Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ZTAMiami
|
Welp . . .
1 - Having trouble really getting down with a site whose .pdf materials contain blatant spelling and logic errors . . . 'Yo Gi Go' is a full-length product commercial? Beyond failing with the title of one of the most profitable children's brands in history (which should, thus, be a centerpiece argument for them), by trying to end this behavior on the 'supply side' (via promoting regulation to eliminate this, essentially re-regulating the industry) they ignore such quandries as "does the product even effectively exist (thus removing the 'ad' sense) if the parent is in control of purchases?" and "what is the utility of entertainment to the child, and how does this relate to whatever downsides we're insinuating?" You're digging up great resources, but they're quite biased and don't really structure arguments in the ways you're insinuating.
2 - MARKETING. TO. TODDLERS. I couldn't even get through the entire thing.
Look, how does this site mean society isn't "child-friendly"? If anything, this proves that children are where the DOLLAR POWER for family spending is truly located - what kind of "anti-child" behavior is expressed in the tacit acknowledgement that profitable sales pitches can be delivered to children (who have ZERO earning power on their own)?
Bottom line: this site actually shows how pro-child society has become - children have a larger status in marketing behavior than at any point in history. They are not working, unlike hundreds of years ago - they have negative earning potential. Thus, marketing toward children indicates that society has given them some other way to spend (parents, sociological trends) that makes the marketing profitable - society favors children.
You're coming to a conclusion I just can't accept, and that isn't really supported by reasoning.
Threaded Mode
