodology can be verified or at least confirmed, right?

I never claimed to only cite completely unbiased sources and completely fair sources. But, if I cite a statistic, it's generally easy to see where it came from and to verify the methodology. If someone says 4 out of 5 Dentists surveyed say X - do we just believe them? Of course not. We say - let's see the survey.

Just Google the appropriate question. That was only one source, there were others too,

I did. I told you that I found the actual survey in which that 40% number was first published. The link is broken, so I can't open it.

some of them suggested that as much as 67% of their advertising budget was geared to children. I picked 40% since it was the average of what most articles and papers quoted.

Even if it's just 20%, it's still too much especially if, as you assert, it's the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat.

As I assert? Are you suggesting that it's NOT the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat? Who else should?

One thing that I find puzzling is the ease at which undefined terms are thrown around as if they mean something. "Advertising to children?" Is that something that you think is objectively verifiable? What is considered 'advertising to children?" Anything on television between the hours of 7am and 9pm? Only ads on children's television and in kids' magazines? Does children's television mean television that children may watch, or television specifically directed to appeal to kids?

I found your 40% number, but I couldn't get at the primary source material that explains how they arrived at it. I did another google and found nothing approaching 67%.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

I don't think you've established any percentage, and you're the one making the positive assertion that advertising to children is excessive and is the cause of obesity.

Children watching child targeted programming are bombarded by advertising targeting children. And among all that noise McDonald's is the most egregious and influential culprit?

Seriously?

Based on the argument leveled against Micky D's advertising, there should not be any advertising for anything directed at children. After all, children will be influenced by advertising to nag their parents for stuff and the parents are powerless to resist.

[maiforpeace]

some of them suggested that as much as 67% of their advertising budget was geared to children. I picked 40% since it was the average of what most articles and papers quoted.

Even if it's just 20%, it's still too much especially if, as you assert, it's the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat.

As I assert? Are you suggesting that it's NOT the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat? Who else should?

One thing that I find puzzling is the ease at which undefined terms are thrown around as if they mean something. "Advertising to children?" Is that something that you think is objectively verifiable? What is considered 'advertising to children?" Anything on television between the hours of 7am and 9pm? Only ads on children's television and in kids' magazines? Does children's television mean television that children may watch, or television specifically directed to appeal to kids?

I found your 40% number, but I couldn't get at the primary source material that explains how they arrived at it. I did another google and found nothing approaching 67%.

Exactly. So, if it is solely the parent making the decision, then why does McDonald's advertise to children?

You are seriously saying that Ronald McDonald, the icon of McDonald's was marketing directly targeting adults only? I don't need objective verification to figure that one out. I guess that makes me much less of a skeptic.

A few interesting abstracts and articles on marketing to children and whether or not advertising to children is "objectively verifiable" or not.

http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 68,00.html

[Gallstones]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

I don't think you've established any percentage, and you're the one making the positive assertion that advertising to children is excessive and is the cause of obesity.

Children watching child targeted programming are bombarded by advertising targeting children. And among all that noise McDonald's is the most egregious and influential culprit?

Seriously?

Based on the argument leveled against Micky D's advertising, there should not be any advertising for anything directed at children. After all, children will be influenced by advertising to nag their parents for stuff and the parents are powerless to resist.

The solution is right in front of us, use that same suggestive power to target the parents to resist the nagging.
Use those mandatory free public service broadcasting minutes to do it.

There, everyone can feel better now.

[sandinista]

good links, maiforpeace, especially the "Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3", thats awful.

[Coito ergo sum]

some of them suggested that as much as 67% of their advertising budget was geared to children. I picked 40% since it was the average of what most articles and papers quoted.

Even if it's just 20%, it's still too much especially if, as you assert, it's the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat.

As I assert? Are you suggesting that it's NOT the parents that should be making the decision as to what children should eat? Who else should?

One thing that I find puzzling is the ease at which undefined terms are thrown around as if they mean something. "Advertising to children?" Is that something that you think is objectively verifiable? What is considered 'advertising to children?" Anything on television between the hours of 7am and 9pm? Only ads on children's television and in kids' magazines? Does children's television mean television that children may watch, or television specifically directed to appeal to kids?

I found your 40% number, but I couldn't get at the primary source material that explains how they arrived at it. I did another google and found nothing approaching 67%.

Exactly. So, if it is solely the parent making the decision, then why does McDonald's advertise to children?

For the same reason Lego and Bob The Builder market to children. So kids will know about it and want it. Why else? Parents are still solely the ones making the decision to buy the fat kid Legos, Bob the Builder, or a hamburger. We had far fewer regulations of this nature in the 1960s and 1950s, and parents were fully capable of keeping their kids from getting fat, for the most part.

You are seriously saying that Ronald McDonald, the icon of McDonald's was marketing directly targeting adults only?

No. Where did I ever say that?

I don't need objective verification to figure that one out. I guess that makes me much less of a skeptic.

I don't either, and nobody said that they were marketing to adults ONLY. That's, of course, not the same thing at all as saying X% of advertising is directed at children.

A few interesting abstracts and articles on marketing to children and whether or not advertising to children is "objectively verifiable" or not.

http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 68,00.html

The first one is a nice article - it doesn't, of course, pertain to how "marketing to children" is differentiated from other marketing and how the percentages are determined, and it doesn't indicate the percentages. It does state that marketing to children is done (not in dispute), and that it is done on television and other marketing channels. It also goes into children's influence on purchasing decisions, and what they eat, etc.

What is it that you think these articles show? That there is too much advertising to children?

Regarding the second article, I found it alarming, but probably for a different reason than you did. Take the following bit: "By age two, say the Stanford researchers, children can already form beliefs about brands, and advertising during children's television programming, or through other media accessed by youngsters, further solidifies their ability to distinguish brand names, logos and packaging." I find that disturbing because I can't believe a child has even watched commercial television at or before the age of two. Reminds me of a quote from the movie Parenthood: "You need a license to get a dog. But, they'll let any swingin' dick become a father." Fuck, man...

Another interesting quote: "There should be no advertising at all aimed at children under the age of eight, even if it could be harnessed to teach kids about healthy eating habits." Really? None? O.k. - but, that's not just limited to Micky D's, though. No toy commercials, drink commercials, nothing. Yes? There are far worse things advertised on television when kids are watching than McDonalds.

And, "Dr. Victor Strasburger, professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, says "using advertising in a positive way just doesn't sit right with me. It's Orwellian. To put it bluntly, advertising to children under the age of seven or eight is electronic child abuse. I think we ought to leave kids who are under seven or eight out of all advertising." I can see that - but, how do we avoid getting rid of all commercial advertising? Kids don't just ignore everything else on t.v. between the hours of 7am and 9pm. They watch it all, and take it all in. How do we distinguish between "advertising to children" and "advertising watched by children?"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... z1CGnJxaBe

[Coito ergo sum]

good links, maiforpeace, especially the "Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3", thats awful.

It is. The fact that a parent would take a three year old to McDonalds is sickening, isn't it?

How does a kid that age even know what McDonalds tastes like?

I swear - the way people raise their kids. Maybe we ought to require parenting classes of all people who become parents.

1. Bathe your child daily.
2. Make sure your child gets plenty of sleep.
3. Change your child's diaper regularly.
4. Do not take your kids to fast food restaurants until they are at least in school, or at least wait until the child is out of diapers. FFS, people....how the hell could it be an advertiser's fault that a fucking 2 year old is being taken to McDonalds? Christ on a bicycle...
5. A pet peeve of mine - of your child is in diapers, don't keep him or her out to all hours of the evening - kids that age should be in bed by, like 7:30pm - if you're carrying your child out to the fucking Applebees at 9:30pm, you ought to be pistol whipped.

Criminy - nothing more of a pet peeve than a parent buying fries and a burger for a god damn 2 or 3 year old.... almost as bad as hot dogs and tater tots.