International Journal of Sales & Marketing Management

Research and Development (IJSMMRD)

ISSN(P): 2249-6939; ISSN(E): 2249-8044
Vol. 6, Issue 1, Feb 2016, 17-24
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

ETHICAL ISSUES IN ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN - A KANTIAN PERSPECTIVE

T. RAJA REDDY1, E. LOKANADHA REDDY2 & T. NARAYANA REDDY3
1,2

Department of Management Studies, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering & Tech., Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. India
3

Department of Humanities, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh. India

ABSTRACT
Children not only buy large number of products and services, but also influence the buying of their parents
and families. Marketers also see them as potential adult customers for the future. All this makes marketing to children
very lucrative and advertisers are carrying out targeted campaigns to attract, capture and retain them. However, many
find such an exploitation of unique vulnerabilities of children completely unethical. Immanuel Kant, the 17th Century
German Philosopher, provided us a philosophical frame work for evaluating the right and wrong. To set the
standards high, we apply the Kantian theory to evaluate the morality of actions of advertisers in targeting the
children. We evaluate the concepts of Goodwill, Duty, Freedom and Categorical Imperative in the context of
advertising to children. We found that there is nothing ethical about advertising to children from a Kantian perspective.
KEYWORDS: Marketing Ethics, Advertising Ethics, Immanuel Kant and Moral Philosophy

INTRODUCTION
Give me a child from any background and Ill turn him into anything you wanta scientist, politician or

Original Article

Received: Dec 23, 2015; Accepted: Dec 31, 2015; Published: Jan 07, 2016; Paper Id.: IJSMMRDFEB20163

even a criminal.
Edward Chace Tolman, American Psychologist, 1932
Although Tolman intended to apply his theory to human learning, almost all of his research was done
with rats and mazes. However, his theories are now used by big time brands and advertisers to convert children
into consumers. Childrens market is found to be lucrative by the advertisers. In the 1960s, children aged 2 to 14
directly influenced about $5 billion in parental purchases. In the mid-1970s, the figure was $20 billion, and it rose
to $50 billion by 1984. By 1990, childs direct influence had reached $132 billion, and in 1997, it may have
peaked at around $188 billion. Estimates show that childrens aggregate spending roughly doubled during each
decade of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and has tripled so far in the 1990s(1).
The matter regarding childrens ability to comprehend various marketing activities and to distinguish
between claims that are realistic and truthful and those that are merely an element of creation has been a subject of
considerable debate(2). The unique vulnerabilities of the children raise serious ethical questions about the
marketers who exploit these vulnerabilities to make profits. At the heart of the debate is the infringement of the
rights of the children by the marketers. Immanuel Kant, the 17th Century German Philosopher, in his influential
works, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and The Critique of Practical Reason, has given us a
philosophical frame work for evaluating the right and wrong. To set the standards high for evaluating whether
advertising to kids is ethical or not, it will appropriate to apply the Kantian theory to examine the same.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

18

T. Raja Reddy, E. Lokanadha Reddy & T. Narayana Reddy

Kantian ethics require an analysis of our moral concepts related to advertising. Let us start by understanding the
concepts of goodwill, duty and freedom in the context of advertising to children, which are essential to Kants
philosophy.

APPLICATION OF KANTIAN THEORY

Goodwill
According to Immanuel Kant, the only thing good without qualification is a good will. The idea of a good will is
supposed to be the idea of one who only makes decisions that he /she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral
considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding his/her behaviour(3). Is the will of the advertisers
good, to be termed goodwill? The intent behind the most commercial advertising is better sales and better bottom lines,
far away from anything that can be termed good.
According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the
intention from which the act is done(4). Defenders of Advertising may argue that advertising results in providing the right
information to the children and guiding them towards the right purchase. Those are consequences. Consequences can be
either good or bad. But, the moral worth of an action is determined by the motive behind the action. What is the motive
behind advertising? Advertising to children seems to have questionable motives, which treat children as elements of
consumerist society.
Duty
But what does it mean for a will to be good? This is where the concept of duty comes in. Kant says that a persons
will is only good if it is motivated by duty and nothing else. If an advertiser communicates in his advertisement that
cleaning hands is essential to staying healthy because it is his duty and right thing to do, then his act can be considered
ethical. But, if he intends to encourage the habit of cleaning, thereby increasing the market size and in the process the sale
of his handwash, there is nothing ethical about such an act. According to Kant, there is nothing ethical about doing
something because it makes you feel good or gain something. This concept of duty makes ethics out of reach for
advertisers. Further, duty for Kant is acting according to moral laws.
Freedom
Kant has one of the most demanding definitions of freedom. For him, to act freely is to act autonomously. And to
act autonomously is to act according to a law I give myselfnot according to the dictates of nature or social conventions.
The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy. When I act heteronomously, I act according to determinations given outside of
me(4). Let me take an example to simplify it for you. Suppose I am hungry and I want to eat something. When I pick up
something to eat, I am not acting out of freedom. I am acting in obedience for my hunger. I am obeying the desire I have
not chosen. I am obeying a biological condition. Obeying a biological condition is acting according to the determination of
outside world, which make it a heteronomous act. And there is nothing free about acting heteronomously.
Vance Packard, long back in the early sixties, called advertisements the hidden persuaders(5). In his book, The
Affluent Society, Galbrith argues that the institutions of modern advertising and salesmanship ... cannot be reconciled with
the notion of independently determined desires, for their central function is to create desires to bring in to being wants
that previously did not exist... wants can be synthesized by advertising, catalysed by salesmanship, and shaped by the
discreet manipulations of the persuaders(6). Advertising thrives on creating social conditions which influence/force the
Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7836

NAAS Rating: 3.13

Ethical Issues in Advertising to Children - A Kantian Perspective

19

child to choose a product by creating a desire, intensifying the existing desire or appealing to act immediately. This
tampering of social conditions involves something external to the child. By doing so it is forcing the child to act
heteronomously. For action to be called completely free, it should involve both free will and free action. Marketers argue
that children are free to act according to their wishes. But, freewill definitely does not exist. In a very real sense, decisions
are made for consumers by persuasive advertisers, who occupy the motivational territory properly belonging to the kid. If
what we mean by autonomy, in the ordinary sense, is to be present, the possibility of decision must exist alongside(7). And
the decisions are made on behalf of the kids by the marketers.
Roger Crisp, further states that persuasive advertising has been supremely efficient in inducing non-autonomous
desires in us, which we are unable even to attempt not to act on, being unaware of their origin(7). This statement will lead
us to the conclusion that the marketers systematically influence the children and force them to act according to their plan,
in a way that is beneficial to them, thereby infringing on their personal freedom.
Categorical Imperative
For Kant, to act according to duty is to act according to moral law. That demands that the advertisers to know
what the moral law is. Let us examine whether advertising to children is morally right thing to do by applying the
Categorical imperative.
By the term Categorical, Kant means unconditional. For him, a categorical imperative commands, well,
categorically without reference to or dependence on any other purpose(8). It is concerned not with the matter of the
action and it is presumed result, but with its form, and with the principle from which it follows(9). Let us examine each of
the several versions of categorical imperative, which he believed amount to same thing.
Categorical Imperative I Universalize your Maxim
The first version of Kants categorical imperative is his formula for Universal law.
It says, Act only on that maxim whereby you can at same time will that it should become a Universal law(10).
By maxim, Kant means a rule or principle that gives the reason for action. Let us apply this maxim on ethical issues
arising out of advertising to children.
According to Seth Godin, advertising forces you to believe in things that arent true(11). Advertising blurs the line
between the truth and what we call self-fulfilling truth (something which we believe to be true). Let us for a moment
think about a medical practitioner who likes us to believe that we are suffering from a disease which we are not having,
and recommends the treatment for the same. Disastrous will be the consequences which will result if such self-fulfilling
truths are practiced by everyone. This example leads us to the conclusion that universalization of self-fulfilling truths
cannot be accepted and most of the advertising which falls under this category is unethical.
The second important issue concerned with advertising to children is Puffery. Puffery is a wonderfully named
term that refers to those tall advertising claims that children are bombarded with every daylike, world famous biscuits or
the best in the world.Preston places puffs into six categories: best, best possible, better, specially good, good and
subjective qualities(12,13). Even though it is receiving more scrutiny than in the past, puffery is still considered an
acceptable practice for advertisers and salespeople. This acceptance is rooted in the free market concept of caveat emptor:
let the buyer beware. This concept is potentially dangerous if applied to vulnerable population like kids. These are

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

20

T. Raja Reddy, E. Lokanadha Reddy & T. Narayana Reddy

consumers, who by no fault of their own are unable to make reasonable assessments of the claims made by advertisers or
salespeople(14). Let us for a moment try to universalize the concept of puffery. Let us imagine a doctor using puffery to
advise his patients to use a particular drug or undergo particular treatment and not cautioning him about the alternatives
available or potential side effects of a particular drug. Such an advice by a doctor to the patient could be potentially lethal.
If the use of puffery is not accepted in the above case, its use in advertisements can also be never accepted.
Deception, by which we mean words or conduct intended to induce false beliefs in others, plays a complex role in
human life. It is used regularly and skilfully by the advertisers to induce children to buy the products and services.
Deception is more than lying. A lie is an assertion contrary to what the speaker believes. Deception is a much broader
concept, encompassing an unlimited variety of devices by which the deceiver creates false impressions in others minds. It
includes actions and omissions, as well as words and strategic silences(15). As the children dont understand the intent
behind the advertising, all advertisement can be classified as deception. Kant would out rightly reject any form of lies or
deception, irrespective of the consequences.
Sweden, since 1991 has banned all advertising during childrens prime time due to concerns that advertising to
children is harmful(16). Since April 2007, UK banned junk food advertising during television programs aimed at children
aged 7 to 9. As of January 1, 2008, that ban has been extended to all children under 16(17). When we apply Kants formula
of universalization, then something which is not right for some people is not right for anyone. This calls for complete ban
on advertising to kids.
Categorical Imperative II Treat Persons as Ends
In the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant reminds us the difference, between persons and
things. Persons are rational beings. They dont just have a relative value, but if anything has, they have an absolute value,
an intrinsic value. That is, rational beings have dignity(18). This leads us to the second formulation which reads as Act in
such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an end.(19).
Advertising to Children treats children as instruments for sales or profit and not in end themselves. Such a
treatment of kids as instruments is akin to not treating them with dignity. Hence, on application of Kants humanity
formula, advertisement seems inhuman and unethical.
At the heart of the debate about the ethics of advertising to kids is the fact that the kids are a vulnerable lot. Kids
neither understand the commercial nature of advertising nor the commercial intent behind the same(20). The lack of
necessary cognitive and attitudinal defences leads them to accept advertising claims as being truthful and process them as
legitimate information(21). This makes them highly susceptible to influence of advertising. Kant would find this rather
disturbing. Kant would argue that by targeting the unique vulnerabilities of kids, we are not treating them with dignity. By
not treating them with dignity, we are being inhuman to them. And there is nothing ethical in being inhuman.
Advertising centres on objectification, which we can define, roughly, as the seeing and/or treating a person as an
object. Objectification is the key objectionable part of commercial advertising: Self-worth and popularity are determined
by how you look and what you buy not by what you do(22).
A person becomes a thing, and can be used and treated as such by everyone. [Kant 1964: 163, 165].

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7836

NAAS Rating: 3.13

Ethical Issues in Advertising to Children - A Kantian Perspective

21

This depicts the extreme case of instrumentality driven by advertising and deplorable by Kantian ethical
standards.
Advertising to children aims to capture them and retain them for the rest of their life. Marketers are now talking
about lifetime value of customers. Such a view of children as an economic construct and holding them captive is akin to
owning them. The very idea of somebody owning the other for potential gains is inhuman and highly deplorable by
Kantian ethical standards.
Another important reason behind the marketers targeting their kids is to capitalize on their ability to influence the
purchases of their parents and other family members. Research suggests that American children under the age of 12
influence the adult spending to the tune of more than 700 billion dollars a year(23). They call it pester power or the nag
factor - tendency of children, who are bombarded with marketers messages, to unrelentingly request advertised items
(24). Using children as instruments to influence their parents or families involves using them as a means to achieve some
ends. Thus, using pester power or nag factor of kids by marketers is certainly unethical by Kantian ethical standards.
Another area of concern with respect to advertising and children is the effect of the former on the value system of
the child leading him towards materialism. Materialism can be defined as a set of centrally held beliefs about importance of
possessions in ones life(25). For materialist individuals acquisition of money and possession seem to be central to life,
important for life satisfaction and happiness, and critical for judging the success of oneself and others(26). Research shows
that children who watch a lot of commercials attach more value to money and things. Also, unhappy children have a
greater tendency to seek comfort in things(27). Kant believes that people have intrinsic worth and advertising propagates
the exactly opposite. Advertisers require the customer (children here) to purchase or use extrinsic variables in order to feel
intrinsically worthwhile, which is contrary to the principle of humanity.
Research also shows that advertising also harms the physical and mental wellbeing of the child. One of the serious
objections to advertising to children involves excessive exposure to unhealthy and unsafe products. Several studies have
found strong associations between increases in advertising for non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity. A
variety of studies have found a substantial relationship between children's viewing of tobacco and alcohol ads and positive
attitudes toward consumption of such products(28). Realizing this, Malaysia has banned fast food advertisements on
childrens television programmes(29). For Kant promotion of unhealthy and unsafe products leads to violation of human
rights of the children. It would violate their right to live with dignity. For Kant, being just requires us to value the human
rights of all persons, regardless of who they are or where they live, simply because they are human beings, capable of
reason, and therefore worthy of respect.

CONCLUSIONS
Kant sets very high standards for morality. Advertising to Children falls way short of being ethical from a Kantian
perspective. Advertising infringes on the personal freedom of the kids, has questionable intents and violates their human
rights. The account of morality and freedom bring forward powerful arguments requiring urgent need to rethink on
advertising to children. His formula for universalization forces to out rightly reject the self-fulfilling truths, puffery and
deception used by advertisers, and calls for similar policies across the nations with respect to advertisements targeting the
children. Kant demands that children be treated as an end in themselves and not as economic constructs leading to sales
and profits. He demands that they be treated with dignity and respect. To conclude, there is nothing ethical about
advertising to children from a Kantian perspective.
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

22

T. Raja Reddy, E. Lokanadha Reddy & T. Narayana Reddy

REFERENCES
1.

McNeal, J. U. (1998). Tapping the Three Kids Markets. American Demographics, 20, 4, pp.36-41.

2.

The Childrens Plan. (2009). The Impact of the Commercial World on Childrens Wellbeing -Report of an Independent
assessment. Department of Children School and Families. Government of United Kingdom.

3.

Rohlf, Michael. (2014) "Immanuel Kant". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

4.

Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux:PP 61

5.

Packard, Vance. (1957). The Hidden Persuaders, New York, D.McKay Co.

6.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. (1998). The Affluent Society. New York : Houghton Mifflin

7.

Crisp, Roger. (1987). Persuasive Advertising, Autonomy, and the Creation of Desire. Journal of Business Ethics 6, no. 5:
413-418.

8.

Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the right thing to do?. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux:PP 65

9.

Kant, Immanuel. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by H. J. Paton (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1964), 416.

10. Ibid., 421

11. Godin S. (2009) . All Marketers are Liars. India: Penguin Books.
12. Preston, I.L. (1998). Puffery and other loophole claims: How the laws dont ask, dont tell policy condones fraudulent falsity
in advertising. The Journal of Law & Commerce, 1, 49-114.
13. Preston, I.L. (1996). The great american blowup: Puffery in advertising and selling. Madison, WI: The University of
Wisconsin Press.
14. Andreasen, A. (1993). Revisiting the disadvantaged: Old Lessons and new problems. Journal of Public Policy, 12, 270-275.
15. Alexander, Larry. Sherwin, Emily. (2003).Deception in Morality and Law" .Law & Philosophy. 393.
16. Dumon, Pascaline. (2001). Temptation Free television for children. The UNESCO Courier. Volume 54, 9.
17. Shah,

Anup.

(2010).

Children

as

Consumers,

Global

Issues.

November

21.

(http://www.globalissues.org/article/237/children-as-consumers).
18. Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux:PP 66.
19. Kant, Immanuel. (1785).Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by H. J. Paton (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1964), 429.
20. Kunkel, D., Wilcox, B., Cantor, J., Palmer, E., Linn, S., and Dowrick, P. (2004). Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising
and Children. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
21. Ibid.,
22. Levin, Diane. (2008). So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood. Campaign for Commercial Free Childhood.
23. Consuming Kids (2008). The Commercialization of Childhood. Massachusetts: Media Education Foundation. Documentary.
24. Holly, K. M., Henry., and Dina L. G. Borzekowski. (2011). The 'Nag Factor' a mixed-methodology study in the U.S. of young
children's requests for advertised products.Journal of Children and Media.

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.7836

NAAS Rating: 3.13

Ethical Issues in Advertising to Children - A Kantian Perspective

23

25. Richins, M. L., and Dawson, S. (1992). A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale
Development and Validation". Journal of Consumer Research.19.(3). 303-316.
26. Agns, Nairn. (2015). Children as Vulnerable Consumers. In Hamilton Kathy, Dunnett Susan, Piacentini Maria. Consumer
Vulnerability: Conditions, Contexts and Characteristics. Routledge.
27. Opree, S.J. (2014). Consumed by Consumer Culture? Advertisings Impact on Childrens Materialism and Life Satisfaction.
Supervisors: Prof. Buijzen, M.A., and Prof. Valkenburg. P.M., Co-supervisor: Dr van, E.A., Reijmersdal.
28. Kunkel, D. Wilcox, Cantor, B., Palmer, J., Linn E., and Dowrick, P. (2004). Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising and
Children. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
29. Karupaiah, T., Chinna, K., Mee, L.H., Mei, L.S., and Noor, M.I. (2008). What's on Malaysian television? - A survey on food
advertising targeting children. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition;17(3):483-91.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org