The Corruption Commercials Have On Kids

Logan Barragan

loganbarragan@gmail.com

    

The opinions, personalities, styles, and preferences that we all currently possess have taken us a lifetime to develop. The type of music we enjoy, clothes we like to wear, and food we prefer was likely discovered in our early years and has been progressing ever since. Thankfully, as adults, we have a clearer understanding of what is about the things we enjoy that make us enjoy them so much, but who was it that encouraged us to want a McDonald's chicken nuggets or a Burger King burger after a soccer practice in the first place? Why did we force our parents and babysitters to drive us to the nearest 7/11 for a pack of skittles or a snickers bar after school?

Picture source: https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/rp/rp1011/11rp09 

Perhaps it was our caregivers who didn't feel like cooking us a full meal at 9 pm, (understandable), or they simply grew tired of hearing us whine about need a piece of candy like our life depended on it, but what is more likely is that it was due largely in part to the advertisements and commercials we saw every time we turned on the television. At such a young age, children are susceptible to the media, but are unaware of how manipulative it is. Children are naive to the corrupt corporate world we live in, and so they trust whatever it is they see on TV to be true. 

 

According to the Official Journal Of The American Academy of Pediatrics, "the average young person growing up in the United States sees anywhere from 13,000 to 30,000 advertisements on television each year." While this statistic is troubling within itself, it is important to remember that we are very deep into the age of social media, and now more than ever young people have access to all sorts of media outlets, and with that come the plethora of advertisements that we see with every scroll. These advertisements teach the youth that the more they possess materialistic things the better their life will be.

  

To reference The Campaign For A Commercial Free Childhood, children who are more materialistic in nature statistically perform more poorly in academic settings. This is because they are more concerned and focused on the ownership of unnecessary things than they are about their education. Due to the fact kids are oblivious to how advertisements skew their perception of what is a legitimate, necessary thing to purchase what is a frivolous thing to have, it is vital for parents to take immediate action. The sooner people learn about the ins and outs of advertisement strategy, the sooner they can weed out which companies truly live by what they promote.

Branded Content and Native Advertising. Is it Eroding the Fundamentals of Journalism ?

Kiah Easton

Kiaheaston1999@gmail.com

 

Within the last 25 years, Journalism, and information in general, has seen rapid expansion and increased accessibility across the board. My grandparents and even parents have had to pay for news to be physically shipped to their doorstep. I on the other hand, and many in my age group (21) have rarely if ever had to pay for news or information. Not only is information today largely free but we never wait for it, it's accessible at the click of a button, literally. 

 

Picture source: PKA Marketing

How is news and information so accessible today? How does it get paid for? A large part of the answer to that question is advertisements. Selling space for advertisements either in print or digital publications allows Journalists to be paid and continue to create and spread content to readers at no direct cost. The indirect cost however is our immersion into a world with advertisements that try and persuade and manipulate our buying habits at every turn.

Branded Content and Native Advertising presents a particularly interesting ethical dilemma in terms of transparency in Journalism. Branded Content, as defined by CyberClick, as " allowing consumers to make the connection with the brand," as well as allowing the advertisement to slip through ad blockers and readers general built-up tolerance. Native Advertisement is slightly different in that it is an advertisement that is not necessarily telling a story but is camouflaged into other content on the website through a matching of form and style.

According to WNIP "research says native advertising currently generates 18% of overall advertising revenues, and publishers expect it will reach 32% by 2020." Some claim native advertisement and branded content could be the savior of journalism because it something that social media advertisement cant compete with. These types of advertisements may be crucial to journalism but are they ethical? Can they be ethical?

With money becoming increasingly tied to content due to story based advertisement like this, the ethical dilemma of independence, transparency, and truth is important to examine. Can you trust information a company is paying to be writer? Even more importantly, can readers always differentiate between paid and unpaid content. Like most questions, it depends. 

Trust for Journalism low around the world, part of that without a doubt comes from unclear/ undisclosed sponsorships. In order to continue to incorporate advertisement further into the world of editorial content, a more cohesive and standardized set of rules for sponsored content needs to be created. Advertisement is a necessary part of Journalism and therefore developing stricter sets of rules has the potential to save the Journalistic craft from changing forever. Disclosing money involved in a standardized way would allow branded content to be transparent and therefore potentially valuable to both readers and publications. Creating firm and clear rules isn't easy though. Especially when considering how to enforce it.

As pointed out by David Lazarus of the L.A. Times however, "federal regulators can’t police the entire Internet. Experts say it’s highly likely that many sites and blogs will ignore the FTC’s rules in hopes of making more money." Like crime in any other industry, deceptive sponsored content will never go away entirely and therefore regulations cant be the only thing set in place to protect readers. As has been a common theme in issues of navigating the world of journalistic integrity, there also needs to be increased awareness and media literacy. If readers are more cognizant and informed about advertisement they will have an easier time analyzing content while still getting "real" news for free.

On the other side of the coin, although branded content can create ethical issues, It also, if written and displayed correctly, can provide real beneficial information to the consumer. Well put by Acts of Journalism, "If properly presented and identified, it can be a useful addition to specific audiences, generate revenues for news media in general and even reinforce the value of real news."

Its safe to say advertisements immersion into the world of journalism will not stop anytime soon. Rather than fight it, journalists and readers need to work to regulate and more analytically understand advertising content in order to protect the integrity of information.

The Questionable Nature of Native Advertising is Something We're Comfortable With

Keri Johnson

kj153517@ohio.edu 

 

Many of us see it everyday -- but it is seeing and not knowing that makes it what it is. What am I talking about? Native advertising.

Native advertising is advertising that disguises itself as something that is not an ad. For example, an Instagram post that is sponsored. Though labeled clearly -- small, but labeled -- the post reads and looks like one a friend would make. Though both the trained and untrained eye can spot the ad, this is not always the case for the dubious marketing.

 

Picture source: Medium

In a 2015 post by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), Bobbi Johnson Simmons, APR, wrote about the dangers and pitfalls of native advertising. Simmons writes that the use of native advertising has skyrocketed as a way to compete with fewer and fewer print ads; the more use of social media, the more use of native advertising. One can assume it will only go up from here -- especially because of how well it works. 

According to outbrain.com states that knowing something is a native ad doesn't stop people from buying a product. Since conversation surrounding native advertising skyrocketed in 2016, people have gotten used to the style of ads. 

According to oberlo.com, native advertising is more effective than traditional ads. The website states that people find native ads more interesting and visually compelling, as well as more "shareable," noticeable and attention-grabbing. Native ads are "insidious," Ben Kunz writes on digiday.com. 

Native ads disrupt consumer trust, Kunz argues. Native advertising blurs the line between an ad and neutral content. But native advertising has become the standard for many advertisers across all different platforms, notably Twitter and Instagram. 

Native ads use many strategies to get our attention -- mimicking real stories, using quizzes and our information. The ads are easy to engage with, but don't seem like ads. Continuously, journalists and consumers alike find the ethics of ads that aren't clearly labeled questionable. However accustomed we've grown, we still have conversations about native advertising making us uncomfortable.

As controversial and conflicting as a topic native advertising is, many feel the need to learn how to spot it. Perhaps the first way to fight and control native advertising is to know how it works -- and very well, apparently. According to outbrain.com, native advertising has been developed as a way to fight ad fatigue. It works but is historically questionable. The question remains: is deceiving a consumer worth the variety? 

A brief history of advertising to children

Nolan Cramer

nc948418@ohio.edu

 

Brands trying to appeal to children is not a new concept. For decades companies have tried various methods to get products to children, whether that be through the use of anthropomorphized cartoon mascots or strategic product placement.

One of the most controversial and successful advertising campaigns targeted towards a younger audience was Joe Camel, created by R. J. Reynolds. The cartoon camel was portrayed in a variety of situations including playing billiards, race car driver and presidential candidate. He would usually be portray holding a pack of Camel cigarettes with the word "smooth." The advertising campaign ran from 1987 to 1997.

Picture source: Stanford University

A 1991 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed the connection children were forming between Joe Camel and cigarettes. Researchers conducted a study with 229 preschool children. They found that 30% of 3-year-old and 91.3% of 6-year-old children associated Joe Camel with a picture of a cigarette. At the time among the 6-year-olds, Joe Camel was almost equally as recognizable as a silhouette of Mickey Mouse.  

However, Joe Camel was not the only cigarette campaign to target younger audiences. The Marlboro Man was a popular icon from 1954 to 1999 created by the Leo Burnett Worldwide. And for decades celebrity endorsement of cigarette brands were the norm.

In 1997 the Federal Trade Commission charged R. J. Reynolds for causing "substantial injury to the health and safety of children and adolescents under 18." The charges eventually led to the discontinuation of Joe Camel and legislation was passed banning the use of cartoons in cigarette advertising.

Another widely used form of advertising directed at children is product placement in television shows and movies. Product placement is a practice where brands pay production companies to use/feature its brands in TV or films. The practice is considered to be controversial by many due to the inability of children to distinguish between what is product placement and what is not.

One of the most common types of product placement targeted at children comes in the form of unhealthy food and beverage advertising.

In 2017, researchers conducted a study to see if product placement influenced the choices children made. A group of 114 children between the ages of 9 and 11 were broken into two groups. One watched a movie with a lot of product placement — which in this case was cheese balls — and another group who watched a movie with no product placement. The study concluded that the children who watched the movie with high product placement of cheese balls, were 3.1 times more likely to choose cheese balls as a snack over those kids who watched the low product placement movie.

Some European countries such as the UK, Norway, Belgium, Greece and Denmark advertisers are either restricted or banned from advertising to children. However, in the United States generally just have to comply with the FTC's truth-in-advertising regulations, which prevents deceptive advertising practices.

The closest the United States has come to regulating advertising to children was in 2013 when Congress enacted the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, better know as COPPA. The act regulates which information/date the operators of websites and other digital services (including advertisers) can collect about children under the age of 13 years old.

How Social Media ads target you

Joe Collins

joec3754@gmail.com

 

Have you ever been shopping online or reading about your favorite musical artist? Then you switch over to Instagram or TikTok and an add pops up about some new shoes for a low price or to buy tickets for Rolling Loud in Miami Florida? Well it's actually pretty common. Social Media websites like Facebook and Twitter monitor your search history or likes and then send you ads related to that topic. For example, I can't tell you how many times I've seen an ad on Instagram about the same led lights for your car with the caption "Rides with the squad about to be lit!" That's just social media targeting you with its advertisements. 

Picture source: iTechCode. 

Most of that can be attributed to social media sites now having access to information about their target audience.  Facebook was one of the first social media apps to start using this information and now uses advertisements the most out of all of the social media apps. One of the most common demographics they look at when deciding what advertisements to show their users is age. For example, a young person is more likely to look at things relating to music, clothes, things for their room/dorm etc. 

 

For an adult, they are more likely to get ads about something like elections or vacation spots. Of course there's others like if they're in a relationship, you'll see ads for gifts to buy for your significant other or if they are looking at celebrities jewelry, it'll show you an ad about getting a gold chain or watch. It seems social media seems to know more about me than I do. 

I kind of have an odd feeling about it. On one hand I think it's very creepy that social media is stalking me and finding out what I read about on the internet. On the other, it has been very helpful in the past because it leads me to finding out more about topics I'm interested in and then I can make a purchase.

Another app that also likes to know about you is TikTok. I've used TikTok for almost 4 months now and it has quickly become my favorite app to use. It literally has so much content and there's always a new video going up literally every second. However, I'm afraid how TikTok target you. For example, to get a lot of likes comments, you usually leave a #fyp or #foryoupage in your caption in order to reach for people. The creepy thing is, the stuff that sometimes ends up on your for you page, is really for you like when it says "Oh look at that, you should be doing your homework right now."

Sites like TikTok have access to a lot of your search information and thus try to make the experience as close as possible to your likes and interests.

How EA Sports gets away with underage gambling

Max Brunke

maxbrunke77@gmail.com

 

I've played video games for 15 years. First it was the Gamecube, or the Wii, and now it's the Xbox One. The generations above mine reasonably have trouble understanding what all the hype is with playing video games, but I guess if I could give any insight, it's a way to escape and "hang out" with your friends without physically being together. Past the casual play, video games have become more and more competitive throughout the 2010's, progressing to a level of professional play nowadays. MLG, or Major League Gaming, has rose extremely in popularity in the last decade. Games like Call of Duty, CS:GO (Counter-Strike: Global Offensive), and even sports based games like FIFA or Madden are common in professional gaming; they even have massive tournaments with huge amounts of prize money given away to top performers. While it all sounds like a well-oiled machine, there are some glaring issues within gaming in general.

As a six year straight FIFA player, and someone who strives each year to play at a competitive level, I have a lot of first hand experience with the game and the tendencies of the company behind the game (EA Sports). There's been a lot of debate surrounding the idea of "Loot Boxes" or "Packs", as that's what EA calls them in-game. You can open packs in Ultimate Team, which is a gamemode where you collect player cards to improve your team, and these packs contain players and consumables for your club. You can get a pack in a couple of different ways, but the most common way is through "FIFA Points". FIFA Points are a digital currency that you purchase with real money to be able to buy packs. The better the pack, the better the players; along with the higher the price. The central issue with this is that the game can be played by anyone, including children under the age of 18. Anyone who has a credit card linked to their Xbox/Playstation account can easily purchase hundreds of dollars worth of FIFA Points in minutes. The simplicity of the system also brings about thieves who scam children into getting their parents credit card in order to buy FIFA Points. This child experienced hackers stealing his mom's credit card in order to buy over $300 worth of FIFA Points. At least, that's what he said. The kid became an internet sensation among soccer fans when the article released, many laughing at the fact that he may have lied to his mother and purchased those points himself. Nonetheless, it goes to show that these FIFA Points are marketed to younger kids who play the game, which is arguably child gambling.

Photo Credit: Max Brunke

And argue is what some countries are doing and have done around the world with this pressing issue. The Netherlands recently announced that EA will be fined over $500,000 each week until FIFA Points are removed from the game within their country. The Netherlands may have been the hardest on EA yet, but they aren't the first to make a move like this. Belgium was the first initial country to ban FIFA Points, as stated in the article, and continue to uphold that ban to this day. There are also countries such as New Zealand who charge much higher prices for FIFA Points, discouraging the public to buy them. The hope is to start movements against marketing to children in such a manner, maybe even speaking out to children about gambling addictions.

An Optimistic Look at Advertisements and Culture

Shel Burton 

sb800216@ohio.edu

I've always been deeply fascinated by advertising. Advertisements are a reflection of society and its values, albeit an exaggerated one. It was the father of advertising, David Ogilvy, who said: "If you're trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think." Of course more than language goes into advertising, but what Olgivy touches on is something advertisers have never stopped striving for. Whether it's Clairol getting women in the 1950s to buy hair dye using the slogan, "Does she or doesn't she?" or the iconic "Hump Day" Geico ad, advertisers are always trying to think and speak like the consumer. 

Living in a new technological frontier, the culture of the consumer has changed and so has the culture of society. What's reflected back through advertising is an amalgamation of idealized values, hopes, and futures. For all its faults, missteps, and intrusions, I feel a certain level of appreciation for today's advertisements. 

Picture source: postcron.com

Now more than ever purpose sells a product; transparency and communication are vital. There's a reason two-way communication marketing, a form of marketing where the brand and the consumer respond directly to each other, is considered crucial for most media. Living in a world of fake news, fake ads, deep fakes, trust is extremely valuable and the punishment for deceit can be swift and overwhelming. 

Advertisers have taken steps to reflect America's diverse reality and champion new, important causes--an example being L'Oreal. In March, the company launched a campaign committed to ending sexual harassment. The ads encouraging bystanders to safely intervene during sexual harassment situations, including a link to lessons on how to properly help others. 

Like many consumers before me, I wonder: "Are companies co-opting social issues to sell a product?" And while the answer is clearly a resounding "Yes!" I can't help but feel grateful that social issues like climate change, racism, homophobia, and economic disparity are valued enough to be considered "marketable." Social issues aren't trendy fads that can be replaced interchangeably with crackle nail polish and Google Glass, but their marketability means they're in the consciousness of our society. In many ways, it's a sign of progress. 

If I refer back to Ogilvy's quote, a good advertisement thinks and speaks like the people it's trying to persuade, and if that's true, many of today's crucial advertisements are either intentionally or unintentionally striving for a more accepting future. Obviously, there are blunders and debacles, but at least--in some aspects--we seem to be on the right track.