Commercialization of children and the lucrative child market

For assignment help please contact

at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com
"The consumer embryo begins to develop during the first year of existence, children
begin their consumer journey in infancy and they certainly deserve consideration as
consumers at the time" McNeal. (2008) [Online]
The degree of marketing aimed at children today is the greatest it has ever been, as
the money spent on child marketing annually in the US is almost $17 billion, whilst
in the UK the amount rose by 4.2% to 19.4 billion over all mediums in the last year
(2008)[Online], with 4.6 billion items of marketing being put through your front
door every year. The [1] intentions of this thesis is to explore how children are being
encouraged to buy, whether it be sweets, toys, clothes, mobile phones or any product
in which marketers choose to aim at them. Whilst many people whether it is an adult
or child enjoy the consumer lifestyle, it also has extremely negative effects as certain
businesses make premeditated choices to target children as young as they possibly
can, by any means possible. This is often done by playing on their aspirations and
hopes, as well as their vulnerabilities, whilst also selling the concept of youth back to
adults who are not ready to grow up and can continue to stay young by buying for
their children. There will be consideration of the various forms of child marketing
seen as the most effective, as well as the efforts being made in order to control
advertising to children. This will be done by looking deep into the industry at some of
the businesses throughout the UK and USA that try to control children's sense of
importance.

Their Market
In a BBC News report from 2003, Psychology professor Cleveland Evans surveyed
US social security records from the year 2000 and discovered that in an attempt to
make their children 'stand out' American parents are turning to popular culture
when it comes to naming their children, after some of the most recognizable global
brands, such as L'Oreal, Chevrolet, Two boys were even named ESPN, after the
popular sports channel. Designer companies are also being signified with almost
three hundred girls going by the name Armani, seven boys named Denim and six
boys being called Timberland, [2] the reasons Professor Evans gave for this was to

'reflect the aspirations of the parents' and to a be 'associated with money or

exclusivity' Evans (2003)[Online], which is a reflection of the material aspirations of
parents.
According to, Childwise, The monitor report (2007), Children up to the age of 19
spend up to 12 billion each year. The vast majority of this is exchanged in shopping
centers where 1.53 billion is spent each year, mostly on clothes and shoes. A further
1 billion is spent on food and drink, with 860 million being on sweets, soft drinks
and other snacks. Record labels and software companies make a further 1 billion a
year, with 440 million being spent on music and $340 million on computer
software. The rest of the balance is used on toiletry products and other products
intended to make the consumer smell and look good.
12 billion on its own sounds like a profitable child market, however this is not
taking into account the even greater amount that the parents spend on their children
for clothes, toys, TV's, phones, and many other products and therefore 12 billion is
only a tiny sum in the grand scheme of just how much is spent in relation to the child
market. When the amount parents spend on their children is taken into account, the
child market is worth 99.12 billion and has grown 33 percent over the past 5 years,
and that is just the UK alone.
In the USA, where there are more than 52 Million children, the total annual spending
on products such as clothes, music and electronics reaches over $40 billion. Hasbro
and Mattel are American based companies and also the two front-runners in relation
to the toy industry. Putting this into context, since 1976 11 of the top toy companies
are now gone, with thirteen more being taken over by either one of the two
companies, leaving many of the names only existing as subsidiaries. This includes
companies such as Tonka, Playskool, Fisher-Price and Tyco, among but a few. In
1996 Mattel even attempted to buy out Hasbro with a $5.2 Billion takeover offer.
However many of the products sold by leading toy companies are their 'core brands',
and are often the ones that have been around for a considerable amount of time, with
their own history. In turn these were made into licensed products such as Batman,
The Justice League, Superman and many other characters from the DC Universe all
of which were licensed by Mattel, with Batman being the first of their products back
in 1993 even though the character was first created in May 1939, whilst Hasbro now
licenses Transformers, Star Wars, Play-doh, Pokemon and many more. As stated by
the chairman of Hasbro, Alan Hassenfeld (cited in The Real Toy Story: Inside the
Ruthless battle for Britain's youngest consumers, (2007, p.161) 'we spent more time
on Star Wars and on X, Y and Z. We weren't taking care of our children, so they were

withering' this is a clear indication of how profit and power is the main motivation
and main goal of the toy industries, with the ones behind the toys spending more
time researching and studying the target market that often they neglect their own
children. The example given by Alan Hassenfeld was play-doh:
"How do you expand on Play-Doh...you bring a group of people together and you
basically say, OK what is the Play-Doh story?'Who lives on Doh Doh Island?...it is
inhabited by Doh-Doh's and now you have the chance to create books, maybe
entertainment, because you've opened up a universe. You basically haven't bean
linear. You've just opened up that imagination'. (Hassenfeld, 2007, p.161)

Realistically speaking what effectively has been opened is the chance to sell many
more units from a simple substance, which started off as a white compound in a can
in 1956. By Christmas 2005 over sixty products were released under the play-doh
brand, such as the Play Doh-Doh Island, a farm, a fridge, an ice cream truck, a
tractor and farm animals.
It seems that the child market is an industry where the big companies are often being
rewarded with brand recognition, the ability to cut costs, and the rights to gain shelf
space, as many of the leading retailers prefer dealing with the big corporations.
Stores are often happier with a product from a well-known company as they have
reliable supply chains and can fix any problems that may occur. Furthermore, the
bigger corporations often have the financial resources to buy licenses to products and
brands, as licensed products alone make up to 25-30 percent of industry sales.
Therefore the rewards from licensing can be tremendous, an example being
Nickelodeon, which in 2002 made an increase in sales of 19 percent from its previous
year, upto $2.5 billion from sales of toys, due to deals with companies such as Mattel
and Jakks pacific, who produced SpongeBob SquarePants, generating $750 million
in revenue alone. However in comparison to AOL-Time Warner and Disney this is
merely 'small change' as there annual revenue from licensing was $6.6 billion for
AOL-Time Warner and $13 billion for Disney. [3] Elkin (2003)[Online]
Mattel owns the licensing to franchises such as Harry Potter for which they paid $20
million for 15 percent royalties producing $100 million from licensed product sales
for each movie released, from characters such as Batman to Dora the Explorer, and
many others. Whilst their rivals Hasbro owns licensing rights to the modern Star
Wars franchise, which is one of its strongest current assets. They payed $600 million

for a 20 percent royalty, and even before the release of the final film in the series,
Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith, sales of Star Wars related products,
including toys, lunchboxes, cups, cereals, bags, masks, hats and many more totaled
more than $9 billion. Director George Lucas reflected,' "If I wasn't a film maker I'd
probably be a toy maker". Lucas (1999) [p.43] [4]
Seth Siegel (2003)[Online] [5] the Co-Chairman of licensing company Beanstalk
Group stated that: 'these two are the only companies that have very significant
franchise brands that they either own or control. It's getting harder and harder for
toy companies to be serious competitors'. Even Marvel entertainment managed to
avoid bankruptcy in 1998 by closing down toy making plants and instead selling
licensing of its 4,700 characters. A good example of successful licensing is that
associated with the Spiderman film released in 2002, where toy and game makers
took a huge risk in buying into the franchise and thus made even bigger profits, as
the film grossed $822 million and sold 2 million video games.
However, the child market is not just exclusive to the UK or the USA. In China
clothes sales for children have doubled in four years, with 312 million children under
the age of 15 stating brands such as Louis Vuitton, Sony and Nike are there
favourites. A report from access Asia in 2007 named 'Kids in China: Consumers and
lifestyle trends' claimed that:
China's children are bombarded with media messages from all angles, all the time
from billboards, posters, TV at home, TV in taxis, cinemas, magazines, food
packaging, lunch boxes, clothing, text messages, websites, store shelves, radios, etc.
This new global generation has a world view that their parents' generation never
dreamed of, has access tomore and better toys and electronic gadgets and not
only a wider choice of careers to aspire to, but choice full stop. Access Asia(2007)
Furthermore, a survey in the UK from 2005 showed that 80 percent of under
twelves' were given more then ten toys a year, however 60 percent of those were
thrown out even though there was nothing wrong with them. Whilst the 'Consuming
Kids: The commercialization of childhood' documentary states that the sales directly
influenced by children under the age of twelve reaches $700 billion a year, this is
roughly the equivalent of the worlds 115 poorest countries combined economies,
which is only $704 billion. Barbaro & Earp (2008)

According to Ben Page from Ipsos MORI, children today are 'massively sophisticated
consumers' that have unlimited access to information. From the age of twelve they
live a more cash intensive lifestyle with hobbies that involve travelling to concerts
and festivals rather then playing out with friends. He states that 'All activities are
scrutinized through the consumer lens'.
Today, it appears that children exert a strong influence over the items their parents
purchase, especially in relation to major household purchases, such as cars and
holidays, "It's the children who often determine what kind of car gets bought, what
kind of computer gets bought, what kind of cellphone, and even where they take the
family holidays" Taylor (2008) [Founder, center for a new American
dream.] [6] Marketers are very aware of this, and effectively use this knowledge as a
way of marketing to children, in order to sell products to parents. A study carried out
in Austria in 2009 discovered that this is especially true in relation to new technology
and that children often introduce new products to their parents, and are used as a
tool in order to educate the family on products which older members do not fully
comprehend.
From a profit making point of view, marketing to children rather than the parents
makes perfect sense, as even after childhood many adults continue to have the same
preferences when it comes to products that they had when a child. In many cases
they hold on to the same values they had when they were teenagers, possibly as a way
of pro longing their childhood. Trends of this nature have even been studied by
companies that track marketing trends, and is often referred to as 'age compression'
in which adolescence is believed to carry through into later life. Furthermore it has
been suggested by an article in the guardian that by 2012, 30 will be the new 21, as
many adults will still be living with their parents, and putting off getting married or
settling down. (2009)[Online] [7] Therefore, it is quite apparent that modern society
is infantilizing adults, and turning infants into adults also.

Pester Power/The Nag factor

The majority of children are used to getting what they want, this in part could
possibly be due to what many marketers refer to as the 'I'm sorry syndrome' as
parents buy gifts as a way of compensating for a lack of quality time with their
children. Due to work patterns, or marital separation. This has become a way to
compensate for not being around as often as they would like. There is also possibly a
competitive dimension; one US focus group reported that 80 percent of children

complain that their parents do not read to them, yet they will spend large sums of
money showering them with gifts.
When parents say no, many children resort to pester power, as stated in small
expectations; learning to be poor, around three in five children say they use pester
power to get what they want and get annoyed if the answer is no (Shropshire and
Middleton, 1999) [8] . Especially in modern western society, where what you have
can play a huge part in how well you fit in, especially amongst other children. The
pressure placed on teenagers vulnerabilities can impact upon their self esteem, a
statement by one 15 year old boy that can be found in the book 'Consumer Kids: how
big business is grooming our children for profit', says, "when all your friends are
talking about that stupid game and you haven't got it, it makes you feel left
out"(2009). This clearly places added pressure on the parents, as every one wants
their child to be happy and to fit in, therefore parents are caught up in
commercialism just as much as their child, and the anxieties of parenthood are
exactly what marketers wish to exploit.
Pester power is used throughout the marketing industry by the majority of
advertisers and according to them, pester power is most effective in relation to toys
as Dr. Ernest Dichter wrote in a report to Mattel, that children exert a certain
amount of pressure, the effectiveness of which depends on his or hers ability to argue
sensibly with an adult. The toy advertiser can help the child by providing him or her
with arguments which will satisfy mother'.
According to an article named, 'Marketing the Mouse: The commercialization of
childhood' Cheryl Idell who at the time was, the chief strategic officer for Western
Inititative Media put together a study in to child marketing known as 'The Nag
factor', stating that more products were bought when kids pestered with importance
rather than persistence, "I want the pink Barbie because she's pretty" and I
really want the Barbie dream house so Barbie and Ken can have a familyYou have
to put copy into the ad that gives kids all the reasons they should want this, in
language they can express to parents''. (2004)[Online] [9]
However, one of the many problems with pester power is, if the parent simply cannot
afford what they are being pressured into purchasing. According to Consumer Kids:
How big business is grooming our children for profit, the children most brand aware
and interested in the consumer life are those from lower income households, that
wish their 'family could afford to buy more of what they want, or care about the
brand of car they drive' [10] Mayo & Nairn (2009, p.20). In the consumer society we

now live in, marketers are constantly reminding us of what we can and cannot have,
effectively creating a degree of exclusion as well as inclusion with every new product
being promoted.

By any means
Advertising to children has been around since the 1950's, however the amount pales
in comparison to today. The industry really took off during the 1970's, as television
provided the perfect platform for reaching children, compared with the limitations of
radio and posters. Putting a toy on television brings a product to life in a way radio
and posters could not. As toys now could walk and move, and these were the ones
that often worked best when it was time to pitch the product.
The first toy company to advertise on television was Hasbro through the Mr Potato
Head toy, however this barely made any difference to sales. The real impact was
made by Mattel in 1955 when the US network ABC made a deal with Disney to
introduce the Mickey Mouse club into children's afternoon television. This effectively
led to children's television becoming an industry of its own. However to finalize the
deal ABC required twenty advertisers willing to buy $500,000 of time to secure the
first series. Mattel's owners Elliot and Ruth Handler decided to put the companies
entire net worth into the contract, and the impact was phenomenal and resulted in
huge sales for Mattel. Through this process Mattel had uncovered two things that
would effect the growth in profit, firstly that advertising to children was worthwhile
as before it was always the parents being advertised to as they were the ones doing
the buying. Secondly children no longer needed to be targeted through parents as
through television they could be targeted directly.
This however triggered a counter movement to end youth marketing, and effectively
put into motion the policies that would ultimately determine the future of the
industry. Based on research carried out by the Federal Trade Commission it was
believed that children under the age of 8 did not understand the persuasive intent of
advertisements, and therefore the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) believed that
advertisers were deceiving children, particularly in relation to cereals, and cereals
containing sugar, and wanted to stop advertising. [11] On January 7, 1979 the toy and
cereal industries went to congress where a great amount of the FTC's authority to
advertise to children was taken away, and by the end of 1980, congress had passed
the FTC improvement act: 'The commission shall not have any authority to
promulgate any rule in the children's advertising' [12] Commissions rule making
relating to children's advertising.

However, by 1984 the Reagan administration completely de-regulated children's

television, leaving corporations realizing congress was not going to do anything to
restrict their power of marketing strategies, in fact giving them more power and
within three years more than sixty television programmes were being controlled by
the toy companies, The Lorimar telepictures even implemented a system where the
broadcasting channel took a percentage of the profit made from the toy in return for
screening its 'Thundercats' cartoon. In the years following de-regulation the top ten
selling toys were all based on children's television, 1.Carebears, 2. My Little Pony, 3.
Cabbage patch, 4. WWF figures, 5.Super Gobots, 6. Voltron, 7. Mask, 8. He-man, 9.
G.I Joe, 10. Transformers, all of which were Television programs created with the
intention of selling products to children. Larry Hama who wrote the stories for
Transformer comic books for twelve years from 1982 even stated, "With both G.I. Joe
and the Transformers, there were so many characters. The person who was the
liaison between Hasbro and us is usually a 21-year-old right out of college and with
his first job. They don't have a clue about the stuff. Then they are handed something
with 150 characters and then within a year that person is promoted and it starts all
over again", (n.d) [Online] [13] Another example from this period of de-regulation is
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The first Turtles movie was released, along with over
one thousand related products, including a television show and comics.
In the decades prior to de-regulation children's consumer spending in the US
increased at a modest rate of 4% a year, increasing to $4.2 billion from the 1950's to
the 1980's, yet since de-regulation children's consumer spending has grown 35%
every year, totaling in a 852% increase, from the $4.2 billion in 1984 to $40 billion in
2010. The principle function of many children's characters is to get the child attached
to the product by playing on their emotions. However the marketers are the ones
effectively holding their heartstrings, and this leads to promotions in any way
possible, such as bed sheets of a child's favourite character so they go to bed thinking
about the product which is in turn the same thing they see as they wake up.
Today, the toy industry appears to be going through somewhat of a transformation,
as children seem to be neglecting the more traditional toys. This has led to a drop in
sales, whilst manufacturing costs have risen, inevitably leading to closure of many
shops. The retailer Toys R Us was almost one of the casualties of this transformation
and was forced to give control to two equity firms leaving its only New York City
store beings its flagship store in Times Square.
However, this is just a small example of how marketers play on children's emotional
attachments, one of the more commonly used techniques is that of 'product

placement'. 'Name dropping' the product is not enough, rather actually having the
product placed into the children's most watched entertainment is more effective, as
stated in the Consuming Kids documentary and seen in the Warner Brothers film,
Looney Tunes: Back in Action, whilst stranded in the desert a Wal-Mart store just
happens to appear and rather than questioning how, daffy duck states 'who
careswith shopping convenience at such low prices'. Another example of product
placement is American Idol, which is the top, rated American programme among two
to eleven year olds in the United States, and is full of 'coca cola' product references,
whether it be cups, banners or advertisements. As seen in the consuming kids
documentary, advertisements like these sneak through children's critical factors and
plants messages in their brains.
However, although both need each other to survive, in the retail industry there is
very rarely trust between buyers and sellers, as both sides are always looking to
complete the best deal for their own respective company, and inevitably the larger
the company the greater its power when implementing the terms of a deal. Wal-Mart
is the world's largest retailer and the strongest force in the American toy industry,
and has more power then any other retailer in history, with 100 million customers a
week. Therefore it is no surprise to see that it sells more from January to March, then
its closest rivals 'Target' sells in an entire year as well as having sent many companies
into closure due to its market dominance. If Wal-Mart were an independent nation it
would be China's eight largest trading partner, it became Americas largest toy retailer
in 1998, and with in seven years held roughly 30 percent of the market, this is twice
as much as both 'Target', and Toys R Us. According to statistics reflected in The Real
Toy Story: Inside the Ruthless Battle for Britain's youngest consumers, by Eric Clark;
(2007, p.181) Wal-Mart has global sales of over $250 Billion whilst toy sales in the
US are around $5 billion, it has been suggested that Wal-Mart could give away toys
for free and hardly impact its figures. Therefore, it is clear that other toy companies
cannot compete with such dominance, as the low prices suggested for toys creates a
sense of good value for everything else they supply. However, for toy manufacturers
it can be a layered issue as analyst Dennis McAlpine suggests about a relationship
with Wal-Mart, 'if you're a toy manufacturer, its better to have Wal-Mart as a
customer than not have it. But even as you love 'em, you hate 'em. Wal-Mart is
always tough on suppliers'. Eric Clark (2007,p.181)
Therefore, it is not a surprise to see that manufacturers are keen to keep Toys R Us in
business for greater equality of competition, and have often provided toys exclusively
to them three months in advance to them being released fully. As quoted by the
publisher of industry magazine The Toy Book, Jim Silver "Wal-Mart is a very

important part of the toy business, but toymakers don't want its low pricing
strategies to devalue their brands and their businessand put more retailers out of
business" [14] (Silver. J, 2004) [Online] which according to an article on
www2.ljworld.com is possibly why many companies including Hasbro, Mattel and
Lego have released exclusives to them as well as paying for the advertising, whilst
distributing less of the best selling toys to Wal-Mart. This has even gone so far as
telling them they have no more in stock to supply them with once they sold
out. [15] (2004) [Online]

Marketing
4.6 billion items of marketing material come
through our doors each year. [16]
In a statement by the president of 4Kids Entertainment, Norman Grossfeld (Cited in
The Real Toy Story: Inside the Battle for Britains Youngest Consumers, 2007, p.228)
marketers are looking for ways to get into children's minds daily. 'We're not only
looking for ratings, but how to get into kids' psyches on a day-to-day basis'. In order
to do this many toy companies send out executives and researchers to study children
and what they take in by observing them at home. They follow them around shops,
liaise with psychologists to analyse behaviour and watch them at play through oneway mirrors. Many companies refer to these as 'cool hunters', whose job is to detect
what is hot and what is not at the current time. The Internet has become a very
important tool in helping to create marketing strategies as it helps to progress direct
communications with children, as now there is the use of discussion areas through
chat rooms or advertisements made to look as though it has been created especially
for the target child as youth Marketer Nick Russel stated in the Consuming Kids
documentary "if you have 5 different accounts from 5 different geographic areas on
different genders, different ages, on different preferences you will see 5 different
advertisements, you'll see 5 different worlds, now as a child you don't know that"
(Russel. N, 2008), however all of these advertisements are encouraging returns to
the site promoting brand reinforcement.

Blitz Marketing
'What most consumers aren't used to is how they're being tracked by us and the
company we keep' [17] Seana Mulcahy, Industry Insider.

Seana Mulcahy is referring to the 'Do Not Track List' which is an idea put together by
anti consumer activists which would allow us to opt out of being targeted by online
advertising. This is similar to the 'Telephone preference service'which prevents us
from receiving phone calls from companies trying to sell products. However her
point is that many of us are unaware that we are being targeted and tracked by the
companies or really know anything about 'behavioural targeting'. Research carried
out by Dowsiri Monkgol and Agnes Nairn showed that, 85% of the websites most
used by children collects some form of personal information [18] the majority of
which was e-mail address. However user names, address, postcode, date of birth,
gender, age and country were also some of the various forms of 'compulsory'
information required by the sites, with 15% requiring information to even enter,
whilst another 35% offered ringtones, screensavers, wallpapers or the chance to 'tell
your friends' in return for the information.
Although on the surface the exchange of information for 'free stuff' seems harmless,
it is not as transparent as it may seem. As the information provided as well as the
products and toys clicked on will be stored on a database, subsequently the toys liked
by the viewer have now been made public. The host site then knows exactly what toys
to advertise to the viewer next time they return. In some cases it is possible to send
out advertisements to the parents or other relatives. This data may also be merged
with information from 'tracking software' placed on the computer by both the host
website and companies using the website to advertise. As privacy legislation is rather
distanced from 'tracking software' even though this monitors what is clicked on and
where they go on the Internet. It also could reduce the effectiveness of online
advertising and therefore reduce the revenue to support free or low cost content,
applications and services [19] . Spyware can also scan conversations had with friends
over the Internet in order to try and understand what kind of products they could be
persuaded to buy. This also relates to message boards and blog's, which according to
Sue Macdonald a marketing manager for 'Intelliseek' analysed 475,000 individual
blog posts to consider what had been said about companies or their products.
Furthermore, the hours spent on the computer, the type of phone we use, what type
of adverts we are more likely to click on, how easily lured away we are from a
website, our age, where we live, and our favourite kind of product are now known
and used as tools tempting us to buy. Although as adults we are all susceptible to
this, it is far more effective in relation to young children as often they do not have a
comprehensive knowledge of what is driving the internet. Seana Mulcahy suggests of
her own colleagues in the industry that "my guess is that most of these publishers

and tools providers tend to be less than transparent, with a what-they-don't-knowwont-hurt-them mentality".
In 2007, a company named Dubit recruited 7-11 year olds all around the UK on
behalf of Mattel, in order to advertise and market the Barbie Girl MP3 player and
Hot Wheels products, reporting back to at the end of each week on what is popular
and what is not, as it is widely renowned to marketers that children make brilliant
salesman, as pointed out in the consumer Kids books, 'The most effective marketing
to young people is done by other young people", as children are walking adverts for
their favourite brands, whether it be a logo on their t-shirts, trainers or the phone
they use.

360 Marketing
Marketing is everywhere you go, from the side of taxis, on billboards on the clothing
you wear, it now appears that child marketing is even making its way in schools,
especially in America, as written in No Logo by Naomi Klein, 'a brochure from the
Fourth Annual Kid Power Marketing Conference stated that "the youth market is
an untapped wellspring of new revenue. You'll agree that the youth market spends
the majority of each day inside the schoolhouse. Now the problem is, how do you
reach that market?"' a good example of how marketers manage to get into schools is
K-111 communications who at the beginning of the decade approached North
American schools asking them to introduce two minutes of advertising every day,
and in return they could use the audiovisual equipment for other lessons instead of
receiving direct revenue, effectively receiving free equipment. The advertisements
would be broadcast twelve minutes into a childs television programme, and many
schools agreed. However the broadcasts were seen as mandatory viewing, with the
teachers unable to adjust the volume, which was always higher during the adverts.
The success of this advertising effectively paved the way for marketers to approach
other schools and colleges with companies such as Mcdonalds and Burger King
setting up kiosks in lunchrooms and advertising around the school, which according
to Naomi Klein's No Logo led to fast food chains now competing with the in-school
cafeterias in 13 percent of all US schools. Subway now supplies 767 schools with
sandwiches stating in a guide on how to pitch their branded food to school boards, as
a way of stopping students sneaking out at lunch and getting into trouble. Pizza Hut
also supplies 4000 schools, whilst taco bell is in partnership with 20,000 schools and
supplies them with their 'frozen burrito product line'. However not all students share
enthusiasm for the introduction of branded outlets, as many of the students on the
federal lunch programme cannot afford to buy the products from the fast food outlets

as they are often twice as expensive as the standard canteen food, therefore leaving
children from poorer families eating the 'lesser meats', whilst their wealthier counter
parts dine on Pizza Hut and Mcdonalds. Furthermore many of the schools have even
signed an agreement with the food outlets forbidding them from serving there own
version of products as it is deemed unfair competition, therefore the poorer students
do not even get to dine of versions of these products at all unless it is from the
expensive outlet itself.
According to an article on www.herinst.org, in 1999 it was stated in Beverage
Industry magazine that elementary school children should be drinking soft drinks as
at that age they 'are still establishing their tastes and habits'. This led to teenage
males in the US consuming over 20 oz of soft drink cans every day, Which in turn led
to a rise in classroom behavioural problems due to the caffeine, as well as rises in
obesity. However this has not stopped companies or schools continuing with this
trend as the pepsi cola company has been given exclusive rights to many schools in
the US and Canada. One of the states it has many rights to is Toronto as it gets to fill
over 560 vending machines in order to block the sales of coca cola and others in the
market, it also distributes 'Pepsi achievement awards' brandishing its logo, Whilst a
school in Florida even has a clause in its agreement with Pepsi making the school
'make its best efforts to maximize all sales opportunities for Pepsi cola
products'. [20] However, Pepsi's closest competition Coca-Cola are also marketing
inside schools, running a competition in 1998 asking schools to come up with a new
way of distributing Coca cola coupons to students, with the school coming up with
the best idea winning $500. The winner was a school in Evans, Georgia, who even
held an official Coca Cola day where all students were to arrive wearing a coca cola tshirt, and making a formation spelling out the word coca cola, as well as attending
lectures given by coca cola executives. This branding is exactly what Coca-Cola was
looking for, even at the expense of freedom to express yourself, which is often
suppressed if it clashes with the interests of the corporate sponsor, as one student
was suspended for turning up in a Pepsi cola T-shirt. Another example of the power
corporations have over Schools and colleges is again Coca-Cola whom hold the
exclusive vending rights at Kent State University in the US, in which members of the
Amnesty International chapter begun to boycott the drink in 1998 due to business
Coca-Cola had previously done with the at the time Nigerian Dictatorship. However,
In April of that year students made a routine application to the student council
requesting funding in order to bring a human rights speaker from the Free Nigeria
Movement. The request was denied, as it was believed that the speaker would have
negative comments to make about Coca-Cola.

Viral Marketing
However Marketing is not just aimed at teens, as many marketing companies are
thinking further in advance and aiming advertising at young children which will
effect them in there teens. Gillette owned by Procter and Gamble, and Sure
Deodorants owned by their rivals Unilever, have both attempted to create good
feelings about their brands in the young, in an attempt to create a connection, which
will carry through later into life. Both companies have done this through the
production of 'advergames' which have been placed on www.miniclip.com who by
there own admission have said to have '57.1 million unique users each
month' [21] and in 2005 was chosen as the number one website in the USA by 12-15
year olds male students [22] . Gillette was the first to use this technique for publicity
by launching its 'jet ski challenge in 2005, featuring its M3Power razors as a way to
'power up' 'collect M3Power Ups to perform cool tricks for extra bonus points.'. This
game attracted over 80 million plays in its first few months, making it the most
successful advergame ever. However according to research by Ed Mayo and Agnes
Nairn, Miniclip have stated in its own publicity for advertisers that its sites users are
predominantly in the age range of 10-24, effectively leaving half of the audience with
no use for the product. However, the use of 'advergames' develops an association
with the brand, leaving children far more likely to reach for one of these when first
choosing their personal hygiene products. This form of product placement is
producing the feeling of nostalgia, felt later in life, by aiming its marketing at
children today.

Food
According to the World Health Organization, the largest chronic health problem is
obesity, as there are more overweight people then there are starving. The UK's food
and drink industry is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, employing over
500,000 people and having an annual turnover of 66 billion [23] . One of the main
focuses of this industry is not on new products, but on how to repackage and market
existing foods in a way that appear better for children, such as .EXAMPLES.
The UK has one of the highest obesity rates in Europe, as obesity levels in children
under the age of 11 has risen by over 40% in no more than ten years. However,
anorexia is also on the rise, and according to an article on www.news.bbc.co.uk the
average British four year old is eating 4.7 grams of salt a day against the
recommended amount of 2-3 grams. [24] (2009)[Online]

Obesity and anorexia can both be linked to consumerism as size zero models and
skinny celebrities are constantly being published across magazine covers and
newspapers, telling you how you should look and getting you to compare yourself to
some of the worlds most famous people, as well as offers for successfully selling
'snacks'. Ed Mayo and Agnes Nairn (2009, p. 86) state that; 92 percent of children
consume more saturated fat than recommended, while 86 percent consume too
much sugar and 96 percent do not get enough fruit and vegetables.
In modern western society, two-thirds of households consist of parents in which both
work outside the house. This is double that compared to the 1980's, where the time
spent on preparing a meal was over two hours, as opposed to modern society, where
the average time spent on preparing meals is roughly 20 minutes. This in part is due
to the fact that many parents simply do not have the time, due to working longer
hours, longer journeys to and from work and being to tired when they finally make it
home. Therefore it is no surprise to see that children have now become more in
control of their own eating patterns, as four out of ten children regularly choose what
they consume for dinner. Mayo, et al (2009, p.88). This is a fact in which marketers
are very aware of and continue to use to their advantage, as British childen spend
aged 5-9 spend

Conclusion
+ Are they clearly related to the thesis statement and the body?
+ Do they develop from the material or do they seem forced and artificial?
+ Are the main points summarized briefly?
+ Be honest with the critical assessment of your own results. Don't try to
pretend things which you have not achieved.
+ Are the perspectives clear and concise?
+ Don't forget to make clear and realistic suggestions for future work.

Note: Introduction and conclusions together

should be self-sufficient!