Pros And Cons For Child Advertisement: Restriction Of Advertisement

Recent studies have shown that children can be negatively affected by advertising.

Children can be influenced by television, magazines or social media to ask for products that harm their relationship with parents.

Children are not able to understand the value of money, so ads that target them are unethical.

They would rather purchase these items than have a fight with their children. Sometimes parents don’t have the strength to realize that they shouldn’t buy every item their kids ask for and feel bad about not buying it.

Children who are marketed to as “must have” products can feel inferior, and their parents may even become indebted.

Moreover, they have negative social effects. Most of the money is spent on unhealthy food and beverages. Unfair to encourage naive, young children to consume such unhealthy food and drinks is to promote obesity. The extra medical costs that result from this are high, whether it is in childhood or adulthood. It is in the government’s best interest to stop advertisements that cause this problem.

Children are brainwashed to be capitalists through exploitative advertising. Multinational companies encourage children to become materialistic in order for them to associate happiness with wealth and possessions. Children in Sweden, which has banned marketing to children under 12 years old, want significantly less toys than their British counterparts.

A ban on advertising would be a slap in the face to the parents and children who are responsible for their own actions. Advertising cannot create an unnatural desire to own material goods. The children who are nagging are not bad-reared. Banning advertising will not solve the problem of poor parenting and unruly children. Kids are constantly influenced by their friends who can make them want to buy toys or other things. This is not true. Many kids under the age of 12 get pocket money. Teenagers also have some earning power. Growing up means learning to manage your money. Advertisements help children decide what to save for.

They are naturally drawn to foods high in sugar, fat, and protein. Children need energy to grow and play. Adverts are not responsible for this problem. Adverts to children are not allowed, so governments cannot use them to promote health, road safety and hygiene.

This measure will set a negative precedent and may lead to further restrictions on the right to free expression. We should extend the ban on all advertising to television because children watch many of the same programmes as adults, and certain adults can be very suggestive. Why should we limit our children to just television, when they can be exposed to other media such as radio, cinemas, the Internet, and billboards on the streets? Companies should not sponsor sporting events or entertainment for kids, nor provide free branded materials to schools. However, restrictions are impossible to enforce because television is broadcasting via satellite and can’t be easily controlled.

The restriction of free speech is severe when advertisements are banned. If companies are not allowed to inform the public of legal products, innovation will be limited and new businesses will struggle to compete with established competitors. It is the human right of every child to have access to a range of information and then form their own opinion. The majority of children are not influenced by advertising, which is only a part of what they experience. They have other influences such as family, friends and television programs.