Asia Graduate School of Theology Course: Cultural Issues of Education Professor: Grace Shangkuan Koo, Ph.D.

Student: uel !. Cha"e# $e%ruary &, &''(

eaction Pa)er * + The ,nintended Effects of Tele"ision Ad"ertising: A Parent-Child Sur"ey

The researchers aimed to reconfirm the results of the study conducted in the 1970s concerning the direct and indirect effects of advertising on purchase request, materialism, parent-child conflict, disappointment, and life dissatisfaction. The two most interesting insights that I glean from the study are the ideas that advertising propagates an ideology and pictures an ideal world. The ind of ideology, which is propagated, is !that possessions are important and that desira"le qualities # such as "eauty, success, and happiness # can "e o"tained only "y acquiring material possessions$ %p. &'(). This shows that advertising is not morally neutral. It has a specific stance aiming for the pu"lic to em"race. *owever, to +udge such stance as immoral is premature at this stage. The present writer is of the opinion that advertising itself is good. ,hat ma es advertising immoral is the a"use and misuse of it. The second insight is the assumption that advertising displays an ideal world. ,hen children watch advertising and compare the life in the advertised world and their actual life, it is noted in previous study that children will notice a gap, which creates discontentment in life. The challenge for parents in the light of potential harm that advertising might cause in parent-child relationship and mental health of the child is to do an active parenting role "y guiding their children in watching advertising. It is good that

awareness of such potential harm should start with the parents. -arents. awareness is crucial in directing children to assess the influence of advertising. The researchers identify some practical steps to moderate the influence of advertising. /0amples of these are lessening television e0posure, discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of products, e0plaining the selling purpose of advertising, ma ing the children aware that !advertising does not always tell the truth,$ and turning off the television. Jerry Kirkpatrick (1994) wrote a book entitled In Defense of Advertising. In that book he aimed to overthrow the arguments of the critics of advertising !he three ma"or arguments# which he dealt# are the accusations that advertising is coercive# offensive# and monopolistic (p 1$) %e state that &criticisms of advertising do have an effect ' (nd they must be answered )ot to answer them would &reinforce ignorance and misunderstandings about the nature of advertising*'(ibid ) !he book+s purpose is to present &a philosophic and economic defense of advertising' (ibid ) and to provide &intellectual ammunition' (p 1,) for &practitioners# academics# and intelligent laymen' (ibid ) in making a definite moral stand against those who oppose the legitimacy of advertising !hough -ui".en and /alkenburg did not e0press any opposition to the legitimate use of advertising# but if one failed to reali.e the distinction between the legitimacy and e0cesses of advertising# their research could be utili.ed to stigmati.e advertising Kirkpatrick named intellectuals like (rnold !oynbee# a particular professor at the )ew 1chool for 1ocial 2esearch in )ew 3ork# and John Kenneth 4albraith as among the vocal critics of advertising (p 51) Kirkpatrick claimed that !oynbee described

advertising as &evil' (ibid )

!he )ew 3ork professor depicted advertising as

&subversive#' an &intellectual and moral pollution#' and it undermines the (merican faith in their nation and in themselves (ibid) Kirkpatrick refuted the critics of advertising in two ways6 e0posing the logical implication of the critics+ arguments and presenting the nature of advertising !he critics+ arguments# Kirkpatrick avers# cannot escape &by logical necessity' (p 54) to also attack capitalism# human consciousness# and reason %e e0plained6 !o critici.e advertising is to critici.e capitalism* (t the most fundamental level# the attacks on advertising are an assault on reason7on man+s ability to form concepts and to think in principles7because advertising is a conceptual communication to many people at one time about the conceptual achievements of others (dvertisement is itself an abstraction# a concept of what the capitalist has produced !hus# advertising is a conceptual communication7in a market economy7to self8interested buyers about the self8interested# conceptual achievements of capitalists !o critici.e advertising7at the most fundamental level7is to assault mans consciousness (ibid ) Kirkpatrick elaborated the meaning of the implication that an attack on advertising is tantamount to assaulting human consciousness !he three charges such as the coercive# the offensive# and monopolistic power of advertising deny the volitional nature of man# the e0istence of ob"ective values# rational options# and the possibility of truth and certainty (ibid ) !he author took several pages to prove his refutation !o demonstrate the logical flow of the author+s defense is beyond the scope of this paper Kirkpatrick e0plains the nature advertising by tracing its root from marketing and claimed that# &both are products of capitalism and the Industrial 2evolution' (p 59) He further asserts that advertising is simply selling product using the mass media It &is a method of communicating to consumers that is less e0pensive than other methods' (ibid ) !his is the economical nature of advertising :inally# the writer argues that instead

of looking at advertising with suspicion# it should be perceived as &benevolent' and the &beacon of the free society' (p 199) (s for the present writer# the tension between those who oppose and those who favor advertising can be diminished if one would distinguish between the legitimate and the e0cessive use of advertising I repeat my early statement that nothing is wrong with advertising in itself ;hat makes advertising wrong is the way one uses it 4enerally# I acknowledge the learning e0perience I ac<uired from -ui".en and /alkenburg+ research and I appreciate their e0posure of the potential harm of advertising to the minds of young children like mine I also appreciate the indicated practical steps in order to moderate the influence of advertising to my children+s mind :urthermore# my appreciation goes with the book of Jerry Kirkpatrick for giving me the other side of the story =y only contention is that it appears to me that he is too defensive and failing to mention also that advertising has been utili.ed improperly

&