NYC to Ban Happy Meal Toys?

[Szelago]

What's next? Banning happy endings?

oop - did I say that out loud!?

[Mombow111]

This actually already happened apparantly: San Francisco overrides mayoral veto, bans Happy Meals with toys - CNN

Personally I can't feel threatened by this. But I'd like to ask what you suggest would be the most effective way of resolving our issues with obesity in America. How would you go about changing the organization of school's and changing the mindsets of bad parents to better the situation?

[Tannhauser]

I think you could argue that attempts to legislate against certain sorts of marketing aimed at children is a response to the increased marketing effort aimed at kids.

Alyssa Quart writes about the latter in a great little book called Branded. The motto for corporations is to hook 'em young. Companies like Nickolodeon have a kind of 'cradle-to-grave' marketing strategy, in which the aim is to inculcate brand familiarity at a really early age, so that can be utilised at all other stages.

The amount spent on corporate marketing to pre-teens rose by some huge percentage over the eighties/nineties - ten or twelve times. The emphasis is on how they can get past the gate-keeper (parent).

The idea that groups of bright, educated adults are using applied psychology to persuade children -often quite small children -to buy their product doesn't sit happily with critics. It's too much like shooting fish in a barrel. That's recognised in legislation in the UK (don't know about the US) that restricts how you can advertise to kids. I don't think it's trying to absolve parents from any responsibility, it's just trying to stop advertising from unduly shaping what kids think they need.

The real success of marketing has been to get many kids to start defining themselves by the products they own - a kind of corporate takeover of personal identity, if that's not overdramatising it. If you want to see the creepiest aspects of marketing to 'tweens', try googling 'cool-hunters'.

[5kgLifter]

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

I think you could argue that attempts to legislate against certain sorts of marketing aimed at children is a response to the increased marketing effort aimed at kids.

Alyssa Quart writes about the latter in a great little book called Branded. The motto for corporations is to hook 'em young. Companies like Nickolodeon have a kind of 'cradle-to-grave' marketing strategy, in which the aim is to inculcate brand familiarity at a really early age, so that can be utilised at all other stages.

The amount spent on corporate marketing to pre-teens rose by some huge percentage over the eighties/nineties - ten or twelve times. The emphasis is on how they can get past the gate-keeper (parent).

The idea that groups of bright, educated adults are using applied psychology to persuade children -often quite small children -to buy their product doesn't sit happily with critics. It's too much like shooting fish in a barrel. That's recognised in legislation in the UK (don't know about the US) that restricts how you can advertise to kids. I don't think it's trying to absolve parents from any responsibility, it's just trying to stop advertising from unduly shaping what kids think they need.

The real success of marketing has been to get many kids to start defining themselves by the products they own - a kind of corporate takeover of personal identity, if that's not overdramatising it. If you want to see the creepiest aspects of marketing to 'tweens', try googling 'cool-hunters'.

Haven't seen that book; the one I've read is called We know what you want by Martin Howard and it opens people's eyes to what is going on in the world of marketing, pretty fascinating and worrying stuff actually.