Candy From a Baby

By Luca Wistendahl

lw124010@ohio.edu

We’ve all heard the expression “taking candy from a baby.” The saying is used to describe a task that’s easy--if not amoral--and if we analyze it, the metaphor is exceedingly clear: it’s easy to exploit children due to their weakness and innocence. Think about it: you’re an adult, and suddenly something possesses you to take candy from a baby. What’s the baby going to do? Successfully prevent you from taking its candy? Doubtful.

No, regardless of the baby’s attempts to fend you off, it’s probably going to end up without candy, and without much understanding of what just happened. I’m using this lengthy analysis of a metaphor to set the stage for a few thoughts on the ethics of advertising to children.

Photo from well.blogs.nytimes
Credit Joyce Hesselberth

The Grasp of "Commercial Intent"

In this study it is shown that children under the age of 12 are incapable of understanding “commercial intent”. To me this is an interesting concept, because it means that advertising directed at children is being written, produced, and disseminated even though much of the intended audience doesn’t understand the purpose of advertising, and is also vulnerable to it.

A Potential for Exploitation?

As it turns out, children are a lucrative audience. According to this page on the American Psychological Association’s (APA) website, children under 12 spend $28 billion a year, and children as a whole evoke another $249 billion in spending from their parents.

So lets assume that advertising on children works. Lets assume that the billions of dollars that are spent by and on behalf of children yearly go, in part, to the companies that advertise to them. Wouldn’t this mean that companies that are aware of the minimum requisite age to understand “commercial intent” (and if I can be made aware of it in 5 minutes and two Google searches, I seriously doubt that any company isn’t aware) are making a profit off an audience who knows no better? To me such a practice sounds like exploitation.

I admit that I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here. Honestly, I don’t have a stance on advertising to children, mainly because I’ve never really considered it before researching for this blog post. However, I do find the idea of this lack of understanding of “commercial intent” interesting. It seems to be the use of power by a large entity (or entities) to reap gain from children, much like (you guessed it) taking candy from a baby.

A Potential for Harm?

Exploiting an audience to make a profit is one thing, but when the exploitation causes harm, it quickly becomes a different, much more serious thing. What if the successful advertising to children had negative consequences? This article in the Economist’s website states that Mexican children see more advertisements for junk-food on the television than children in any other country. Mexico also happens suffering from an obesity epidemic, and it is stated in this article that the childhood obesity rate in Mexico has tripled over the past decade.

I’m not asserting that there is any causation to be found between advertising to Mexican children and negative side-effects, but to me the numbers are worrying. At the very least, such figures suggest to me that we should be wary of the power and effectiveness of advertising to children, and the potential harm it can cause.