Ban Ronald McDonald?

[RuleBritannia]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products, this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

[AshtonBlack]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products, this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

Exactly, my point. HFSS products should not be aimed at kids.
By all means let the "free citizens" buy whatever they want.
But I think we shouldn't let advertisers stack the deck in their favour, where the product is not exactly the best thing for that child to eat (often).

[Coito ergo sum]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

LOL!

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

No...... McD use Ronald to sell more shit. Fine. Not a problem. But the advertisements for them were (at least in Britain) aimed squarely at the pre-teen demographic, eg Saturday Morning TV. Over here now, research into the issue has been unclear and contested (surprise surprise, by Advertisers), but from the Ofcom report here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/rep ... od_ads/#36

TV has a "modest" effect on HFSS (High Fat Salt Sugar) product's attractiveness on a child's choice.

You seem to be taking it as a given that it is appropriate for the government to be concerned with the fat, salt and sugar intake of its free citizens....

Except children aren't free citizens. Children are censorsed from many different things for their own good, and advertisers purposefully manipulate them for commercial gain.

Children are not censored. Nobody is censored "from" things. Some things are not allowed to be broadcast, but that's not specific to children. When porn or such things are prohibited from broadcast it's prohibited for everyone, not just kids. If you say you can't have certain programming on certain media until after 9pm, for example, than even people who are adults can't watch the stuff before 9pm on that media.

Similarly, if you ban Ronald McDonald from the Cartoon Network on Saturday morning, then he's not being banned just for kids. He's being banned for everyone during those time frames.

Advertisers purposefully craft their message to persuade, so of course it's manipulative. It's designed to manipulate people into buying stuff. However, little children generally are under the control of their parents, and whether they buy McDonald's is wholly up their parents.

Further, if you ban the use of clowns in advertising for McDonald's because someone created a study which showed that kids responded favorably to the clown advertising, then you leave one group of people's freedom of expression hostage to other interest groups. When is a study sufficient? What if the study has flaws? What if there is a biased or ulterior motive on the part of the interest group?

This kind of thing is just going to escalate. They started with cultural demons - cigarette purveyors - and it was easy to get people to look the other way and squash free expression. Now Joe Camel is banned. So, the precedent gets set, and on we go! Let's squash Ronald McDonald! Then on to the "Bob's Big Boy" logo, right? After all, he is advocating eating that shitty food they have at Big Boy restaurants, and he's a little kid - clearly targeted at the child market. And, what about "Chuck-E-Cheese" and the mouse advertisement - they are CLEARLY marketed directly at children, and kids go their and mow on soft drinks, candy and pizza! Horrible foods!

So, we target Ronald McDonald - set a precedent - and soon the only fair way, given all the child-directed advertising out there, to decide what goes on the airwaves and what doesn't is to have a review board...."approved for children's programming" -- "approved symbols for child-related products..." etc. - it'll come...

[Coito ergo sum]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products, this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

Exactly, my point. HFSS products should not be aimed at kids.

Says you. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be free to adopt a contrary position to yours, and suggest that you are not correct in your assessment of health risks.

By all means let the "free citizens" buy whatever they want.

By all means, and let them advertise what they want too, if the products themselves are legal.

But I think we shouldn't let advertisers stack the deck in their favour,

Why not? Interest groups can restack the deck through advertisements informing the populace of the poor nutritional quality of this or that food.

where the product is not exactly the best thing for that child to eat (often).

The State should not be telling its citizens what to feed their children. I, for one, don't trust the State to make that determination anyway since, like the Food Pyramid and "Recommended Daily Allowance" recommendations we have today, these are often partially driven by politics.

People are quite capable of feeding their children.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products,

So what? If parents don't want to buy their kids' McDonald's food then they can buy food at the supermarket and cook it at home, or they can go to a different restaurant. Little children tend not to have transportation and money over and above what their parents are willing to provide.

this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

So, Ronald McDonald should be banned because children like Ronald McDonald and ask their parents to take them to McDonald's and the parents are too slack-spined to tell their own children that dinner is at home today and not out at a restaurant? If that's where western society has sunk, then I weep for the future....

Anyone who can't say to their kids that McDonald's is not good food, and we're not going their for dinner, should have their kids taken away.

[Coito ergo sum]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

LOL!

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

No...... McD use Ronald to sell more shit. Fine. Not a problem. But the advertisements for them were (at least in Britain) aimed squarely at the pre-teen demographic, eg Saturday Morning TV. Over here now, research into the issue has been unclear and contested (surprise surprise, by Advertisers), but from the Ofcom report here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/rep ... od_ads/#36

TV has a "modest" effect on HFSS (High Fat Salt Sugar) product's attractiveness on a child's choice.

You seem to be taking it as a given that it is appropriate for the government to be concerned with the fat, salt and sugar intake of its free citizens....

Not really, but we prosecute parents who refuse to school a child. The government takes an interest.

We don't play horror flicks on a Saturday Morning. The government takes an interest.

We don't? What sort of television do you have? There are horror and other R rated flix on various cable channels where I live at all hours of the day and night.

And, keeping horror flicks off certain t.v. channels. is effectively done by market forces.

Advertisers know full well that "pester power" is a genuine business strategy and will try to get the most profit from it.

Why not? If they're selling a lawful product...

Lego corporation really tries to get kids to pester their parents to buy them more Legos, too.

You may say, "Ahh well it's the parents fault for being weak willed and giving into their brats."

I do say that. It's a parent's job to instill self-discipline and to raise mature adults. Banning Ronald McDonald does nothing to assist in that regard.

So can we rely on people to do the right thing with reference to family nutrition? That is the option we have now.

Yes, we can, just as we always have.

It just makes sense to me, to reduce the exposure of children to this type of advertising.

But, should it be by force of law?

It makes sense to me to reduce children's exposure to video games. However, I would not advocate banning them.

I will concede, it is a contentious topic and no studies either way seem to be conclusive.

Or are even persuasive...

How would you combat child hood obesity? Or would you let nature take it's course and do nothing?

Have kids eat less and exercise more. The reason kids are fat is because they watch more t.v., sit in front of video games, and sit in front of computers longer than they ever have before - we have a far more sedentary society than ever before. Kids eat more calories, and burn less of them, so they get fat.

How would I combat childhood obesity? Expand sports in school -- allow more children to walk and bike to schools wherever possible, and perhaps fund education programs and campaigns to educate people on how to not be fat.

[RuleBritannia]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products,

So what? If parents don't want to buy their kids' McDonald's food then they can buy food at the supermarket and cook it at home, or they can go to a different restaurant. Little children tend not to have transportation and money over and above what their parents are willing to provide.

this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

So, Ronald McDonald should be banned because children like Ronald McDonald and ask their parents to take them to McDonald's and the parents are too slack-spined to tell their own children that dinner is at home today and not out at a restaurant? If that's where western society has sunk, then I weep for the future....

Anyone who can't say to their kids that McDonald's is not good food, and we're not going their for dinner, should have their kids taken away.

I never said Ronald McDonald should be banned, in fact, I voted "no" on the poll.

I accept you apology in advanced.

[maiforpeace]

You just knew this road was going to be traveled when we sat back and let these freaks make Joe Camel illegal...

I happen to be one of those "freaks" you are referring to. I supported this. And this was a bad thing, because?

Anyone who can't say to their kids that McDonald's is not good food, and we're not going their for dinner, should have their kids taken away.

I don't know about where you live, but McDonalds is a prime location for high school kids to stop for an afternoon snack. That's pretty hard to control.

The truth is that you are going to have an impossible time trying to convince the average American that McDonald's is bad for them and their children. Americans are as attached to their fast food as a heroin addict is attached to his syringe.

Many Europeans don't understand the unhealthy relationship the average American has to food. What seems logical and prudent to furriners will always turn into an argument about freedom for the corporation to continue unbridled with their greedy ways. So why don't we just legalize drugs, and let pushers sell crack to our kids? What's the difference?

I think we need to put disclaimers on fast food like we do cigarettes.
WARNING: Eating processed foods on a regular basis leads to childhood obesity, Type 2 diabetes etc etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products,

So what? If parents don't want to buy their kids' McDonald's food then they can buy food at the supermarket and cook it at home, or they can go to a different restaurant. Little children tend not to have transportation and money over and above what their parents are willing to provide.

this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

So, Ronald McDonald should be banned because children like Ronald McDonald and ask their parents to take them to McDonald's and the parents are too slack-spined to tell their own children that dinner is at home today and not out at a restaurant? If that's where western society has sunk, then I weep for the future....

Anyone who can't say to their kids that McDonald's is not good food, and we're not going their for dinner, should have their kids taken away.

I never said Ronald McDonald should be banned, in fact, I voted "no" on the poll.

I accept you apology in advanced.

One, I did confuse your posts with that of Ashton Black.

Two, however, I don't see as where you actually made your position clear, and you certainly seemed to be taking the side of the ban Ronald crew.

So, if you do not support banning Ronald, then what are you suggesting be done to "protect the chil'run"?

[Rum]

He should be fucking shot - not banned. He is the least friendly and cuddly 'mascot' I can think of - the design of him is crass and clumsy, whatever the intention. I vote to ban him on aesthetic grounds, though on other grounds - well he can do what he likes. I kept my daughter away from his and McDs clutches and that's what matters to me!

[RuleBritannia]

Ronald McDonald is an advertising strategy aimed at children to buy McDonalds' products,

So what? If parents don't want to buy their kids' McDonald's food then they can buy food at the supermarket and cook it at home, or they can go to a different restaurant. Little children tend not to have transportation and money over and above what their parents are willing to provide.

this is inspite the fact that children don't have any money to buy their product, it's thier parents who have the money. So why do McDonalds target the children? Because children are easier to manipulate, and parents find it harder to say no to their children than to say no to a coroporation.

So, Ronald McDonald should be banned because children like Ronald McDonald and ask their parents to take them to McDonald's and the parents are too slack-spined to tell their own children that dinner is at home today and not out at a restaurant? If that's where western society has sunk, then I weep for the future....

Anyone who can't say to their kids that McDonald's is not good food, and we're not going their for dinner, should have their kids taken away.

I never said Ronald McDonald should be banned, in fact, I voted "no" on the poll.

I accept you apology in advanced.

One, I did confuse your posts with that of Ashton Black.

Two, however, I don't see as where you actually made your position clear, and you certainly seemed to be taking the side of the ban Ronald crew.

So, if you do not support banning Ronald, then what are you suggesting be done to "protect the chil'run"?

1. I was merely pointing out the the sly advertising techiniques of MacDonalds.

2. I agree with you that banning one thing will only lead to banning other things.

3. The only way to protect people from themselves is to educate them, once they've been told the deal it's up to them to do what they want.

[RuleBritannia]

[maiforpeace]

He should be fucking shot - not banned. He is the least friendly and cuddly 'mascot' I can think of - the design of him is crass and clumsy, whatever the intention. I vote to ban him on aesthetic grounds, though on other grounds - well he can do what he likes. I kept my daughter away from his and McDs clutches and that's what matters to me!

That too. He's as loveable as Chucky and the marketing harkens back to the sixties. Not only that, there's no truth to that advertising, he should be shaped like a pear.

[charlou]

I dont' like Mcdonalds either, but how fucking moralistically arrogant can people get??? Take children away from parents who allow their children to have food from a takeaway joint you don't like? Who made you the fucking arbiter of parental obligations? To many it's just food ... there's a shitload more to parenting than what takeaway dinners children get to eat now and then. FFS.

[Coito ergo sum]

You just knew this road was going to be traveled when we sat back and let these freaks make Joe Camel illegal...

I happen to be one of those "freaks" you are referring to. I supported this. And this was a bad thing, because?

1. It was a restriction and infringement on a fundamental liberty - freedom of speech and expression. It limits a group of people's right to organize and advocate the sale/purchase/consumption of a lawful product.

2. There was nothing inherently "child-targeted" about the Joe Camel advertisements. Since the 1980's, cartoons have been targeted at adults, and adults have enjoyed cartoons and cartoon advertising. It was a manufactured controversy over a cartoon that some people claimed, without substantiation, was "targeted" at "children" when the reality was that it was "targeted" at adults. College age adults, for example, liked the Joe Camel character and responded to it, purchased and wore shirts and other merchandise with the Camel image, etc. These days, adults watch "the Simpsons," "South Park," "Family Guy," "American Dad," "Futurama," "Adult Swim," and a host of other cartoons, and respond to advertising including characters from those cartoons.

3. It sets a bad precedent of "nanny state" mentality, wherein we expect the State to step in and protect us from what is "bad" for us. It's similar to the Prohibition movement.

Anyone who can't say to their kids that McDonald's is not good food, and we're not going their for dinner, should have their kids taken away.

I don't know about where you live, but McDonalds is a prime location for high school kids to stop for an afternoon snack. That's pretty hard to control.

Ohhhhh....so now we're talking about high school kids.... teenagers? Not "little children"?

Are we to honestly make the assertion that TEENAGERS are targeted and motivated to buy food by virtue of a guy in a clown suit? I could buy that McDonald's targets grammar school kids with clowns - the same demographic that has clowns at their birthday parties and go to Chuck-E-Cheese - but high schoolers?

You know what? A 15, 16 or 17 year old can be expected to regulate their own diet.

The truth is that you are going to have an impossible time trying to convince the average American that McDonald's is bad for them and their children.

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the average American if they think McDonald's food is good and healthy for them, they would say "no." Everyone knows McDonald's food is not healthy. They eat it anyway because they like it. Just like how every smoker knows it's bad for them, but they do it anyway. In a free society we are allowed to do stuff that isn't good for us - like eat buttery movie popcorn and drink Icee cokes, go to McDonalds, smoke, drink, bungee jump, BASE jump, and fly propeller planes....

Americans are as attached to their fast food as a heroin addict is attached to his syringe.

No they aren't. That's a silly, baseless comparison. If you have any evidence for it, please, by all means, share it.

Many Europeans don't understand the unhealthy relationship the average American has to food. What seems logical and prudent to furriners will always turn into an argument about freedom for the corporation to continue unbridled with their greedy ways.

Well, either a group of people organized in a corporate form (whether as a profit or non-profit corporation or a charitable organization) has the right to extol the virtues of its lawful product, or it doesn't. If you limit the right of someone to "extol the virtues" of something then you limit freedom of expression. It is what it is.

So why don't we just legalize drugs,

Indeed, why not? Most liberals I know want to legalize drugs (e.g. pot).

We have the right to do as we please with our own bodies, including ingest things we want to ingest.

and let pushers sell crack to our kids? What's the difference?

Because crack is illegal, so pushers should be arrested for selling drugs. If burgers are equivalent to crack, then let's make it illegal. But it's not like crack.

I might not like it that you feed your kids fish, or vegetables grown in shit that might contain e-coli. Should we, therefore, ban fish advertising and vegetable advertising that "targets children? "

I think we need to put disclaimers on fast food like we do cigarettes.
WARNING: Eating processed foods on a regular basis leads to childhood obesity, Type 2 diabetes etc etc.

You should prove that first, don't you think? Care to provide a good study that demonstrates that statement to be true?

The reality is that eating EXCESSIVE processed foods on a regular basis leads to obesity (excessive meaning that you take in more calories than you burn).

Further, "processed food" does not mean "fast foods" - a broad definition of processed food is any food that is changed from its raw, natural state (which is just about everything people eat). A narrower definition is "processed food" is food which has been chemically altered through additives such as flavors, flavor enhancers, binders, colors, fillers, preservatives, stabilizers, emulsifiers, etc., or which has been manufactured through combination or other methods. Generally speaking, if the ingredients aren't "natural", then we consider it to be processed.

Go to the vegetarian/vegan section of the supermarket - buy a veggie burger - buy the veggie hot dogs - buy the soy cheese and soy milk and all that - it's "processed food" under any definition.